Pirates in the Age of Projects, 1688–1707

Oliver John Finnegan

A dissertation submitted to the University of Cambridge for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Pembroke College September 2018

Contents

Preface v

Abstract vii

Acknowledgements ix

Abbreviations xiii

Maps xv

Introduction 1

I: The Colonising of Ireland, Franco–Irish Networks and Piracy, 1689–1697 40

II: The Darien Scheme and Venture Calvinism in the Caribbean Sea, 1695–1701 78

III: The Earl of Bellomont, the Madagascar Trade and John Locke’s Atlantis, 1695–1701 118

IV: Missionary Anglicanism, Quaker Outcasts and Pirates in Pennsylvania, 1691–1702 160

V: The Assada Projects, Pirates and East India Companies, 1688–1707 194

Conclusion 230

Bibliography 242

iii

Preface

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing that is the outcome of work done in collaboration. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted or any that is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other university or similar institution. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted or is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee Dates have been given throughout in old style but with the year taken to begin on 1 January rather than 25 March. Quotations in other languages have been translated by the author and provided in the body of the text with modern spelling and grammar. The original quotation(s) are contained within a footnote.

Total word count: 79,681

Abstract

This dissertation retells the history of pirates in the anglophone world, 1688-1707. It argues that the appellation “pirate” became applied to some within global seafaring communities as part of a contest among people of middling means to define the purpose and organisation of overseas expansion. These merchants, landowners, priests and politicians acted as part of an “Age of Projects”, a societal impulse triggered by the hardships of war, in which people attempted unlikely schemes for financial as well as political and social gain. Many of their plans were colonial or imperial in scope, and pirates – imagined as the absolute enemy of thalassocracy – retained a particular value within them, as they could be pinpointed as signifiers of larger moral and ideological deviance within the societies who hosted them. Defining who was or was not a pirate, eradicating or returning them to landed society, and rooting out their abettors became a means for individuals to demonstrate control over movements of people and, in turn, to advance a particular vision of empire. By exploring how pirates were created as part of this phenomenon, the thesis uses the methodologies of global history. Each chapter is oriented around a project in which the eradication of pirates became central, and traces the local, regional and global contexts which influenced its attempted realisation. In particular, Chapter 1 considers how admiralty courts attempted to suppress “piratical” Franco-Irish connections in Europe and the Atlantic. Chapter 2 traces the relationship between the Company of Scotland’s Darien Scheme and Caribbean piracy. Chapter 3 examines how the Earl of Bellomont attempted to use the existence of Madagascar pirates to transpose Irish colonisation strategies to North America. Chapter 4 focuses upon how Anglicans on both sides of the Atlantic used the sheltering of pirates in Pennsylvania to aid the creation of a missionary society. Chapter 5 covers three attempts to colonise Madagascar, which formed part of a larger contest over how exchange between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans should be managed.

vii

viii

Acknowledgements

In completing this dissertation, I am thankful, in particular, to my supervisor William O’Reilly, who has been a source of support and inspiration throughout my time at Cambridge. He has steered me through an extended period of research in Britain, Ireland and North America, nurturing but also at times managing my ambitions as an archival historian. During the writing up process, he has persistently encouraged me to consider new and wider contexts to my work, all the while working patiently through many chapter drafts. William’s guidance has shaped me as a historian in a great many ways, and without him, the following study would simply not have been conceived of. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Sarah Pearsall, who served as primary supervisor during my first year. Sarah played a fundamental role in honing the direction of this doctorate in those early days and her many insightful suggestions, on both style and argument, have stayed with me throughout the process of writing. This has also been a fairly expensive PhD, requiring visits to many different archives and libraries. Conducting research in these repositories has been possible only because a number of funds and institutions have seen fit to support my work financially – all of whom have my heartfelt thanks. The most substantial contribution has come from the Cambridge AHRC Doctoral Training Partnership. Not only did the DTP provide half of my studentship for three years, but also generous amounts for flights and accommodation. Pembroke College, Cambridge has been similarly open- handed, furnishing the other half of my studentship, along with additional money for fieldwork, books and conference attendance. For supporting my research in North America, I am deeply indebted to Boston University, who provided me with a base from which I could work across the northeastern United States, alongside the opportunity take part in the vibrant graduate community there. Further archive work in Britain and Ireland was made possible by the financial support of the Cambridge Faculty of History. I was fortunate enough to be granted money from its Fieldwork Fund, which was supplemented by the Lightfoot, Members History and the Sara Norton funds. I am also appreciative of a grant from the Royal Historical Society, which part-supported my work in London. For my final write-up year, I would like to thank Cambridge Muslim College, who sustained me with their well-remunerated teaching. I am equally grateful to Dagmar Freist, whose offer of a position on the Prize Papers Project, is not only a boon for my future career, but has also sustained me during what is often a financially difficult time for young researchers.

I have also benefitted from the advice and the suggestions of a number of scholars. In particular, Esther Mijers, my former BA and MA supervisor, has continued to read my work and provide thoughtful feedback, along with much-needed morale boosts when times were challenging. It was also Esther who first encouraged me to pursue a career in history, for which I will be ever thankful to her. Other historians have also given invaluable guidance for parts of the thesis below. The first chapter benefitted from meetings I had with both Jane Ohlmeyer and Nicholas Canny, while the second was markedly improved through the suggestions of Ned Landsman, Murray Pittock and Esther Mijers. For the two North American chapters, I have drawn upon conversations with Gary Gersle and Bruce Schulman. My last chapter has been refined through advice offered by both Stephanie Jones and Leigh Denault. When actually conducting my research, I was only able to find important materials through the assistance of many committed librarians and archivists. Amanda Bevan at the British National Archives has been especially helpful, allowing me a window into the difficult to navigate records of the English High Court of Admiralty. When researching in Boston, I was fortunate to have the aid of Elizabeth Bouvier at the Massachusetts State Archives as well as Anna Clutterbuck-Cook at the Massachusetts Historical Society. For Philadelphia’s Quaker records, both Patricia O’Donnell and Christopher Densmore at the Friends Historical Library in Swarthmore were able to uncover important materials for me, much of which was unavailable to researchers previously. I am also grateful to Ralph McLean at the National Library of Scotland who assisted me in tracking down manuscript sources for the trial of Thomas Green. Fellow graduate students, at Cambridge and elsewhere, have also left their mark on this work. In particular, I have benefitted from regular talks with Rodrigo García-Velasco and Tom Young – my housemates of two years – both of whom have had more of an impact on this work than they will ever realise. The many other early modernists at Cambridge have also contributed, as both academics and friends, to the completion of this project, especially Tobias Roeder, Nailya Shamgunova, Eduardo Jones-Corredera, Daniel Robertson, Jens Åklundh, Victoria Bartels, Zoe Farrell, Robert Shimp, Annika Raapke, Harriet Lyon, Phillip Hitchings, Erin Trahey, Kennedy Sanderson and Raffaele Danna. Others have made studying at Cambridge one of the best experiences of my life, as well as assisting in myriad other ways. I would like to thank Stephanie Azzarello, Nicolò Morelli, Francesca Dytor, Matt Mahmoudi, Florent Dyé, Joel Hart, Tae Hoon Kim, Alain Naef, Susanne Schmidt, Farhan Samanani, Daniel Cowling, Yasmin Shearmur, Léonie

x de Jonge, Sarah Rabinowe, Nicolò Serri, Perica Hadzi-Jovancic, Alina Kozlovski and Nadine Tschacksch. Long-term friends are crucial in any undertaking so large and demanding on personal time as a PhD dissertation. My old friend Benjamin Wakefield has been extremely tolerant of my various academic fixations over the past four years, always taking an interest, offering his thoughts and his keen eye as an editor. Peter Ashdown and Alexander French have also shared in my adjustment to life in Cambridge and whose company is, time and again, something I look forward to, even when work can be all-consuming. The same has been true for my family, who could not have been more helpful in recent years. My sister Josephine and brother James, as well as their growing families have been a persistent source of encouragement to me and, at times, have performed the valuable service of breaking me out of academia. Most of all, the love and understanding of my parents Sean and Sarah, has been what has kept me going through the challenges of completing this work. With this dissertation, as with the rest of my life, family has always been there, be it socially, financially or emotionally and I do not believe I can ever thank them enough for it. Yet the person most familiar with the process by which this dissertation came together is my partner Carlotta. She has listened patiently to a great many of my more ill-advised research directions, read hundreds of pages of my work and offered persistently insightful suggestions for improvement. Always loving and supportive, she has, more than anybody else, been a constant companion in these last few years. Without her, I never would have completed this work.

xii

Abbreviations

Manuscript Sources ASO Codrington Library Special Collections, All Souls’ College, Oxford. APS American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia, PA. ACA The Duke of Norfolk’s Archive, Arundel Castle, Arundel. BL British Library, London. BLO Bodleian Library, Oxford. BSA Royal Bank of Scotland Archives, Edinburgh. CUL Cambridge University Library, Cambridge. FHL Library of the Society of Friends, Friends House, London. HCQC Magill Library, Haverford College, Philadelphia, PA. HLL Harvard Law Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. HUA Harvard University Archives, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. HSP Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. JLI Jacob Leisler Institute, Hudson, NY. LLH Lamont Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. LMA London Metropolitan Archives, London. LPL Lambeth Palace Library, London. MSC University of Maryland Special Collections, College Park, MD. MHS Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA. MSA Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, MA. NAI National Archives of Ireland, Dublin. NLI National Library of Ireland, Dublin. NLS National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh. NRS National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh. NYHS New York Historical Society, New York City, NY. NYSA New York State Archives, Albany, NY. PA Parliamentary Archives, London. RIHS Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, RI. RISA Rhode Island State Archives, Providence, RI. SCQC Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College, Philadelphia, PA. SHL Senate House Library, London. TCD Trinity College Dublin Special Collections, Dublin. TH Trinity Hall Library Special Collections, Cambridge. TNA National Archives, London. YBL Beinecke Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

xiii

Printed Sources CSP Col J. W. Fortescue (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Vols.11- 16 (1860–1905) and Cecil Headlam (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, Vols.17-22 (1908–1916). CSP Dom William John Hardy (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of William and Mary, Preserved in the Public Record Office, Vols.1-8 (1895–1927) and Edward Bateson (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of William and Mary, Preserved in the Public Record Office, Vols.9–11 (1933–1937). CSP East W. Noel Sainsbury (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: East Indies, China and Japan Preserved in the Public Record Office, Vols.2-8 (1864–1892).

Secondary Sources WMQ The William and Mary Quarterly. AHR The American Historical Review. JWH Journal of World History.

xiv

Maps

List of figures Figure 1. Western Europe, circa 1700 Figure 2. Ireland, circa 1700 Figure 3. Colonial North America, circa 1700 Figure 4. New England and the Middle Colonies, circa 1700 Figure 5. The Atlantic, circa 1700 Figure 6. The Caribbean, circa 1700 Figure 7. The Indian Ocean, circa 1700 Figure 8. India, circa 1700

Introduction

During the spring of 1694, the residents of the small town of Newport, Rhode Island, eagerly awaited the arrival of visitors from overseas. In recent years, slave-trading ships had begun to recruit there for voyages to Madagascar, where they took on their enslaved human cargos, alongside goods stolen from Mughal and Safavid shipping in the Red Sea. In April of that year, the arrival in Newport of one such vessel prompted a fevered reaction in the town. Rumours circulated that the craft was eventually bound for the Indian Ocean, where locals believed ‘the mony was as plenty as stones & sand’, obtainable by any means as ‘the people there are infidels and it is no sin to kill them’. Nathaniel Coddington, a merchant of Congregationalist stock in the town, was less enthused by this ship’s arrival. He lamented its impact on his community, describing that ‘servants from all parts of the country came running from their masters, sonns from their parents’ and that, among the elders of the town, it was ‘with grief spoken the endeavours some men made to send away the youth of the lands’.1 Scenes such as these should not be considered a simple example of lawlessness or state absence, but, in microcosm, a rational response to scaled and layered inequalities. Newport struggled on account of Boston and New York City drawing almost all of the trade with Europe, the American northeast being constantly drained of specie through its role provisioning the Caribbean, and from the enormous outflowing of silver from Potosí in South America into China and South Asia, starving the Western Hemisphere of currency. The causes and consequences of these voyages, therefore, were at once local, regional and global. Actions taken by these sailors had their costs. Those of means in Newport lost access to labour, while both Red Sea trading communities and pilgrims who sailed for Mecca on Hajj, endured regular attacks by predominantly European sailors. Yet, for the North American investors, ships’ crews and Malagasy leaders who hosted such vessels in Madagascar, there were enormous benefits. Successful mariners were able to obtain riches that would elevate them wherever it was that they chose to eventually settle while their backers could hope for greater socio-economic status within their local communities. These voyages of a kind never before attempted offered

1 ‘The true account of Nathaniel Coddington, 22 September 1699’, F.L. Gay Transcripts, 1632–1786: Kidd Papers, MS N-2012, vol.2, fos.127–128, Massachusetts Historical Society (MHS). 1 individuals the opportunity to cut against prevailing economic currents, but could also disturb existing balances of power, both within and between societies. One of the most striking features of this final decade of the seventeenth century was just how widespread was the concern about pirates. Whether in Edinburgh or London, New York City or Surat, mercantile and political elites voiced alarm over their existence and expressed concern for the damage they inflicted on global trade. When situated against the broad sweep of the history of pirates across the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this attention appears exceptional. Since the accession of James VI, King of Scotland, to the crowns of England and Ireland in 1603, sailors from all three kingdoms took part in acts of seizure and plunder, be they along the coast of Munster, in the Red Sea or in the Caribbean. Yet, in doing so, they never quite attracted widespread attention comparable to what they had received 1690s, and they were identified only occasionally as pirates. At the same time, a characteristic of reputed pirates at the end of the seventeenth century was their almost exclusive targeting of Catholic or Islamic shipping, largely avoiding vessels from Protestant regions.2 While achieving an even greater level of fame, “pirates” operating in the Caribbean after 1716 seized vessels indiscriminately as to their origins and were largely pursued because they attacked their fellow subjects.3 The 1690s are, therefore, unique, in that a large amount of attention was dedicated to reporting, discussing and considering those who robbed foreigners in places it is difficult to believe that many of the commentators expressing concern could have identified on a map. The question remains, therefore, why did contemporaries expend so much time and effort pursuing pirates during the 1690s? The only reason that we can know about this episode in Newport, and many others like it, is because figures like Nathaniel Coddington chose to commit them to paper. Many movements of people and goods during the early modern period doubtless went unremarked upon or remained unknown, even those of a more violent or predatory nature, because they did not damage the interests of those with the status or institutional mechanisms with which to complain. These sailors who departed for Madagascar attracted the appellation “pirate”, ostensibly because they took part in acts of aggression and plunder at sea. Yet their actions

2 Henry Avery explicitly stated that his crew would avoid Protestants: ‘Declaration of Henry Avery, 28th February 1695’, Miscellaneous Records, IOR H/36, fo.181, The British Library (BL). 3 Peter Earle, The Pirate Wars (2003), Marcus Rediker, Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age (2004). 2 alone were only a necessary, rather than a sufficient, condition for them to be considered as such. Considering those appalled by the activities of these pirates reveals the many interests served by the sailors being criminalised. Coddington, for instance, saw that the arrival of Madagascar ships into Newport served to discredit the Quakers who dominated political life in the town. That the colony’s leaders failed to act against trade with pirates strengthened the case of his Congregationalist allies to the west in Connecticut when they laid claim to parts of Rhode Island. Across the Atlantic, in Lambeth Palace, similar reports were gladly received by Henry Compton, the Bishop of London. The prelate seized upon any chance to emphasise the threat posed by radical American dissenters, as he promoted an Anglican missionary society intended to bring them into the Church of England.4 By the later 1690s, Newport had been placed under investigation by the English Board of Trade for hosting pirates, and, in this moment of suspicion, the disgraced Anglo-Irish peer the Earl of Bellomont saw opportunity.5 Drawing upon his experiences in Ireland, he proposed a naval stores scheme that he claimed would wrench the region from its reliance upon this “illicit” trade, securing for himself favour and fortune in the process. Indeed, to understand how contemporaries initially became concerned that the Indian Ocean was filled with English “pirates”, one has to consider the falling fortunes of the English East India Company (EIC). Despite a long history of sailors targeting Mughal and Safavid treasure shipments, they drew especial attention to the practice in the mid-1690s, a time when their monopoly had been weakened, a “pirate” colony beyond their control had grown up on Madagascar, and a rival Scottish company contemplated founding a settlement there.6 Just as many contexts and interests swirled around these voyages to the Indian Ocean, the same was true for the manhunts and trails for piracy which followed. To detractors, these sailors seemed to represent a kind of conspicuous connectivity, exemplifying global linkages which they sought to pin down in order to sever or appropriate for their own ends. This thesis, therefore, answers this question by arguing that it is only possibly to understand the ‘war against the pirates’, by considering global movements of people, the history of

4 Considered in chapter 4. 5 Bellomont’s disgrace is discussed in chapter 3. 6 The subject of chapter 5. 3

European expansion and colonialism, as well as the immediate circumstances of the 1690s.7 The global war that erupted following William III’s invasion of England in 1688 affected the poor and the elite of his new subjects in markedly different ways. Many of limited means were forced to leave their homes and disperse into existing global networks of trade, while landed and mercantile elites feared that an uncontrolled haemorrhaging of people and money would see them fold before Louis XIV and France. In response, many of political influence across Stuart dominions began to advocate that these territories scattered around the globe should be united into some kind of thalassocratic empire, achieved by asserting control over the flows of people and goods that linked them. Yet while a looming Catholic threat provided a familiar call to arms, it did not offer a solution.8 In this moment of crisis, individuals saw opportunity and, drawing upon older colonial and imperial ideas, began to construct innumerable projects and plans to control these movements. As an ancient imperial construct defined initially by Roman statesmen as the absolute enemy of thalassocracy and of commerce, the pirate came to play a pivotal role in determining the legitimacy of these many schemes. The ability to define who was or was not a pirate, to eradicate or return them to landed society and to root out their abettors was to demonstrate control over movements of people and, in turn, make the case for a particular vision of empire. What follows, therefore, is a story of how pirates were constructed and exploited by private interests competing to define an empire in practice, rather than simply in theory. The period under discussion here – 1688 to 1707 – has been termed the ‘Age of Projects’, a name intended to convey a distinguishing feature of the era to which both pirates and many contemporary schemes can be traced. The term has been used sparsely in scholarship, but originates in Daniel Defoe’s description of the period following William III’s invasion of England as ‘this projecting age’ in his 1697 Essay Upon Projects.9 In the Essay, Defoe argues that desperate people turned to unlikely means to obtain money as a consequence of war, while, at the same time, it drove others of ‘necessity, [to] turn their thoughts to honest invention,

7 The phrase ‘war against the pirates’ is coined in: Robert C. Ritchie, Captain Kidd and the War against the Pirates (1989). 8 Peter Lake, ‘Anti-Popery: The Structure of a Prejudice’ in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–1642 (1989), pp.72–106. 9 Brent S. Sirota, The Christian Monitors: The Church of England and the Age of Benevolence (2014), pp.69– 119; Maximillian E. Novak, The Age of Projects (2008); Daniel Defoe, An Essay Upon Projects (1697), p.1. 4 founded upon the platform of ingenuity and integrity’.10 While he claimed the poor lacked the initiative to institute projects, Defoe believed that those of at least middling status – merchants, politicians, gentry – could use them to institute forms of national improvement. He outlined a number of schemes himself in the text, ranging from women’s education to banking, the employment of sailors and programmes of road building.11 Defoe called this widespread interest in projects a national ‘humour’ resulting from war, but the conflict that erupted in 1688 was notable as a global, rather than purely European, phenomenon. This study proposes that the “projecting” impulse was not just solely or uniquely an English phenomenon, but rather was one that extended across the anglophone world. The more detailed context of the Age of Projects and its causes are discussed later in this introduction, but it is important to define what is meant by the term. The terms scheme, design and project are here used interchangeably to refer to planned undertakings involving multiple people. All of them were at once colonial, that is to say intending a settlement of people, and imperial, directed towards the transformation of a region’s extant population, whether transient or settled. These projects took many forms, ranging from plantation schemes, to new commercial ventures and the creation or transformation of clubs, societies and institutions. Similar schemes had, of course, been proposed and implemented in the past, but, as Defoe notes, there was simply a far higher concentration of them during the 1690s than at any time in living memory. The history of pirates in the early modern period has been of growing interest to scholars in the last decade. A general consensus maintained in most book-length studies in English is that there was an intrinsic connection between pirates and European imperial expansion. An older historiographical tradition views them as intractable enemies of empires, an avant garde of sorts, cast out of landed society and free to advocate radically modern beliefs around social hierarchy, race or sexuality.12 In contrast, a more recent turn has shifted focus away from the actions of pirates at sea towards their reception and actions on land. The narrative woven by some historians is now that pirates were initially pioneers who facilitated the growth of

10 Ibid., p.33. 11 Ibid., passim. 12 For example see: B.R. Burg, Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth- Century Caribbean, 2nd ed. (1995); Marcus Rediker, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates and the Anglo-American Maritime World, 1700–1750 (1987); J.S. Bromley, ‘Outlaws at Sea, 1660–1720: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity Among the Caribbean Freebooters’ in Idem, Corsairs and Navies, 1660–1760 (1987), pp.1–20; Christopher Hill, ‘Radical Pirates?’, Idem, The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill. Volume 3: People and Ideas in 17 Century England (1986), pp.161–186. 5

European expansion, before later becoming the pretext for a kind of inexorable expansion of state authority outward from the metropole in London.13 Both perspectives owe something to seventeenth-century interest in the ancient world. On the subjects of pirates, early modern thinkers first looked to Marcus Tullius Cicero’s description of them as hostis humani generis (enemies of all) in 70 BC, in practice meaning the enemies of Rome in the Mediterranean.14 Others quoted a passage from St Augustine’s City of God, which claimed to report a conversation between a sailor and Alexander the Great, in which the former was said to argue that Greek (and therefore pagan) expansion simply replicated the actions of “pirates” writ large.15 The historiography thus either accepts Cicero’s definition of pirates as the enemies of empire, or St Augustine’s as its outriders. Emblematic of the more recent turn in the academic history of pirates is Mark Hanna’s monograph study, Pirate Nests and the Rise of the British Empire. It has supplied an authoritative retelling of the history of pirates in the Atlantic, with particular attention to the ‘colonial hinterlands’, detailing how these sailors initially participated in English overseas expansion, before their eventual criminalisation during the 1690s.16 Hanna’s overall argument, if not his methods, is familiar from some of the political and economic histories of this period. Throughout, he engages with the question of whether imperial administration was effectively extended westwards by the time a “British Empire” formed in 1707, or if provincial autonomy endured.17 While offering many new insights, recent histories of pirates have tended to work

13 Mark G. Hanna, Pirate Nests and the Rise of the British Empire, 1570–1740 (2015); Kevin P. McDonald, Pirates, Merchants, Settlers, and Slaves: Colonial America and the Indo-Atlantic World (2015); Douglas R. Burgess, The Politics of Piracy: Crime and Civil Disobedience in Colonial America (2014); Margarette Lincoln, British Pirates and Society, 1680–1730 (2014); Niklas Frykman, ‘Pirates and Smugglers: Political Economy in the Red Atlantic’ in Philip J. Stern and Carl Wennerlind (eds.), Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and its Empire (2014), pp.218–241; Thomas K. Heebøll-Holm, Ports, Piracy and Maritime War: Piracy in the English Channel and the Atlantic, c.1280–c.1330 (2013); Karin Bowie, Scottish Public Opinion and the Anglo-Scottish Union, 1699–1707 (2007), pp.39–44. 14 Philip de Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (1999), pp.149–157; L.H.G. Greenwood (ed.) (trans.), Cicero: The Verrine Orations, vol.2 (1935), IV, 9, 21. 15 Ibid., IV, 9, 21; Walter Miller (ed.) (trans.), De Officiis (1913), III, 29, pp.385–386. Marcus Dods (trans.), The City of God (2009), p.101; Michel La Vassor, Letters Written by a French Gentleman, Giving a Faithful and Particular Account of the Transactions at the Court of France (1695), p.39 16 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.418–425. 17 Those who view centralisation as more successful: Christian J. Koot, Empire at the Periphery: British Colonists, Anglo-Dutch Trade, and the Development of the British Atlantic, 1621–1713 (2011), pp.225–232; Owen Stanwood, The Empire Reformed: English America in the Age of the Glorious Revolution (2011), pp.204–220; David Armitage, ‘Making the Empire British: Scotland in the Atlantic World 1542–1707’, Past & Present, vol.155, Vo.1, no.1 (1997), pp.57–63; Alison Gilbert Olson, Making the Empire Work: London and American Interest Groups, 1690–1790 (1992), pp.51–75; Richard R. Johnson, Adjustment to Empire: The New 6 towards this same understanding of empire defined by centre–periphery relationships, with particular attention to Stuart dominions in the Americas and England. Departing from the existing literature on early modern pirates, this thesis has taken influence from what has come to be known as the ‘global turn’ in scholarship. For at least the past two decades, historians have sought to locate the modern experience of globalisation within the eras that they study, seeing many approaches created or reworked to give this impulse form. World, global, entangled, Atlantic, oceanic, transnational and new imperial histories, as well as global microhistories and histoire croisée, have all aspired, in different contexts, to become the means through which scholars understand the impact of the global upon the individual and the local.18 The oft-cited target for these approaches has been the nation-state, both as a conceptual framework and an inevitable endpoint for research. In seeking to move beyond national constraints, these approaches have divided primarily between the comparative and the connective.19 The former have been less controversial, on account of largely leaving national

England Colonies, 1675–1715 (1981), pp.413–419; As unsuccessful: Wim Klooster, ‘Inter-Imperial Smuggling in the Americas, 1600–1800’ in Bernard Bailyn and Patricia L. Denault (eds.), Soundings in Atlantic History: Latent Structures and Intellectual Currents, 1500 (2009), pp.160–167; Elizabeth Mancke, ‘Negotiating and Empire: Britain and its Overseas Peripheries, c.1550–1780’ in Christine Daniels and Michael V. Kennedy (eds.), Negotiated Empires: Centers and Peripheries in the Americas, 1500–1820 (2002), pp.255–257; Richard S. Dunn, ‘The Glorious Revolution and America’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire. Volume 1: The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century (1998), pp.464–465; Jack P. Greene, Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities of the British Empire and United States, 1607–1788 (1986), pp.16–17, 28–32; Jack M. Sosin, English America and the Revolution of 1688: Royal Administration and the Structure of Provincial Government (1982). 18 Sujit Sivasundaram, Alison Bashford and David Armitage, ‘Introduction’ in Idem (eds.), Oceanic Histories (2018), pp.1–26; Dagmar Freist, ‘A Global History of the Early Modern Period. Social Sites and the Interconnectedness of Human Lives’, Quaderni Sorici, no.2 (2017), pp.537–556; Hans Medick, 'Turning Global? Microhistory in Extension’, Historische Anthropologie, vol.24, no.2 (2016), 241–252; Nicholas Canny and Philip Morgan, ‘Introduction: The Making and Unmaking of an Atlantic World’ in Idem (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Atlantic World, c.1450–1850 (2011), pp.1–17; Matthias Middell and Katja Naumann, ‘Global History and the Spatial Turn: from the Impact of Area Studies to the Study of Critical Junctures of Globalization’, Journal of Global History, vol.5, no.1 (2010), pp.149–170; Eliga Gould, ‘Entangled Histories, Entangled Worlds: The English-Speaking Atlantic as a Spanish Periphery.’ AHR, vol.112, no.3 (2007), pp.764– 786; David Armitage and Michael Braddick, ‘Introduction’ in Idem (eds.), The British Atlantic World, 1500– 1800 (2002), pp.1–10; Christopher A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914: Global Connections and Comparisons (2004); Kathleen Wilson (ed.), A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity and Modernity in Britain and the Empire, 1660–1840 (2004). 19 For examples of comparative: John H. Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492–1830 (2006); Karen Barkey, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective (2008); Bayly, Birth of the Modern World. For connective: E. Natalie Rothman, Brokering Empire: Trans-Imperial Subjects Between Venice and Istanbul (2012); Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Three Ways to Be Alien: Travails and Encounters in the Early Modern World (2011); Lauren Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (2002). 7 boundaries untouched, but the same cannot be said for those who emphasise connectivity.20 Influenced by postcolonial scholarship, connective histories have privileged multidirectional flows of goods, people and ideas, shifting concern onto the relational and away from historical objects. In anglophone scholarship, this tendency is most clearly manifest in Sanjay Subrahmanyam’s argument that “nationalist” readings of history have ‘blinded us to the possibility of connection’, going so far as to argue that the very appearance of individuals in documentary sources constitutes evidence that ‘they are already plugged into some network, some process of circulation’.21 The methodologies promoted in connected histories have allowed what follows to move away from several elements of the new histories of early modern pirates and piracy, the first of which is their maintenance of the centre–periphery paradigm. Although a concept initially developed to challenge the determinism of national narratives, pirates have become integrated into a story of two antagonists, of London metropole and American periphery, a struggle that is seen to foreshadow the outbreak of the American Revolution.22 While understandable, such an approach leads to a privileging of particular regions, as well as interpretations of pirates and their opponents. This thesis instead substitutes a bipolar model with a layered understanding of geographical scale, moving through local, regional and global contexts, emphasising how the three interlaced, allowing individuals to appeal to multiples centres and normative structures as they pursued their own objectives.23 While such an approach may appear unwieldy, to achieve a sharper level of focus, the methods of global microhistory have been employed. Archival work is used to produce a “micro” level, often through biography, which is then juxtaposed against a “macro” level of context, created by reading across multiple

20 Richard Drayton and David Motadel, ‘Discussion: The Futures of Global History’, Journal of Global History, vol.13, no.1 (2018), pp.1–21. 21 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, ‘Connected Histories: Notes Towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia’, Modern Asian Studies, vol.31, no.3 (1997), p.762. 22 Klemens Kaps and Andrea Komlosy, ‘Centers and Peripheries Revisited: Polycentric Connections or Entangled Hierarchies?’, Review (Fernand Braudel Center), vol.36, no.3–4 (2013), pp.237–264; Victor Lieberman, ‘Protected Rimlands and Exposed Zones: Reconfiguring Premodern Eurasia’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol.50, no.3 (2008), pp.692–723; Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974), passim; Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.421–423; Burgess, Politics of Piracy, pp.229–231; Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (2000), pp.143–173. 23 Pekka Hämäläinen and Samuel Truett, ‘On Borderlands’, The Journal of American History, vol.98, no.2 (2011), pp.338–361. 8 relevant areas of secondary literature.24 This method allows the freedom to zoom in and out on particular individuals to appreciate the many local, regional or global connections and contexts of which they were a part. Each chapter, therefore, begins by sketching the macro level, consisting of the relevant longue durée circulations of people and goods, as well as histories of European colonialism, before then proceeding to consider the micro level, consisting of biographies or close studies of pirates and particular projects within the main date range. The subjects are then considered in relation to the themes, networks and colonial histories detailed in the macro sketch. This approach, alongside a focus on projects, decentres the story of pirates during this period from particular historical “units”, such as colonies or national institutions, onto how individuals sought to draw upon many different connections to institute schemes that they believed would transform their societies and influence the process of overseas expansion as a whole.25 Geographically this dissertation considers a loose anglophone world, which includes people from Scotland, Ireland, England and the wider world, as well as those naturalised or endenizened. It is a history organised around sovereign allegiance, rather than with an eye towards nations as they would later exist.26 The recent historiography of pirates has, in contrast, told overwhelmingly English stories. Consulting the indexes of recent histories of pirates yield a scattering of references to Ireland and Scotland, but of course no entry at all for England, it being a given constant. This asymmetry is fairly glaring, considering that the four most famous criminal trials before the high courts of admiralty in England and Scotland during this period were of Thomas Vaughan (1696), William Kidd (1701), Thomas Green (1705) and the crew of Henry Avery (1696), respectively being born in Ireland, Scotland, England and a combination of the three.27 This approach takes cues from the new British history, which

24 Mark Gamsa, ‘Biography and (Global) Microhistory’, New Global Studies, vol.11, no.3 (2017), pp.231–235; Francesca Trivellato, ‘Is There a Future for Italian Microhistory in the Age of Global History?’, California Italian Studies, vol.2, no.1 (2011); online edn [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0z94n9hq, accessed 12 July 2018]. 25 Eadem, The Familiarity of Strangers: The Sephardic Diaspora, Livorno, and Cross-Cultural Trade in the Early Modern Period (2009), pp.8–9. 26 Michael J. Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c.1550–1700 (2000), pp.379–419. 27 High Court of Admiralty, The Tryals of Joseph Dawson, Edward Forseith, William May, [brace] William Bishop, James Lewis, and John Sparkes for several piracies and robberies by them committed in the company of Every the grand pirate (1696); High Court of Admiralty, The Tryal and Condemnation of Capt. Thomas Vaughan for High Treason in Adhering to the French-King and for endeavouring the destruction of His Majesties ships (1697); High Court of Admiralty, The Arraignment, Tryal, and Condemnation of Captain William Kidd, for Murther and Piracy, upon Six Several Indictments, At the Admiralty-Sessions (1701); Thomas 9 stressed the connectedness of England, Scotland and Ireland across the early modern period, even if its advocates never successfully extended this approach outwards.28 Yet, while this work remains focused on Stuart subjects and dominions, it does not choose to ignore their ties to people and places beyond, far from it. The pirates and projects discussed here were shaped a great deal by their fellow subjects, but also constituted by their relationships with peoples from Spain, India, the Low Countries, the Swahili Coast, the Americas, France and other regions. The actions of particular individuals were often informed by direct entanglement through commerce, shared religious convictions or kinship, but also indirectly through perception, such as a belief in the threat or opportunities presented by a particular people.29 Connections between subjects remained a highly significant factor binding the anglophone world together, but they did not exist to the exclusion of, or always outweigh, relationships with many others. A final element of this thesis, and one shared with Mark Hanna, is that it proceeds without reference to one particular historical theme. Pirates are generally considered to be committing a commercial crime, but, as has been demonstrated by recent work on “mercantilism”, early modern actors did not necessarily consider the economic to be discrete, either conceptually or practically, from other areas of life.30 Equally, as Daniel Defoe argued, projects had implications for many different areas of early modern society, so any study that considers the Age of Projects should cross more than one particular approach as traditionally understood by historians.31 Commercial, religious and legal historical perspectives are most common here,

Green, The Tryal of Capt. Thomas Green and his crew, before the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of Scotland (1705). 28 Tim Harris, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (2007), pp.30–34; Allan MacInnes and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century: Awkward Neighbours (2002); Glenn Burgess (ed.), The New British History: Founding a Modern State, 1603–1715 (1999); J.G.A. Pocock, ‘British History: A Plea for a New Subject’, The Journal of Modern History, vol.47, no.4 (1975), pp.601–621. For an attempt to apply this history to the Atlantic see: David Armitage, ‘Greater Britain: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis?’, AHR, vol.104, no.2 (1999), pp.427–445. 29 Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra, ‘Introduction’ in Idem (ed.), Entangled Empires: The Anglo-Iberian Atlantic, 1500–1830 (2018), pp.3–5; Margarit Pernau, ‘Whither Conceptual History? From National to Entangled Histories’, Contributions to the History of Concepts, vol.7, no.1 (2012), pp.1–4; Gould, ‘Entangled Atlantic Histories’, pp.1415–1422. 30 Philip J. Stern, ‘Introduction’ in Idem, Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire (2014), pp.3–17. Also see Brodie Waddell, God, Duty and Community in English Economic Life, 1660–1720 (2012); Mark Valeri, Heavenly Merchandize: How Religion Shaped Commerce in Puritan America (2010). 31 Michael Warner and Bénédicte Zimmermann, ‘Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity’, History and Theory, vol.45, no.1 (2006), pp.40–41. 10 but also present are elements of political, intellectual, migration and cultural history. Moving across different approaches and historiographies has also imbued this work with particular sensitivity towards language employed during the period of study; while terms and terminology are frequently shared with the present day, meanings change. In particular, it seeks to recover what contemporaries actually understood when they chose to use words like ‘pirate’, ‘piracy’, ‘empire’ and others. The manoeuvring to define these specific words throughout are not merely interesting asides, but part and parcel of the events detailed here. It was never the intention, when either researching or initially writing for this study, to seek to work with these trends and developments in scholarship for its own sake. This has been a source-led doctorate, and one in which the archival research itself has made the case for the analytical value of these schools of thought. Research has been undertaken across North America, as well as in Edinburgh, Dublin and London, providing material from thirty-four archives and research libraries. Archive work has made it possible to reconstruct the story of events in this period and the many connections that supported the anglophone world in ways difficult for previous studies, which have tended to over-rely upon material from London, specifically at the National Archives and the British Library. Both hold important and relevant collections and are used extensively here, but much of what they contain appears different when situated alongside material from other repositories. This is not a study of English outlaws at sea or their reception on land, but of how pirates were actively created during a crisis moment in the history of a loosely-formed and diverse anglophone world. The struggle against common and absolute enemies was a persistent feature which bound empires together, so any emergent global thalassocracy required adversaries fitting to its maritime orientation. The attendant scramble to construct, define and suppress pirates provides a lens to view how individuals attempted to harness the benefits of overseas expansion for themselves, an objective they pursued through appeals to many different local, regional and global contexts. It does not map how they did so as part of an inexorable rise of a “British Empire”, integrated by the actions of English parliamentarians or imperial officials. Instead it focuses upon individual schemes, imagined on Irish plantations, in Jamaican ports or in New England towns, whose adherents saw opportunity in the climate of innovation fostered by two wars, first against France and latterly against the pirates. Thus interest in pirates was not a consequence of an inevitable period of imperial consolidation, but of the

11 intensification and growing prominence of debates about how an empire should look and the desire of individuals of often middling social status to carve a place within it for themselves.

*** The popular understanding of early modern pirates as it exists today has become essentially ahistorical, a creation of English literature only distantly influenced by actual people and events. The romantic image of a daring, comic or deviant outlaw, absolved of the responsibilities that came with a life spent on land, continues to endure, even as modern legal systems remain unchanged in their commitment to punish acts of piracy severely.32 Scholarship is not immune to this creation, so any historical research opting to investigate pirates at length is obliged to consider and to historicise the sailors in question, to unpack precisely what was meant by this term in any given period and establish who it referred to. This means asking what was meant by the English word pirate by the late seventeenth century, who the people which attracted this designation actually were, as well as what the crime of piracy was considered to be in law. A timeless, fundamental characteristic of pirates and piracy is the committing of organised acts of aggression and taking at sea by the crew of one craft upon another, a practice known in its most neutral form as maritime predation.33 As a behaviour, it has been common globally for thousands of years. Ancient Greek sources recorded frequent seizures of their shipping in the eastern Mediterranean as early as BC 1700, while coastal raiding became similarly common in both China and the Red Sea during the following millennium.34 These practices continued throughout the middle ages and by the thirteenth century had become an enduring part of life at sea. At this time, Japanese ships regularly attacked Chinese sailors in the South

32 For significant examples see: Daniel Defoe, The Life, Adventures & Piracies of the Famous Captain Singleton (1720); idem, Madagascar, or Robert Drury’s Journal, during Fifteen Years Captivity on that Island (1729); Walter Scott, The Pirate (1822); Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island (1883); Margarette Lincoln, ‘Henry Every and the Creation of the Pirate Myth in Early Modern Britain’ in David Head (ed.), The Golden Age of Piracy: The Rise, Fall, and Enduring Popularity of Pirates (2018), pp.167–182; essays in Antonio Sanna (ed.), Pirates in History and Popular Culture (2018); Lincoln, British Pirates and Society, passim, esp.ch.6; Claire Jowitt, The Culture of Piracy, 1580–1630: English Literature and Seaborne Crime (2010), pp.137–170. 33 J.L. Anderson, ‘Piracy and World History: An Economic Perspective on Maritime Predation’, JWH, vol.6, no.2 (1995), pp.170–199. 34 Pierre Schneider, ‘Before the Somali Threat: Piracy in the Ancient Indian Ocean’, Journal of the Hakluyt Society (2014), pp.5–15; Paola Calanca, ‘Piracy and Coastal Security in Southeastern China, 1600–1780’ in Robert J. Antony (ed.), Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas (2010), p.91; De Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, pp.15–17. 12

China Seas; Islamic and Byzantine vessels in the Mediterranean became targets for islanders from the Aegean; and, in the Baltic, shipping out of Hanseatic towns was harried by crafts fitted out in Danish ports.35 Chokepoints in global trade, such as the straits of Malacca, Hormuz or, later, Florida, were ideal sites for these aggressors to seize goods, as well as people as hostages and slaves.36 Yet, however destructive these actions may appear, they should be considered disruptive rather than detrimental to commercial exchange. Stolen goods invariably had to be sold, and captive-taking could lead to trade and migration – a common occurrence, for instance, between Christians from Southern Europe and Muslims from North Africa in the late-medieval Mediterranean.37 Acts of aggression and taking redirected trade networks globally for many centuries, conducive towards their expansion into often new and unexpected places. While maritime predation itself was ancient, only a limited number of the sailors above would have qualified as pirates in the eyes of their contemporaries. The word has been translated today into many languages to mean those who committed maritime predation while unlicensed by a sovereign, state or corporate body, yet during the early modern period, many terminologies existed to describe aggression at sea. By the sixteenth century, seaborne raiders frequenting the coasts of Ming China were described in Mandarin as haizei and wokou, referring respectively to those who originated from within the imperial system and those from beyond (predominantly inferring Japanese). Subjecthood and foreignness, therefore, became built into Chinese terminology surrounding maritime predation.38 Ottoman Turkish similarly had no direct equivalent of pirate. Its speakers instead imported variants of corsaro from Italian to describe the predominantly Christian sailors who attacked their vessels in the Mediterranean,

35 Dirk Meier, Seafarers, Merchants and Pirates in the Middle Ages (2006), pp.146–148, 153–154; Young-tsu Wong, China’s Conquest of Taiwan in the Seventeenth Century: Victory at Full Moon (2017), pp.82–83; Pierre François Souyri, The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society (2001), pp.121–141; Peter Lock, The Franks in the Aegean: 1204–1500 (1995), p.258 David K. Bjork, ‘Piracy in the Baltic, 1375–1398’, Speculum, vol.18, no.1 (1943), pp.39–68. 36 Anderson, ‘Piracy and World History’, pp.178–179. 37 Wolfgang Kaiser, ‘The Economy of Ransoming in the Early Modern Mediterranean: A Form of Cross Cultural Trade between Southern Europe and the Maghreb’ in Francesca Trivellato, Leor Halevi and Cátia Atunes (eds.), Religion and Trade: Cross-Cultural Exchanges in World History 1000–1900 (2014), pp.108– 130. 38 Anthony Reid, ‘Violence at Sea: Unpacking “Piracy” in the Claims of States over Asian Seas’ in Antony, Elusive Pirates, pp.16–19. 13 creating a vocabulary intended to describe religious conflict.39 The extent to which each of these terms overlapped or differed from one another is beyond the scope of this thesis, but together they emphasise that, while maritime predation was practiced globally, attendant languages to describe it were constructed, changed over time and influenced by regional, as well as local, contexts. Across the centuries, pirates have to be considered as sharing much with other sailors, but were also part of a distinctly European tradition of describing and seeking to regulate maritime predation. Etymologically, pirate is derived from the ancient Greek peirates, and, as already touched upon, the cognate pirata was developed into a category of enemy by the political elite of the Roman Republic.40 Retaining a sensitivity towards differences in terminology, the admittedly patchy scholarship identifies two distinct groups as “pirates” by the middle ages. The first were Vikings, who were described as such in the writings of the chroniclers who recorded their ventures southwards to trade and attack coastal settlements.41 The second group tended to be Muslim sailors operating out of North Africa and parts of the Middle East, whose maritime conflict with Christians became sustained during the twelfth century.42 The history of the pirate was, therefore, initially confined to Europe and the Mediterranean, being either a participant in the reified confessional conflicts of the Mediterranean or a more independent coastal raider. This dual nature of pirates endured into the early modern period. A particular continuity of practice and terminology existed in the Mediterranean, where, by the 1500s, the Knights of Malta and the Ottomans continued the struggle that had begun there with the Crusades. Yet it was only the latter who became known as the “Barbary pirates” in English.43 In parallel, an

39 Molly Greene, Catholic Pirates and Greek Merchants: A Maritime History of the Early Modern Mediterranean (2010), passim but esp.pp.78–109; Patricia Risso, ‘Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy: Maritime Violence in the Western Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf Region during a Long Eighteenth Century’, JWH, vol.12, no.2 (2001), p.302. 40 T. Hoad (ed.), ‘Pirate’ in Idem, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1996); online edn, 2003. 41 Heebøll-Holmm, Ports, Piracy and Maritime War; Benjamin T. Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in the North Atlantic (2005). 42 Pinuccia Franca Simbula, ‘Islands, Privateers, and Pirates in the Medieval Mediterranean’, Médiévales, vol.47, no.2 (2004), pp.17–30; Clifford R. Backman, The Decline and Fall of Medieval Sicily: Politics, Religion, and Economy in the Reign of Frederick III, 1296–1337 (1995), pp.269–285. 43 Alan G. Jamieson, Lords of the Sea: A History of the Barbary Corsairs (2012); Greene, Catholic Pirates, pp.110–166; Robert C. Davis, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500–1800 (2003). 14

Atlantic context emerged to this history. The first pirates in the Caribbean – as described by Spanish military and political figures – were Huguenot sailors, who first entered the region during the 1530s intent upon attacking Iberian shipping. Four decades later, they were followed by the Dutch Sea Beggars as part of their own war against Phillip II.44 All the while, coastal raiding continued throughout the European Continent. The Baltic and the North Sea were frequented by privately owned vessels that attacked shipping, many operating out of Bremen from the mid-fifteenth century.45 Similarly, the Munster Coast in Ireland provided a base from which sailors plundered vessels on England’s shores well into the seventeenth century.46 A significant characteristic of the 1600s was that this latter group of coastal raiders began to move further afield in pursuit of more lucrative cargos. Coastal raiders followed the Huguenot and the Sea Beggars to the Caribbean, but also ventured to the Red Sea, intent upon capturing ships.47 So, although predatory behaviours at sea were common worldwide by the late seventeenth century, Europeans understood pirates operating globally to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Two letters written in the prosperous city of Calicut (today Kozhikode, in the Indian state of Kerala) on the Malabar Coast demonstrate how pirates were conceived within this newly global context. The first, dated 23 November 1696, was penned by an agent for the English East India Company (EIC) and relays a sequence of events that began with the arrival of a 300-ton vessel under English colours into the harbour earlier that month. From shore, this vessel’s sails blended in with the thousands of European trade ships that arrived into the city every year. Yet, upon entering the harbour, the unnamed craft altered course and struck its flag, the sailors aboard replacing it with Danish colours. It then turned to fire a broadside towards three anchored vessels of Mughal, English and Persian origin. Taken by surprise, the few mariners aboard them surrendered. The master of the hostile vessel, said to be a Dutch resident of New

44 Explored in more detail in Chapter 2. Virginia Lunsford, Piracy and Privateering in the Golden Age Netherlands (2005), pp.104–107. 45 David Ditchburn, ‘Bremen Piracy and the Scottish Periphery: The North Sea World in the 1440s’ in Allan MacInnes, T. Riis and F.J.G. Pedersen (eds.), Ships, Guns and Bibles in the North Sea and Baltic States, c.1350–c.1700 (2000), pp.1–29. 46 John C. Appleby, ‘The Problem of Piracy in Ireland, 1570–1630’ in Claire Jowitt (ed.), Pirates? The Politics of Plunder, 1550–1650 (2006), pp.41–44; Idem, ‘A Nursery of Pirates: The English Pirate Community in Ireland in the Early Seventeenth Century’, International Journey of Maritime History, vol.2, no.1 (1990), pp.1– 27. 47 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.183–221; Jon Latimer, Buccaneers of the Caribbean: How Piracy Forged an Empire (2009), passim; Bromley, ‘Outlaws at Sea, pp.1–20. 15

York, then issued a ransom of £10,000 apiece from any resident of Calicut willing to pay, but received no reply. In an attempt to raise the stakes, the crew then pulled down their Danish flag and ‘hoisted bloody colours’, setting fire first to one ship and then another, reducing the people and goods kept below their decks to ash. No ransom money materialised, however, prompting the captain and some of his crew to take a small boat for the shore to press their demands. They were granted an audience with the city’s ruler, Bharani Tirunal Manavikrama, stating that they would loot the city if the money was not provided, emphasising that they ‘acknowledged no countrey men, they had sold their countrey, and were sure to be hanged if taken’.48 The narrative is then cut short by the scribe recording the events. The nameless ship and unknown crew departed sometime thereafter, having failed to extract the riches they sought. A significant characteristic here is how the swapping-out of the flags foreshadowed the growing violence of the sailors’ intent, first obscuring their place of origin before moving to reject allegiance and nationhood outright. How much of this episode actually occurred and how much was deliberately embellished, or distorted by rumour, is unclear. A second letter, written seven years later in 1703, conveys “pirates” that were altogether less remarkable. Its writer was George Wooley, a ship’s captain for the EIC, who had fallen ill shortly after his arrival in Calicut. During his extended recovery, he was able to observe life in the port closely, especially the coming and going of merchant vessels. He remarked that ‘I have seen no difference between a pirate and merchant ship: both black and white stocking off with all sorts of merchandises ... returning with coffers of money’. Furthermore, he also remarked that employees of the Company were in the habit of assisting European vessels of often unclear national origins, which he identified as pirates.49 The crews described in these two letters had substantial differences. In the first example, the writer conveys the spoil inflicted by a group of desperate outlaws, people whose extra-national status served to explain their rejection of morality altogether. In the second, pirates appear altogether more mundane, as traders moving with an expanding global economy, although ultimately beyond the control of any one sovereign or corporate body.

48 ‘Advices Received Overland by the East India Company, 28 September 1697’, Board of Trade Records: General Correspondence, CO 323/2, fo.216, The British National Archives (TNA). 49 ‘A Letter from Captain George Wooley to Captain Pennying, chief of the East India Company’s factory at Callicut, 7 November 1703’, Thomas Bowrey Papers, 1671–1713, MS 24176, London Metropolitan Archive (LMA). 16

Moving to consider how common lawyers defined piracy as a crime, similarly striking differences are visible. To date, there exists no book-length study of piracy in law dedicated to the early modern period, though a number of scholars have taken an interest for the sake of finding preludes to later debates in international law.50 With varying degrees of emphasis, scholars agree both that it is not possible to clearly define the crime of piracy before the eighteenth century and that at the time it was a subject of much confusion. Piracy’s definition was especially a problem in England, Ireland and the Americas, as it had only been a crime in Roman law when the Offences at Sea Act (1536) placed the criminal jurisdiction of admiralty courts under the common law, a legal system in which it had no felony equivalent.51 As a consequence, lawyers tended to reach for whichever crimes under, or transgressions of, the common law they believed equated most closely with piracy, such as robbery, murder, treason, assault and theft.52 At the same time, the jurisdictions of the English and Irish High Court of Admiralty affected anglophone conceptions of pirates, as they only held the undisputed right to prosecute sailors from England, Ireland, Scotland and these kingdoms’ overseas possessions. Contemporaries, therefore, only saw fellow subjects convicted, while the nebulous character of the crime allowed for subtly different understandings to be applied in order to secure a conviction. By considering the contents of these two letters and the instability of piracy as a crime in law, the images people in the late seventeenth century had of pirates and who they actually were can be established. The most straightforward definition to establish is a broad one of piracy as capital crime. Encompassing its various usages, it was seen to be a hostile act(s) performed at sea without any form of sanction that a prosecuting authority recognised, most commonly, but not always, resulting in the seizure of property or people. More complex are the vernacular imaginings of the pirate, which were not simply analogous to this definition at law. The first variant of which was allegorical and most succinctly laid out by the Scottish Admiralty Advocate Alexander Higgins in 1705:

50 Gregory Durston, The Admiralty Sessions, 1536–1834: Maritime Crime and the Silver Oar (2017); Amedeo Policante, The Pirate Myth: Genealogies of an Imperial Concept (2015); Daniel Heller-Roazen, The Enemy of All: Piracy and the Law of Nations (2009); Alfred P. Rubin, The Law of Piracy, 2nd ed. (1998); M.J. Prichard and D.E.C. Yale (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction (1993). 51 G.R. Elton (ed.), The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary, 2nd ed (1982), pp.158–159. 52 Rubin, The Law of Piracy, pp.68–70. 17

Pirats properly have no country, but by the nature of their guilt, separate themselves, and renounce on the matter, the benefit of all lawful societies: they are worse than ravenous beasts, in as far as the fatal reason gives them a greater faculty and skill to do evil: and whereas such creatures follow the bent of their natures, and that promiscuously extinguish humanity in themselves.53

The pirate Higgins refers to existed as an extra-national other, for whom existing beyond the laws of landed society had caused moral degeneration into something approaching what Thomas Hobbes identified as the state of nature. This status of the pirate is further testified to by its association with other practices believed to be deviant, including Islam, witchcraft and sodomy – a figure comparable, for Protestants at least, to the Jesuit or “savage”.54 This imagining was, once again, accompanied by a reading of Cicero’s description of pirates as hostis humani generis, in this context to be understood as beyond all recognised (Roman) law. The translation of this phrase into English is similarly revealing, as pirates are described as either ‘enemies of all’, ‘enemies of mankind’ or ‘enemies of all nations’.55 The widespread use of these exact phrases in print when discussing subjects other than pirates further underscores their status as different, as exceptional, as other. English writers used them to describe Satan, witches, atheists, the Pope, Turks and, frequently after 1688, Louis XIV.56 In fact, a small

53 Green, The Tryal of Capt. Thomas Green, p.50. 54 Anon., A True and Impartial Account of the Proceedings Against Capt Green and his Crew together with the Confessions of Several of them under Sentence of Death (1705); Thomas Overbury, ‘A Pyrate’ in Sir Thomas Ouerburie his wife with new elegies vpon his (now knowne) vntimely death (1616); Tobias P. Graf, The Sultan's Renegades: Christian-European Converts to Islam and the Making of the Ottoman Elite, 1575–1610 (2017), pp.29–31; Hans Turley, Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash: Piracy, Sexuality, and Masculine Identity (1999), pp.45– 50; Burg, Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition. 55 Edmund Bohun, The Character of Queen Elizabeth, or, A full and clear account of her policies, and the methods of her government both in church and state (1693); George Buchanan, The history of Scotland written in Latin by George Buchanan; faithfully rendered into English (1690), p.149; Jacob Bury, Advice to the Commons within all His Majesties realms and dominions written by Jacob Bury (1685), p.7; Charles I, By the King a proclamation for the well manning and arming of the ships (1625). 56 Anon., A letter from Duke Schomberge’s camp, giving an account of the condition of the English and Irish army (1689), p.4; Gilbert Burnet, A sermon preached before the King and Queen at White-Hall on the 19th day of October, 1690 (1690), p.21; Anon., Nero gallicanus, or, The true pourtraicture of Lewis XIV wherein the present war with France is justified (1690), p.2; Anon., A Seasonable prospect for the view and consideration of Christians being a brief representation of the lives and conversations of infidels and heathens (1691), p.49; Walter Harris, Remarks on the affairs and trade of England and Ireland wherein is set down the antient charge of Ireland (1691), p.61; Clement Ellis, The folly of atheism demonstrated to the capacity of the most unlearned reader (1692), p.70; Increase Mather, Cases of conscience concerning evil spirits personating men, witchcrafts, infallible proofs of guilt in such as are accused with that crime (1693), unpaginated introduction; Idem, A further account of the tryals of the New-England witches with the observations of a person who was upon the place several days when the suspected witches were first taken into examination (1693), unpaginated introduction; Humphrey Prideaux, A Letter to the Deists (1696), pp.75, 129; John Scott, Practical Discourses upon Several Subjects (1697), p.104; Roger Coke, A detection of the court and state of England during the four 18 number of accounts associated not just the French king but also James II/VII (hereafter James II) directly with pirates.57 The allegorical pirate was always perceived as amoral, rootless and malevolent in intent. If a man or woman of means was informed that pirates existed somewhere distant, this was the image that likely formed in the mind, making it the understanding of the pirate that was most commonly deployed rhetorically and in print. Equally, a material understanding of pirates existed, related to the actual identities and behaviours of individual sailors. The language used to describe the material pirate varied immensely and could also include ‘freebooters’ (from Dutch), ‘buccaneers’ (from French), ‘renegados’ (from Spanish), ‘sea rovers’ (from Dutch), picaroons (from Spanish) and, even without a letter of marque, ‘privateers’ (a contraction of private and volunteer). This prolific borrowing and coining of terminology suggests that there was a persistent need to understand material pirates with a level of moral relativism and that English-speakers who knew these sailors accepted that they differed according to time and place. From the early 1690s, anglophone people referred to as pirates were most often those displaced by the impact of a war stretching far beyond Europe. Scotland, for instance, suffered its worst decade in living memory, with conflict contributing to declining trade and famine, uprooting many into Ulster, where Scots once again settled plantations on lands vacated by defeated Irish Catholics.58 In Connacht, Leinster and Muster, officials reported that, after the Jacobites were defeated in 1691, Catholics also fled their homes en masse, a practice so common as to be known as ‘going out upon your keeping’.59 Many of them made their way to France and the Caribbean, from where some launched attacks upon English shipping, doing so

last reigns and the inter-regnum consisting of private memoirs (1697), p.150; Nicholas Noyes, New-Englands duty and interest to be an habitation of justice and mountain of holiness (1698), p.84. 57 Le Vassor, Letters written by a French Gentleman, p.39; Anon., The Late K. James’s commission to his privateers to ravage, plunder, burn, sink, and destroy all the ships and goods of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1692). 58 David W. Miller, ‘Searching for a New World: The Background and Baggage of Scots-Irish Immigrants’ in Warren R. Hofstra (ed.), Ulster to America: The Scots-Irish Migration Experience, 1680–1830 (2012), pp.7–8; Steve Murdoch and Esther Mijers, ‘Migrant Destinations, 1500–1750’ in T.M. Devine and Jenny Wormald (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Scottish History (2012), pp.325, 331–332; Karen J. Cullen, Famine in Scotland: The ‘Ill Years’ of the 1690s (2010), pp.26–32; Brian Lavery, Shield of Empire: The Royal Navy and Scotland (2007), pp.17–32; T.M. Devine, Scotland’s Empire: The Origins of a Global Diaspora (2003), pp.41– 42. 59 ‘A Proclamation by Captain Dormod Leary, Capt. John Hurley, Capt. Edmond Ryan, Matthew Higgins, John Murphy and the rest of their adherents, 1694’, Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Scottish and Irish Affairs, 1641–1754, Rawlinson Manuscripts, D.921, fo.98, Bodleian Library Oxford (BLO); ‘Irish Lords Justices to James Vernon, 27 August 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, no.65, The National Archives (TNA); ‘Sydney to Anon., 5 September 1692’, State Papers: Ireland, 1692, SP 63/354, no.52, TNA. 19 under French colours or of their own accord and prizing the EIC shipments laden with bullion, which departed for the Indian Ocean.60 Indeed, the outbreak of war in 1688 had an especially drastic impact on England’s commercial traffic. The English East and West Indies fleets suffered heavy losses; at least four thousand ships originating from England alone were lost during the conflict.61 In the Caribbean, English plantations felt the consequences of war most severely. William Beeston, the governor of Jamaica, reported concerns about depopulation in 1693, complaining that, in the first four years of the war, over half of the island’s people – enslaved, free blacks and Europeans – had either been killed, fled into the service of the French and the Dutch or set out to join the ‘buccaneers’ in the Bahamas.62 At the same time, the region of North America spanning from New Jersey to Maine also suffered. A military coalition of the Huron, the French and the Abenaki spilled southwards out of the Great Lakes region, the former seeking to reclaim their lands from the expansionist Haudenosaunee and English colonists.63 Persistent fears of invasion motivated some colonists to enter the maritime networks that were already developing between the northeast and the Indian Ocean. As one captain of a vessel on the coast of India wrote to an EIC agent in 1691, ‘wee designe noe harme of any of our country, it is the troublesomeness of the tymes att home that occations us to come out on this account’.64 These sailors traded and dispersed across the ocean’s many littoral societies, taking service with numerous different sovereigns, while others attacked Mughal

60 ‘James Waller to Robert Southwell, 24 October 1693’, Munster Vice-Admiralty Records, 1677–1694, vol.1, Add. MS 38147, fo.47, BL; ‘Charles Porter to English Admiralty, 8 June 1696’, Admiralty Board: In Letters from Ireland, 1691–1701, ADM 1/3988, TNA; Nini Rodgers, ‘A Changing Presence: the Irish in the Caribbean in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’ in Evelyn O’Callaghan, Alison Donnel and Maria McGarrity (eds.), Caribbean Irish Connections: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2015), pp.17–32; Kristen Block and Jenny Shaw, ‘Subjects Without an Empire: The Irish in the Early Modern Caribbean, Past and Present, vol.210 (2011), pp.54–58. 61 Steve Murdoch, The Terror of the Seas? Scottish Maritime Warfare, 1513–1713 (2010), pp.290–295; A.W.H. Pearsall, ‘The War at Sea’ in W.A. Maguire (ed.), Kings in Conflict: The Revolutionary War in Ireland and its Aftermath, 1689–1750 (1990), pp.92–105; John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State 1688–1783 (1989), pp.161–162. 62 ‘Beeston to James Vernon, 27 May 1693’, ‘The Island of Jamaica hath lost the most of their seamen, undated’, Jamaica Papers, CO 137/3, fos.10, 100, TNA. 63 Daniel K. Richter, The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (1992), pp.162–189; Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815 (1992), pp.30–49. 64 ‘Copie of ye pirat’s noate to our friends at Calicut, 29 October 1691’, East India Company: Inbound Correspondence, 1691–1693, IOR E/3/49, fo.41, BL. 20 treasure shipments that converged at Surat.65 These were the people whom contemporaries called pirates in the 1690s. A cross-section of the multitude driven from Britain, Ireland and the Americas, they departed on unlikely ventures to find riches in places far and distant. Many died or returned penniless, but the most successful speculated on land, became plantation owners, brokered east India goods and acted as recruiters for trading voyages. In their own way, therefore, the poor became active participants in the Age of Projects. Throughout this dissertation, unsanctioned maritime predation is seen to have been conceptualised in these three ways by the late seventeenth century. Piracy as a crime in law applied only to Stuart subjects and although a broad consensus existed about its meaning, it retained nuances that could be manipulated for purposes beyond the administration of justice. The second was the allegorical pirate, who represented an extra-national other, a deviant whose image was not moored in contemporary actions or events, but functioned as a useable rhetorical device. The third was the material pirate, European or occasionally North African sailors who committed acts of maritime predation globally and whose numbers increased significantly as a consequence of war after 1688. Individuals across the anglophone world were able to conflate and differentiate between these usages as they pleased, making the pirate an eminently malleable enemy of empire and a valuable resource for those seeking to direct processes of overseas expansion.

*** In the years immediately following the 1688 Revolution, it was not just the poor who looked beyond their immediate locality for opportunities. People of wealth and status began to conceive of more elaborate projects and schemes for personal advancement, seeing opportunity within the precarity experienced by the anglophone world during its first truly global war. Public authorities and patronage brokers were now willing to entertain novel commercial ventures, institutional creations and plantation schemes which otherwise would have been ignored in previous decades. Yet while this war sparked the Age of Projects, the schemes of

65 ‘Elisha Yale to Directors, 20 November 1691’, Ibid., fo.44. G.V. Scammell, ‘European Exiles, Renegades and Outlaws and the Maritime Economy of Asia, c.1500–1750’, Modern Asian Studies, vol.26, no.4 (1992), pp.653–657. 21 which it was comprised had far deeper historical roots. It was the long-term changes that swept through the anglophone world across the seventeenth century made this phenomenon possible. One of the most conspicuous developments that Stuart dominions underwent across the seventeenth century was the growing commercial involvements of its denizens beyond Europe. Scottish merchants and settlers, for example, undertook numerous colonial ventures in North America, from Nova Scotia, to the Carolinas and the Jersies.66 At the same time, they made gradual inroads into trade with New England, the Middle Colonies and the Caribbean, as well as securing a place for themselves within the trans-Atlantic carrying trade. This admittedly modest success meant that, by the 1690s, Scottish merchants were itching to expand further.67 In parallel, Irish traders and colonists came to also have an important role in the Atlantic. Cork and Limerick became significant ports as the century proceeded, exporting beef, butter and other provisions to feed the rapidly expanding slave populations of the Caribbean and the Chesapeake.68 Merchants in Boston and New York City also came to assume a similar place to their Irish counterparts, with the Congregationalist heartlands supplying large quantities of provisions to the colonies of Virginia, Maryland, Jamaica and Barbados.69 In England these changes had an even more profound impact. Coming to account for as much as twenty percent of the kingdom’s national income by 1700, overseas trade, especially links across the Atlantic and trade with the east through the EIC, saw the kingdom annually import hundreds of thousands of pounds in goods such as calico silks, sugar, tobacco, spices and coffee.70 Concurrently and less conspicuously, informal trade links began to also grow up with other peoples. By the later 1660s, New York’s Dutch population continued their trade with

66 Timothy Walker, ‘European Ambitions and Early Contacts: Diverse Styles of Colonization, 1492–1700’ in Louise A. Breen (ed.), Converging Worlds: Communities and Cultures in Colonial America, pp.43–44; David Dobson, Scottish Emigration to Colonial America, 1607–1785 (2004), p.65; Ned C. Landsman, Scotland and its First American Colony, 1683–1765 (1985). 67 Allan MacInnes, Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707 (2007), pp.201–226; Armitage, ‘Making the Empire British’, pp.34–63; Ned C. Landsman, ‘Nation, Migration and the Province in the First British Empire: Scotland and the Americas 1600–1800’, AHR, vol.4, no.2 (1999), pp.464–469. 68 Raymond Gillespie, ‘Economic Life, 1550–1730’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, vol.2 (2018), pp.547–548; S.J. Connolly, Divided Kingdom: Ireland 1630–1800 (2008), pp.154–159; Thomas M. Truxes, Irish-American Trade, 1660–1783 (1988), pp.7–26. 69 See Chapter 3, below. Christian J. Koot, ‘Anglo-Dutch Trade in the Chesapeake and the British Caribbean, 1621–1733’ in Jessica V. Roitman and Gert Oostindie (eds.), Dutch Atlantic Connections, 1680–1800: Linking Empires, Bridging Borders (2014), pp.78, 94; Gregory E. O’Malley, ‘Beyond the Middle Passage: Slave Migration from the Caribbean to North America, 1619–1807’, WMQ, vol.66, no.1, pp.157–158; Cathy Matson, Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (2002), pp.73–91. 70 Nuala Zahedieh, The Capital and the Colonies: London and the Atlantic Economy 1660–1700 (2010), p.25 and passim. 22

Amsterdam even after the English conquest (1664); Irish Catholic merchant forged connections with French plantations in the Caribbean, such as Guadeloupe and Martinique, while an enduring traffic in goods conducted by English buccaneers proceeded into Spanish ports such as Cartagena and indigenous communities in the Gulf of Darién.71 These Commercial networks became the webs that spanned and bound the anglophone world together, and exchange with other peoples continued in spite of the passage of protectionist legislation by English parliament from the mid-seventeenth century.72 Despite this rapid expansion, Stuart subjects had difficulty with a persistent and intractable economic problem, which they shared with all Europeans. Lack of stable currency was an issue from at least the 1500s, as Europe and the Americas suffered from the global imbalances in the world economy, which directed the majority of precious metals out of the Americas into China and the Indian Ocean.73 The Nine Years War (1688–1697) simply served to make this shortage more acute, as greater tax burdens extracted an already limited supply of specie from the population.74 ‘Scarceness of coin’ was widely cited as a problem.75 Together, these changed economic conditions played an important role in creating the Age of Projects. The profits promised by overseas trade, combined with a relative scarcity of specie, spurred those with the

71 William O’Reilly, ‘Ireland in the Atlantic World: Migration and Cultural Transfer’ in Ohlmeyer, Cambridge History of Ireland, vol.2, pp.397–398; Joseph C. Miller (ed.), The Princeton Companion to Atlantic History (2015), pp.460–461; Koot, Empire at the Periphery, pp.113–114; Matson, Merchants and Empire, pp.49–54; John R. Fisher, The Economic Aspects of Spanish Imperialism in America, 1492–1810 (1997), pp.72–75, 80–85; Nuala Zahedieh, ‘A Frugal, Prudential, and Hopeful Trade: Privateering in Jamaica, 1655–1689’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol.18, no.2 (1990), pp.145–168; Nuala Zahedieh, ‘The Merchants of Port Royal, Jamaica, and Spanish Contraband Trade, 1655–1689’, WMQ, vol.43 (1986), pp.570–593; Robert C. Ritchie, The Duke’s Province: A Study of New York Politics and Society, 1664–1691 (1977), pp.59–61. 72 Koot, ‘Anglo-Dutch Trade’; Klooster, ‘Inter-Imperial Smuggling’, pp.158–162; Lauren Benton, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (2010), pp.137–148. 73 Dennis O. Flynn, ‘Silver in a Global Context, 1400–1800’ in Jerry H. Bentley, Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks (eds.), The Cambridge World History, vol.6, Part 2 (2015), pp.213–216. 74 Laura Rayner, ‘The Tribulations of Everyday Government in Williamite Scotland’ in Sharon Adams and Julian Goodare (eds.), Scotland in the Age of Two Revolutions (2014), pp.202–207; Alvin Rabushka, Taxation in Colonial America (2008), pp.355–436, esp.437–439; Brewer, Sinews of Power, pp.91–95. 75 ‘Lords Justices to Cyril Wyche, undated’, Ireland State Papers, 1695, SP 63/357, fo.41, TNA; Anon., The true causes of the present scarcity of money: and the proper remedies for it (1690); Anon., The right way to make money more plentiful: or, Considerations relating to the Act for preventing exportation of silver and encouraging its importation and coinage (1690); Walter Harries, Remarks on the affairs and trade of England and Ireland (1691), pp.30–31; John Locke, Further considerations concerning raising the value of money, wherein Mr. Lowndes’s arguments for it in his late Report concerning an essay for the amendment of the silver coins, are particularly examined (1695), pp.68–70; Anon., A letter to a member of the Honourable House of Commons in answer to three queries (1697). 23 requisite status and access to capital to entertain new commercial opportunities, many of which simply did not exist before the latter part of the century. The exploitation of these particular trades was also fuelled by shifting social demographics. Across the early modern period, the middle section of anglophone societies, or “middling sort”, grew rapidly, creating a far higher proportion of gentry farmers in rural areas, as well as professionals and merchants in cities.76 In England, the rising export of woollen cloth – especially into Southern European ports after the 1550s – facilitated both enclosure across the countryside and a greater number of merchants and artisans in cities. By 1700, urban areas come to hold five percent of the population in Scotland and Ireland, while thirteen percent of England’s population resided in towns.77 Irish social change was driven by particular circumstances, however. Military conflicts and subsequent colonisation facilitated the displacement of Catholics by Protestant settlers, causing the population of Catholic Old English and native Irish aristocracy to decline, along with their overall share of landholding.78 Most significant in the ascendency of these Protestant settlers was their being granted 2.5 million acres following the Cromwellian Conquests of the 1650s.79 Equally, in the Chesapeake and the Caribbean, land and labour became gradually concentrated into the hands of wealthier, rather than small-time, planters, a change that was accelerated through the transition to enslaved labour in the second half of the seventeenth century.80 These were socio-economic

76 Craig Muldrew, ‘“The ‘Middling Sort”: An Emergent Cultural Identity’ in Keith Wrightson (ed.), A Social History of England, 1500–1750 (2017), pp.290–309; Keith Wrightson, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain, 1470–1750 (2002), pp.289–306; Margaret Hunt, The Middling Sort: Commerce, Gender and the Family in England (1996), passim, but esp.pp.20–21, 71–73, 121–124,176–178, 214–216. 77 Phil Withington, ‘Urbanisation’ in Wrightson, A Social History of England, pp.176–194; R.W. Hoyle, ‘Rural Economies Under Stress: “A World so Altered”’ in Susan Doran and Norman Jones (eds.), The Elizabethan World (2011), pp.439–456; Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2009), pp.59–68; Martin Rorke, ‘English and Scottish Overseas Trade, 1300–1600’, The Economic History Review, vol.59, no.2 (2006), pp.280– 281; R.A Houston, The Population History of Britain and Ireland 1500–1750 (1992), p.20; D.C. Coleman, ‘An Innovation and Its Diffusion: The “New Draperies”, The Economic History Review, vol.22, no.3 (1969), pp.424–425. 78 See Chapter 1, below; Annaleigh Margey, ‘Plantations, 1550–1641’ in Ohlmeyer, Cambridge History of Ireland, pp.565–581; Clodagh Tait, ‘Society 1550–1700’ in Ibid., pp.280–284; Jane Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English: The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012), pp.60–64, 133–134; Aiden Clarke, ‘The Irish Economy, 1600–60’ in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, vol.3 (1991), pp.168–186. 79 John Cunningham, Conquest and Land in Ireland: The Transplantation to Connacht, 1650–1820 (2011), pp.50–56. 80 Trevor Burnard, Planters, Merchants, and Slaves: Plantation Societies in British America, 1650–1820 (2015), pp.92–93; Douglas M. Bradburn, ‘Smoke and Mirrors: Reinterpreting the Society and Economy of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake’, Atlantic Studies, vol.3, no.2 (2006), pp.131–157; Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800 (1997), pp.309–314; David W. 24 changes that ensured a higher proportion of the anglophone world’s population no longer worked the land. By 1750, as much as 33% of England’s population were employed outside of agriculture, a trend mirrored in a threefold increase in the number of sailors employed on English ships between 1580 and 1680.81 It was the growing quantity of merchants as well as current and would-be colonisers, who stood best placed to take advantage of this newly mobile population. The political conflicts of the seventeenth century, which continued to play out across the 1690s, also empowered this middle section of society. Debates about the extent of royal prerogative and the precise religious forms that could safeguard Stuart domains from Catholic influence were a persistent source of civil strife after 1603.82 These two issues became especially incendiary when James II assumed the throne in 1685. His favouring of Catholics in Ireland and alleged persecution of religious dissenters in Scotland during the earlier years of his reign convinced many of his Protestant subjects that his intention was to eventually impose Catholicism across his realms.83 At the same time, his creation of the Dominion of New England in North America and attempts to work around or pack England’s Parliament convinced many that he intended to rule as an absolute monarch.84 His Protestant subjects were especially distressed by both trends against the background of Louis XIV’s territorial expansion on the European Continent. These anxieties eventually culminated in William III’s invasion of England on 5 November 1688, deposing James in England and, following armed conflicts, in Scotland and Ireland too. While the impact of this invasion was markedly different across the king’s new domains, it served to empower legislatures across William’s new

Galenson, ‘White Servitude and the Growth of Black Slavery in Colonial America’, The Journal of Economic History, vol.41, no.1 (1981), pp.39–47. 81 Jane Whittle, ‘Land and People’ in Wrightson, A Social History of England, pp.164–165; Peter Earle, ‘English Sailors, 1570–1775’ in Paul C. van Royen, Jaap R. Bruijn and Jan Lucassen (eds.), “Those Emblems of Hell”? European Sailors and the Maritime Labour Market, 1570–1870 (1997), pp.75–78. 82 Ted McCormick, ‘Restoration Politics, 1660–1691’ in Ohlmeyer, Cambridge History of Ireland, vol.2, pp.104–110; David Edwards, ‘Political Change and Social Transformation 1603–1641’ in Ibid., pp.59–71; Michael J. Braddick, ‘Prayer Book and Protestation: Anti-Popery, Anti-Puritanism and the Outbreak of the English Civil War’ in Charles W.A. Prior and Glenn Burgess (eds.), England’s Wars of Religion, Revisited (2011), pp.125–145; John Miller, ‘Politics in Restoration Britain’ in Barry Coward (ed.), A Companion to Stuart Britain (2003), pp.408–414; Gillian H. MacIntosh, The Scottish Parliament under Charles II, 1660–1685 (2007), pp.238–251; Allan I. MacInnes, The British Revolution, 1629–1660 (2005), pp.74–80, 125–129; Derek Hirst, England in Conflict 1603–1660: Kingdom, Community, Commonwealth (1999), pp.32–49. 83 Pincus, 1688, pp.136–138, 144; Harris, Revolution, pp.105–125, 144–165. 84 Richard S. Kay, The Glorious Revolution and the Continuity of Law (2014), pp.35–54; Stanwood, The Empire Reformed, pp.50–55. 25 territories. Representative bodies benefitted from the passage of the Scottish Claim of Right (1689) and English Bill of Rights in England (1689), the restoration of legislative assemblies in the former territories of the Dominion of New England that same year and, eventually, the establishment of regular parliaments in Ireland after 1692.85 Together, these constitutional changes enhanced the ability of local elites to influence political decision making. A further significant consequence of this constitutional change was that the 1688 Revolution knitted together transatlantic political interest groups in the Atlantic, as well as sparking an enduring debate in England about how Stuart subjects should interact with the east.86 Thus a new political reality emerged. The anglophone world continued to face a Catholic threat, but the capacity for individuals or interest groups to influence political decisions as to how it might be met grew markedly. These political upheavals also served to shatter Anglican hegemony on public worship, which had been installed following the Restoration of the Stuarts. By this point, antipopery had been a unifying position for reformers for over a hundred years, yet the question of which form of Protestantism could best replace – and protect against – Catholicism was never decisively resolved.87 The institution of common Anglicanism in England, Scotland and Ireland after 1660 had been intended as a means to control the animosities that religious disputes had fomented, seeing Stuart possessions in the Americas become a haven for Catholics and Protestant dissenters.88 Despite this institution of uniconfessional regimes on one side of the Atlantic, non-Anglican Protestants saw their fortunes rise after 1688. William’s invasion ultimately saw the Anglican Church completely lose its established status in Scotland, ensured the maintenance of some religious toleration at law in England and a reduction of

85 Charles Ivar McGrath, ‘Politics, 1692–1730’ in Ohlmeyer, Cambridge History of Ireland, vol.2, pp.124–128; Tim Harris, ‘The People, the Law, and the Constitution in Scotland and England: A Comparative Approach to the Glorious Revolution’, Journal of British Studies, vol.38, no.1 (1999), pp.37–53. 86 H.V. Bowen, Elites, Enterprise and the Making of the British Overseas Empire, 1688–1775 (1996), pp.32– 36, 64–69; Olson, Making the Empire Work, pp.40–60; Robert M. Bliss, Revolution and Empire: English Politics and the American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (1981), pp.242–247. 87 Scott Sowerby, Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution (2013), pp.79–96; Catharine Davies, A Religion of the Word: The Defence of the Reformation in the Reign of Edward VI (2002), pp.18–66. 88 Clare Jackson, ‘The Later Stuart Church as “National Church” in Scotland and Ireland in Grant Tapsell (ed.), The Later Stuart Church, 1660–1714 (2012), pp.127–149; Kathryn Rose Sawyer, ‘True Church, National Church, Minority Church: Episcopacy and Authority in the Restored Church of Ireland’, Church History, vol.85, no.2 (2016), pp.223–228; Jeremy Gregory, ‘“Establishment” and “Dissent” in British North America: Organizing Religion in the New World’ in Stephen Forster, British North America in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (2013), pp.136–168. 26 status for the Church of Ireland to match their Presbyterian rival in Ulster.89 With the state now unwilling to protect the Anglican Church as it had done in previous decades, a range of new possibilities presented themselves for Protestant religious minorities. Non-Anglican Protestants could now hope for preferment and an influence they could not have previously achieved, while their preachers now saw an opportunity to secure new converts. Anglican clergy, in contrast, had to now find a way to permanently live with open religious dissent or to redefine how their confession operated in order to fight for converts in a religious marketplace.90 These four themes heavily influenced the Age of Projects’ forms and participants. After 1688, projectors of middling means could consider relatively new and lucrative economic opportunities in the Americas or the east, conceiving of ventures that took advantage of a growing population of landless people. At the same time, expanded opportunities for political engagement and a loosening of the religious hegemony enjoyed by the Anglican Church also allowed previously ostracised groups to court public authority, a key component in the outcome of all schemes outline here. A significant exponent of projects before the 1690s was the natural philosopher and physician William Petty. Educated in the Netherlands and originally an associate of the reformer Samuel Hartlib, Petty gained a measure of prominence after conducting a survey of Ireland during the Cromwellian Land Confiscations.91 His widely read works of what he called ‘Political Arithmetick’ were produced and circulated in manuscript between 1672 and 1676 while he was living in Ireland.92 In these different texts, Petty is notable for advocating the benefits of calculating how land and labour could be reduced to numbers in order that both

89 Robert Armstrong, ‘Establishing a Confessional Ireland, 1641–1691’ in Ohlmeyer, Cambridge History of Ireland, vol.2, pp.231–236, 244–245; Jeffrey Stephen, Defending the Revolution: The Church of Scotland, 1689–1716 (2013), pp.77–112; Alasdair Raffe, ‘James VII’s Multiconfessional Experiment and the Scottish Revolution of 1688–1690’, History, vol.100, no.341 (2015), pp.354–373; Sowerby, Making Toleration, pp.249– 255. 90 Boyd Stanley Schlenther, ‘Religious Faith and Commercial Empire’ in P.J. Marshall (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, vol.2 (1998), pp.128–149. 91 Susan Dale, ‘Sir William Petty’s “Ten Tooles”: A Programme for the Transformation of England and Ireland During the Reign of James II’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2011), pp.29–35; Tony Aspromourgos, 'The Invention of the Concept of Social Surplus: Petty in the Hartlib Circle’, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol.12, no.1 (2005), pp.1–24. 92 ‘Inferences from the Premises’, Papers of Sir Cyril Wyche: Miscellaneous, 1694–1701, Series 1, Series 1, Box 3, fo.3, The National Archives of Ireland (NAI); Ted McCormick, William Petty and the Ambitions of Political Arithmetic (2009), pp.260–267. 27 might be utilised efficiently, yet his understanding of population was considerably more holistic than many of his contemporaries. The later published version of Political Arithmetick underscored the significance of maintaining a high population for agriculture, manufacturing, artisanry, overseas trade and the military, which he collectively identified as the pillars of any commonwealth.93 Attracting and retaining sailors, he wrote, was especially important, as ‘every Seaman of industry and ingenuity, is not only a Navigator, but a Merchant, and also a Soldier’.94 This perspective likely resulted from his having spent time on board ships during his youth, experiences he built upon through his position as Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland from 1678.95 The accumulation of specie was also significant for Petty. Borrowing the idea of balance of trade from earlier thinkers such as Francis Bacon and Thomas Mun, he argued that a polity’s economy should be understood numerically and that the total value in specie of imports should exceed those of exports.96 He understood the need to think of land and sea together, emphasising that a numerous, efficiently managed population involved in overseas trade was the foundation of any society’s wealth, which he measured narrowly as the accumulation of coinage. Historians have long called this thinking political economy and see Petty as the most significant of its foundational thinkers.97 Yet it would be incorrect to imagine his theories of population, commerce, manufacturing and agriculture remained within the purely economic sphere, hermetically sealed from any other concerns. Across his lifetime, Petty bent to fit with whatever political changes stirred across Britain and Ireland. While he was from Ireland’s

93 William Petty, Political arithmetick, or, A discourse concerning the extent and value of lands, people, buildings ... as the same relates to every country in general (1690), pp.1–35. 94 Ibid., p.17. 95 ‘A Paper of Sir William Petty’s upon ye General Subject of ye Admiralty Court and Dr. Trumbull’s animadversions thereon, March 1678’, Samuel Pepys’ Papers, 1675–1677, Rawlinson MS A.191, no.59, BLO; Kevin Costello, The Court of Admiralty of Ireland, 1575–1893 (2011), pp.50–53; Idem, ‘Sir William Petty and the Court of Admiralty in Restoration Ireland’ in Paul Brand, Kevin Costello and W.N. Osborough (eds.), Adventures of the Law: Proceedings of the Sixteenth British Legal History Conference, Dublin (2003), pp.106– 138. 96 ‘Considerations Relating to the Improvement of Ireland, not only as to the encreasing of its domestick wealth, but also of its money & Bullion’, Wyche Papers: Miscellaneous, 1694–1701, Series 1, Box 3, fo.35, NAI; Francis Bacon, A letter of advice written by Sr. Francis Bacon to the Duke of Buckingham, when he became favourite to King James (1661), p.12. 97 James H. Ullmer, ‘The Macroeconomic Thought of Sir William Petty’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol.26, no.3 (2004), pp.401–413; Adam Fox, ‘Sir William Petty, Ireland, and the Making of a Political Economist, 1653–87’, The Economic History Review, vol.62, no.2 (2009), pp.388–404; Alessandro Roncaglia, Petty: The Origins of Political Economy (1985); Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol.1 (1887), pp.31, 55, 58, 65, 92, 182. 28 growing population of Protestant gentry, Petty was at once viewed as useful and distrusted by successive governments, being persistently denied the patronage granted to his long-time friends Thomas Hobbes and Samuel Pepys.98 He formulated many projects for financial gain, but also because he had particular ideas that he sought to put into practice. In 1674, he promoted a number of schemes to the Lords Justices of Ireland, all intended to aid the conversion of the island’s population to Protestantism. This aspiration had, of course, been a periodic preoccupation of English and Irish Protestants for some years and so was unremarkable in intention. Yet his methods were primarily attempts to put what he had devised as political arithmetick into action. They included intensive plantation schemes and linen- manufacturing projects to encourage overseas trade, as well as forms of social engineering, such as public schemes to marry English women to Irish men, to rebuild the houses of Catholics and to distribute the Bible widely in Irish. Such a wide-ranging programme of “improvement”, he argued, would make Ireland useful for England and for the Protestant cause, but, of course, allowed him to test out his own theories in the process.99 Time and again, Petty continued to advocate projects in this vein, extending to similar plans for the Americas and a population redistribution scheme within England, Scotland and Ireland.100 While remembered more for his ideas, Petty sought to bridge the gap between ideology and practice. As a landowner of middling status, his persistent challenge was to triangulate his own financial interests, the application of his ideas and the need to secure the support of a potential patron. Many of the schemes explored in this study took direct influence from Petty, as he was read even more widely after his death in 1687, according him a level of status that was denied to him in life.101 Like Petty, those that came to advance particular projects in the 1690s saw

98 Toby Barnard, Improving Ireland? Projects, Prophets and Profiteers 1641–1786 (2008), pp.41–47. 99 Ted McCormick, ‘“A Proportionable Mixture”: William Petty, Political Arithmetic, and the Transmutation of the Irish’ in Coleman A. Dennehy (ed.), Restoration Ireland: Always Settling and Never Settled (2008), pp.123– 139. 100 McCormick, Ambitions of Political Arithmetic, pp.232–240; Anthony Brewer, ‘The Irish Connection and the Birth of Political Economy: Petty and Cantillon’ in Thomas Boylan, Renee Prendergast and John D. Turner (eds.), A History of Irish Economic Thought (2011), pp.21–22; Dale, ‘Petty’s Ten Tooles’, pp.147–158; Toby Barnard, ‘Sir William Petty, Irish Landowner’ in Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Valerie Pearl and Blair Worden (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H.R. Trevor-Roper (1981), pp.201–17; John E. Pomfret, ‘The First Purchasers of Pennsylvania, 1681–1700’, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol.80, no.2 (1956), p.149; Henry Petty-FitzMaurice (ed.), The Petty-Southwell Correspondence, 1676–1687 (1928), pp.153–155, 165–167. 101 McCormick, Ambitions of Political Arithmetic, pp.285–302; William Petty, An essay concerning the multiplication of mankind: together with another essay in political arithmetick, concerning the growth of the city of London (1698); Idem, Sir William Petty his Quantulumcunque concerning money to the Lord Marquess 29 enormous potential in overseas trade and sought to influence political decision making, to utilise landless populations and to position themselves as advocates of the Protestant cause. He was, then, both an influence upon and an individual archetype for the Age of Projects. It is worth noting that not every scheme proposed during this period was as grand as those that Petty envisaged. There were plans to find shipwrecks in the Caribbean, and Defoe invested in an attempt to create a diving engine, neither of which had any especially colonial or imperial impulses.102 Yet others followed him more directly. In an era once described as being afflicted by the ‘rage of party’, many schemes had political implications.103 Ambitious plans were conceived by Whig politicians and their allies to resettle Huguenot refugees in Ireland, New England, Virginia and South Carolina, as well as into parts of England. In doing so, they believed that they could not only provide bulwarks against French influence and supply much- needed settlers, but also demonstrate the capacity of different nationalities and Protestant denominations to live together peaceably.104 Their efforts were met with fierce resistance from a number of Tory politicians, who now feared that these efforts were an attempt to bolster dissent and undermine the Church of England.105 Other plans spoke more directly to religious concerns. Clergy across the anglophone world claimed that vice had proliferated in recent years. In response, voluntary societies formed in Boston, Dublin, London and Edinburgh, intent on policing a population they believed to be in the throes of moral decline.106 Others saw

of Halyfax (1695); Idem, Political arithmetick, or, A discourse concerning the extent and value of lands, people, buildings, husbandry, manufacture, commerce, fishery, artizans, seamen (1691). 102 Arne Bialuschewski, ‘Greed, Fraud, and Popular Culture: John Breholt’s Madagascar Schemes of the Early Eighteenth Century’ in Charles Ivar McGrath, Christopher J. Fauske (eds.), Money, Power, and Print: Interdisciplinary Studies on the Financial Revolution in the British Isles (2008), pp.104–105; Maximilliam E. Novak, Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions, His Life and Ideals (2001), p.95. 103 McGrath, ‘Politics, 1692–1730, pp.120–143; Eveline Cruickshanks, ‘Religion and Royal Succession: The Rage of Party’ in Clyve Jones (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680–1750: Essays Presented to Geoffrey Holmes (1987), pp.19–44; Patricia U. Bonomi, A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (1971); Dudley W.R. Bahlman, The Moral Revolution of 1688 (1957). 104 Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, From New Babylon to Eden: The Huguenots and Their Migration to Colonial South Carolina (2006); Robin Gwyn, ‘The Huguenots in Britain, the “Protestant International” and the Defeat of Louis XIV’ in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (2001), pp.412–424; Jane McKee, ‘The Integration of the Huguenots into the Irish Church: the Case of Peter Drelincourt’, Ibid., pp.442– 450. 105 Daniel Statt, Foreigners and Englishmen: The Controversy Over Immigration and Population, 1660–1760 (1995), pp.99–113. 106 Josiah Woodward, An Account of the Progress of the Reformation of Manners: In England & Ireland, and Other Parts of the World (1701), pp.1–3; Karen Sonnelitter, Charity Movements in Eighteenth-Century Ireland: Philanthropy and Improvement (2016), passim; Sirota, The Christian Monitors, pp.69–109, 223–251; Karen Sonnelitter, ‘“To Unite our Temporal and Eternal Interests”: Sermons and the Charity School Movement in 30 overseas commercial endeavours as the surest means to weather the hardships of the age. The Scottish merchant and financier William Paterson proposed an international colony at Darien during the mid-1690s to prove the universal benefits of free trade and draw people from across the world into Scotland.107 In contrast and around the same time, the EIC Director Josiah Child implemented a contrasting scheme to promote the wide-scale settlement of enslaved people at English factories across the Indian Ocean, part of an effort to demonstrate the benefits of commercial monopolies.108 In each example, projectors suggested and implemented ideas that vindicated specific ideological commitments, rather than serving any particular notion of public good. Yet, to ensure the success of their plans, projectors had to argue for the benefits of what they advocated in terms that spoke to the core anxieties of the era. Concern for the person of William III provides a significant insight into contemporary fears. Despite the fact that his invasion was itself a cause of much of the uncertainty that his subjects faced, after the 1688 Revolution, Williamites persistently styled him as the saviour of Protestantism and of lawful government, underscoring his ideological affinity with the majority of those he ruled.109 These efforts were reflected in a speech given at Boston by Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont, in 1699. He argued that ‘Ever since the year 1602 England has had a succession of kings that have been aliens’ as they had ‘been in an unnatural manner plotting and contriving to undermine and subvert our religion, laws and liberties’ until ‘God was pleased by his almighty power, and infinite mercy and goodness to give us a true English king in the person of his present majesty’.110 These efforts did not, however, succeed in universally reasserting the idea that his allegiance to Protestantism meant that the king had his new subjects’ best interests at heart. Especially after

Ireland, 1689–1740’, Eighteenth-Century Ireland /Iris an dá chultúr, vol.25 (2010), pp.62–81; Travis Glasson, Mastering Christianity: Missionary Anglicanism and Slavery in the Atlantic World (2012), pp.15–20; Richard P. Gildrie, The Profane, the Civil, and the Godly: The Reformation of Manners in Orthodox New England, 1679–1749 (1994); Sirota, Christian Monitors; Schlenther, ‘Religious Faith and Commercial Empire’, pp.128– 150; Jon Butler, Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianising the American People (1992), pp.98–128; Andrew Gordon Rose, ‘The Movement for the Reformation of Manners, 1688–1715’ (1980). 107 Andrew Forrester, The Man Who Saw the Future: William Paterson’s Vision of Free Trade (2004). 108 Pincus, 1688, pp.375–381; ‘Directors to Stephen Poirier, 15 December 1698’, ‘Directors to Stephen Poirier, 20 December 1699’, East India Company St Helena Letters, IOR E/3/93, fo.148, 264, BL; ‘Bombay Council to Charles Fleetwood, November 1692’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E 3/49, fo.216, BL. 109 Craig Rose, England in the 1690s: Revolution, Religion and War (1999), pp.19–28, 210–218; Richard R. Johnson, ‘The Revolution of 1688–9 in the American Colonies’ in Jonathan I. Israel (ed.), The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact (1991), pp.234–240. 110 His Excellency the Earl of Bellomonts Speech to the Council and House of Representatives, Convened in Generall Assembly, at Boston, 2nd June 1699 (1699). 31 the death of Mary II at the end of 1694, William was increasingly viewed not as a Protestant hero but as a Dutch invader. In New York in 1698, one alleged Jacobite was said to remark that it was a shame that ‘such a hump back’d crook’d nos’d Dutch dog should rule the kingdom of England’.111 Indeed, Jacobite conspiracies and assassination plots were hatched across Britain, Ireland, the Americas and the European continent, and William’s supporters knew that if even one was successful, then it could lead to their being overwhelmed by France.112 Across the decade, the king’s public detractors only grew, from Irish Catholics to English country Whigs and, eventually, Country politicians in Scotland. In Ireland and Scotland, an image even took hold of William III as a successor to Cromwell, a tyrannical foreign invader set upon plundering rather than saving the nation.113 Disillusionment with William III, threats to his person and the fear of a resurgent Jacobitism as a French proxy all contributed to the uncertainties which characterised the age. Fears of national decline were particularly apparent in English printed material. One historian wrote during the 1690s that he lived through ‘this declining age’, a ‘middle period’ in the history of their nation during which they might begin to falter and fall to the influence of France.114 Indeed, the former hegemony that English political and ecclesiastical structures enjoyed over Scotland and Ireland during the Restoration had partly dissipated, as had, over time, the sense that the Americas were isolated from Europe.115 There were long-term consequences to the fact that separate constitutional settlements were reached in England and Scotland, seeing the latter regain a more complete independence, while Catholic Ireland

111 ‘The Deposition of Edward Earl, 23 May 1698’, Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1697– 1698, CO 5/1040, fo.169, TNA. 112 ‘The French Kings Lieutenant upon the Island of Martinique hath sent the following Memoir to Monsieur de Chamlay’, Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Correspondence, 1693–1695, CO 137/3, fo.52, TNA; ‘Lords Justices to Ellis, 29 April 1696’, Correspondence with James Ellis, 1689–1708, vol.6, Add. MS 28880, BL; ‘Galway and Winchester to Blathwayt, 9th September 1697’, Letters of the Lords Justices of Ireland, 1697, M.2454, NAI; ‘Matthew Prior to James Vernon, 18 December 1694’, Bath Manuscripts, vol.3, pp.40–41; ‘William Brewster to Trumbull, 24 November 1696’, Downshire Manuscripts, vol.1, Pt.2, pp.710–711. 113 Gabriel Glickman, ‘Political Conflict and the Memory of the Revolution in England 1689–c.1745’ in Tim Harris and Stephen Taylor (eds.), The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy: The Revolutions of 1688–91 in their British, Atlantic and European Contexts (2013), pp.249–271; Charles-Edouard Levillain, ‘Cromwell Redivivus? William III as Military Dictator: Myth and Reality’ in Esther Mijers and David Onnekink (eds.), Redefining William III: The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (2007), pp.165–176; Mark Goldie and Clare Jackson, ‘Williamite Tyranny and the Whig Jacobites’, Ibid., pp.179–197; Allan MacInnes, ‘William of Orange - Disaster for Scotland?’, Ibid., pp.214–223; Rose, England in the 1690s, pp.28–37. 114 Quoted in Paul Slack, ‘Plenty of People’: Perceptions of Population in Early Modern England (2011), p.14. 115 John J. McCusker, ‘The Demise of Distance: The Business Press and the Origins of the Information Revolution in the Early Modern Atlantic World’, AHR, vol.110, no.2 (2005), pp.295–321. 32 initially remained loyal to James II.116 Many in England came to see their immediate neighbours as serious rivals. English merchants, politicians and clergy worried persistently about the ascent of Scotland as a confident Presbyterian kingdom, fearing that they would come to dominate trade with Ireland and expand their reach into the Americas.117 At the same time they saw Ireland as a danger even after the conclusion of the Jacobite War in 1691, as plots traced to St Germain periodically caused panic amongst English and Irish Protestants.118 Significant also was the ascendency of organised political interest groups in Scotland around the Duke of Hamilton and in Ireland around William Molyneux, in both places asserting forms of national rights opposed to English domination of the islands.119 Across the Atlantic, overseas possessions, from New York and Maryland to Jamaica and Saint Kitts, also experienced uprisings following immediately after 1688, some of which took years to resolve fully.120 These events fed a perception that Stuart possessions in the Americas had become too autonomous and influential, so consequently needed to be made dependent upon England.121 Fear of Louis XIV and his projected victory thus manifested itself in many forms. Anglophone Protestants feared a scarcity of money and people, divisions in religion and politics and the unpopularity of William III, as well as the competition England faced from other Stuart dominions. A solution for many was for these extended territories to be bound together more tightly. The term ‘English Empire’ first appeared in print in 1685, yet only by 1700 had it entered common usage, joined at the same time by a concept of Scottish maritime empire.122 What these words meant and quite whose visions of empire should be implemented

116 Harris, Revolution, pp.491–517. 117 ‘Samuel Eyre to Anon., 12 May 1695’, Downshire Manuscripts, vol.1, Pt.1 (1924), p.468; ‘Lords Justices to Privy Council 21 October, 1693’, State Papers: Ireland, 1693, SP 63/355, no.105, TNA. 118 John Cary, A discourse concerning the trade of Ireland and Scotland, as they stand in competition with the trade of England (1696); Francis Brewster, Essays on trade and navigation in five parts (1695), pp.11–21. 119 MacInnes, Union and Empire, pp.89–91; Suzanne Forbes, Print and Party Politics in Ireland (2018), pp.145–148. 120 Antoinette Sutto, Loyal Protestants and Dangerous Papists: Maryland and the Politics of Religion in the English Atlantic, 1630–1690 (2015), ch.10; Claudia Schnurmann, ‘The “Glorious Revolution” in the Atlantic World, 1688–1697’ in Herman Wellenreuther (ed.), Jacob Leisler’s Atlantic World in the Later Seventeenth Century: Essays on Religion, Militia, Trade and Networks (2009), pp.119–134; Hilary Beckles, ‘A “riotous and unruly lot”: Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen in the English West Indies, 1644–1713’, WMQ, vol.47, no.4 (1990), pp.519–522. 121 ‘Bellomont to Board of Trade, 22 June 1700’, Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1700– 1701, CO 5/1044, fo.24, TNA; ‘The Earl of Bellomont’s Speech to ye Representatives of his Majesties Province of New York, 21 March 1698’, New York Assembly Journal 1698–1705, pp.20–21, New York Historical Society (NYHS). 122 Alexander Shields, A proper project for Scotland To startle fools, and frighten knaves, but to make wise-men happy (1699), p.41; Nicholas Canny, ‘The Origins of Empire: An Introduction’ in Idem, Oxford History of the 33 became a persistent source of conflict, and it was through projects that the contest between these ideas unfolded. In this highly competitive environment, the surest means to bolster a scheme’s chance of success was for its architects to gain some form of state backing. If projectors were able to achieve this end, then their plans might contribute to processes of state formation, which accelerated dramatically following the 1688 Revolution. Both the new powers allocated to English Parliament and the enormous expense of warfare on the Continent at this time served to expand the administrative and fiscal capacities of the state in England.123 These developments only gained momentum through Anglo–Scottish Union in 1707, in which the emergent British state began to take institutional form.124 Yet, in the years between these events, the growing authority of central government bodies in England did not serve to simply draw the wider anglophone world into the orbit of London.125 The establishment of the Board of Trade in 1695, the passage of commercial legislation in England throughout 1696 and, finally, the failed Resumption Bill of 1701 were all intended to grant English institutions control over trade flows and, consequently, greater revenues.126 The view from North America, however, was rather different. Leisler’s Rebellion in New York and Coode’s Rebellion in Maryland are often considered equivalent American contexts of 1688, but they did not result in the wholesale ceding of governmental or legal control to English institutions, be they parliament, courts or bureaucratic entities.127 In fact, one former political creation aimed at enhancing state authority in the Americas – the Dominion of New England – actually

British Empire, vol.1, p.22; John Robertson, ‘Empire and Union: Two Concepts of the Early Modern European Political Order’ in Idem (ed.), A Union for Empire: Political Thought and the British Union of 1707 (1995), pp.31–35. 123 John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State 1688-1783 (1989), passim; The relationship between war and state formation was most influentially made in Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital and European States: AD 990 – 1992 (1990). 124 Patrick K. O’Brien, ‘Inseparable Connections: Trade, Economy, Fiscal State, and the Expansion of Empire, 1688–1815’ in Marchall and Low, Oxford History of the British Empire, vol.2, pp.65-76; Mark Goldie, ‘Divergence and Union: Scotland and England, 1660-1707’ in Brendan Bradshaw and John Morrill (ed.), The British Problem c-1534-1707: State Formation in the Atlantic Archipelago (1996), pp.220-245; John Brewer, ‘The Eighteenth-Century British State’ in Lawrence Stone (ed.), An Imperial State at War: Britain from 1689- 1815 (1994), pp.52-71. 125 An argument recently advanced in Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.416-427; Koot, Empire at the Periphery, pp.215- 228. Stephen Taylor, ‘Afterword: State Formation, Political Stability and the Revolution of 1688’ in Harris and Taylor, The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy, pp.301-304. 126 Elizabeth Mancke, ‘Empire and State’ in Armitage and Braddick, The British Atlantic World, pp.209-211; Ian K. Steele, ‘The Board of Trade, The Quakers, and the Resumption of Colonial Charters, 1699-1707’, WMQ, vol.23, no.4, pp.596-619. 127 Stanwood, The Empire Reformed, pp.54-57; Lovejoy, Glorious Revolution in America, pp.375-378. 34 disintegrated as a result of the Revolution.128 The wider Stuart world remained a collection of proprietary, private and crown colonies, as well as factories, trade outposts and consulates, well into the eighteenth century. This tangle of different and competing state forms made it challenging for anyone in England to effectively control either overseas territories or movements of people and goods at sea. An absence of hegemonic state institutions only created opportunities for projectors. While 1688 may not have heralded the emergence of a coherent ‘imperial state’, it did underscore the existence of a common political culture that stretched across the dominions of the Stuarts.129 Antipopery, for instance, remained an enduring component in Protestant discourse, present in debates from Ireland to New England and from Barbados to St Helena.130 Similarly, the encouragement and regulation of overseas trade was taken to be a universal good, even though public debate about its organisation was fierce.131 These common discursive frameworks were used by projectors to dramatise the threat posed by common enemies and inflate the public benefits of their schemes, often in the hope that their efforts would secure the patronage of a state body. This dynamic was evident in a plan devised in 1695 by the ship’s captain Richard Long, who intended to settle a colony in Panama and secure access to Spanish gold and silver mines there. Realising that he could not colonise this chosen region with his resources alone, Long then suggested the project to a number of public bodies in the following years. First, the captain tried to sell his scheme to the Jamaican government as an opportunity to draw bullion into the island and encourage trade.132 Long then sought the backing of the English Admiralty

128 Douglas Bradburn, ‘The Visible Fist: The Chesapeake Tobacco Trade in War and the Purpose of Empire’, WMQ, vol.68, no.3 (2011), pp.361-386; Elizabeth Mancke, ‘Negotiating an Empire: Britain and its Overseas Peripheries’ in Christine Daniels and Michael V. Kennedy (eds.), Negotiated Empires: Centers and Peripheries in the Americas, 1500–1820 (2002), pp.242-258. Steve Pincus has argued for the importance of state building efforts by James II, Pincus, 1688, pp.118-220. 129 Pincus, ‘Reconfiguring the British Empire’, pp.63-70’; Michael Braddick, ‘Civility and Authority’ in Armitage and Braddick, The British Atlantic World, 120-132; Brendan McConville, The King’s Three Faces: The Rise & Fall of Royal America, 1688-1776 (2006), pp.49-70. 130 James Kelly, ‘Disappointing the Boundless Ambition of France’: Irish Protestants and the Fear of Invasion, 1661-1815, Studia Hibernica, no.37 (2011), pp.37-50; Owen Stanwood, ‘The Protestant Moment: Antipopery, the Revolution of 1688–1689, and the Making of an Anglo‐American Empire’, Journal of British Studies, vol.46, no.3 (2007), pp.481-507; Beckles, ‘Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen in the English West Indies’, pp.517-522. 131 Jonathan Barth, ‘Reconstructing Mercantilism: Consensus and Conflict in British Imperial Economy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, WMQ, vol.73, no.2 (2016); Steve Pincus, ‘Rethinking Mercantilism: Political Economy, the British Empire, and the Atlantic World in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, WMQ, vol.69, no.1 (2012), pp.264-266. 12-23. 132 ‘Long to Admiralty Board, 29 July 1698’, Captain’s Letters, ADM/1/2033, TNA. 35

Board for settlement designed to repel a predicted French invasion of Panama, before, finally, suggesting his plan to the directors of the Company of Scotland, this time as a common British endeavour to disrupt Catholic influence in Central America.133 While Long was unsuccessful on all counts, his attempts reveal how projects could enhance the authority of state institutions. Using commonly understood but nevertheless controversial issues, he attempted to catch the attention of prospective patrons, many of whom had roles within state institutions. If they were then sponsored by their chosen public body, projectors like Long could expand state influence, albeit asymmetrically and for largely self-interested reasons. As Long’s appeal to the Company of Scotland suggests, those with projects in mind also sought the support of quasi-state corporations. Rather than entirely commercial, value- maximising organisations, many early modern trade corporations were also governmental entities, charged with the management of their employees and a range of others within their allocated jurisdictions.134 Controversies about how trade corporations should be operated only intensified after the Revolution. Monopoly companies, such as the English East India Company and Royal African Company, had previously aligned themselves with James II and were thus weakened by his fall.135 The diminishing of monopoly companies as they had existed under the former monarch allowed competing visions of corporate entities to emerge and become the subject of public debate across the anglophone world. They were predominantly concerned with issues of political economy, as well as the legal jurisdiction and the population management of trading companies. In response, established corporations now had to justify their existence anew, by demonstrating the vast profits they could deliver to their investors and wider society, alongside the efficacy of the specific political ideologies that underpinned their operations. This was a crisis of corporate organisation and, in turn, an opportunity to projectors.136 More adventurous schemes could now be suggested to new and established

133 ‘Richard Long to Thomas Osborne, 15 February 1699’, Egmont Papers, Add. MS 47132, pp.54-56, BL; ‘Richard Long to David Leslie, undated’, Colonel Leven’s Darien Papers, 1699-1700, ADV.MS 83/7/3, fo.6, NLS. 134 William A. Pettigrew, ‘Corporate Constitutionalism and the Dialogue between the Global and Local in Seventeenth-Century English History’, Itinerario, vol.39, no.3 (2015), pp.487-501; Philip Stern, The Company State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India (2011), pp.10- 13; Phil Withington, ‘Public Discourse, Corporate Citizenship, and State Formation in Early Modern England’, The American Historical Review, vol.112, no.4 (2007), pp.1016-1038. 135 William A. Pettigrew, Freedom’s Debt: The Royal African Company and the Politics of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1672-1752, (2013), pp.25, 30-38; Stern, Company State, pp.142-158. 136 Pincus, 1688, pp.386-388. Alfred C. Wood, A History of the Levant Company (1964), pp.114-119. 36 corporations, which they would likely have rejected in more stable times. In 1699, for instance, one anonymous resident of New York City proposed a colony at Madagascar to the Company of Scotland, an organisation established by Act of Scottish Parliament, but opposed by all of the major English trade corporations.137 The proposal outlined the immense profits to be realised from the slave trade there and that the island could also serve as a foothold for the Company in the Indian Ocean. This suggestion resonated with some of the corporation’s directors, resulting in their initial attempts to establish a trade with the island four years later.138 As a long-established but malleable part of early modern governance, trading companies became as increasingly important source of patronage for projectors, as the events of 1688 saw corporate monopolies weakened. From here, it is possible to begin to consider where pirates fitted into the social anxieties, material circumstances and political changes of the 1690s. As an extranational other, they held a rhetorical value, allowing individuals to argue that their own plans brought clear public benefits if they were able to suppress pirates and perhaps obtain state support in the process. At the same time, to claim that one particular group or practice encouraged pirates became a potent means to discredit rivals and advance individual plans. Others might use the material understanding of pirates to argue that they knew how these wayward sailors could be absorbed back into society and made useful. The malleability of the crime of piracy also had similar uses. Subtle alterations in the understanding of piracy made during investigations and trials could ensure that prosecutions took place, which then vindicated specific ideological positions. As part of the anglophone world’s common political language, the term pirate was applied unevenly and used to describe very different groups of people.

*** This thesis will work to trace these relationships between pirates and the Age of Projects, considering their implications for the wider anglophone world. It is divided into five chapters, each oriented around a particular scheme, its many contexts and how pirates were created to

137 ‘Proposal to the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies for Establishing a Trade at Madagascar’, Papers of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, 1696–1707, MS 63, no.12, Senate House Library Special Collections (SHL). The extent of opposition to the Company of Scotland is conveyed in House of Lords Papers 23 November to 3 December 1695, HL/PO/JO/10/1/525/1486, Parliamentary Archives (PA) 138 ‘Anon. to Thomas Bowrey, October 1704’, Thomas Bowrey Papers, MS 24176, p.33, LMA. 37 advance it. The first considers the renewed colonisation of Ireland during the 1690s and how debates about its purpose, divided between English and Irish Protestants, came to be reflected on sea. The passage of Roman Catholic migrants and refugees between Ireland and the French possessions, which only grew after the Jacobite War concluded, became central here. As colonisation schemes were once again implemented on land, Irish Protestants argued for relatively open connections to the wider world, while English interests sought to see the island’s coasts closed. To achieve the latter aim, the advocates of the English High Court of Admiralty sought to establish their court as the preeminent institution governing movements along Ireland’s coasts, an aim that played out through the attempted prosecution of a number of Irish sailors for piracy. The second chapter deals with the Company of Scotland’s Darien Scheme. It traces why the project was persistently associated with pirates, by situating it within a decades-long conflict in the Caribbean between plantation colonies and entrepôts. While it was gold and silver stolen from Spanish towns and treasure shipments that made both colonial forms possible for Protestants, by the 1690s those with interests in plantation economies had come to follow after the example set previously by Spanish government officials and associate free ports with pirates. The scheme’s architect, William Paterson, specifically sought to build his colony in Panama on the example of Caribbean buccaneers, who had operated in the region from the 1650s. Against the background of French plans to seize control of the entire Caribbean, the conflict between these colonial forms became central to the eventual failure of the Darien Scheme, bookended by the trials of Scottish sailors for piracy in Seville during 1701. Chapter three focuses on Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont, and his attempt to transfer Irish colonisation techniques to the northeast via a naval stores project. It begins by laying out how longue dureé processes of settlement and oceanic exchange steered the northeast to trade goods stolen in the Indian Ocean. Upon his arrival in New York in 1698, Bellomont was able to claim that his rivals were responsible for this trade with pirates, part of his attempt to eliminate those who stood in the way of his naval stores scheme, which he claimed would secure the region from France and break its dependency upon trade with Madagascar. When it became public knowledge that he himself had been involved with this trade, however, it threatened to undermine his best-laid plans, leaving him scrambling to weather the unfolding scandal.

The fourth chapter follows the attempt to create an Anglican missionary society, which picked up steam through the 1690s. The initial intention of this project’s promoters was to secure converts from among the ranks of the Quakers, who had grown substantially in North America from the mid-seventeenth century. It traces three particular fronts in the push to bring this project to fruition, being Anglican attempts to defeat a Catholic–Quaker coalition in Maryland who resisted their advance, a schism in Pennsylvania and, eventually, the accusation that the religious principles of the Society of Friends encouraged pirates. In particular, the latter allowed the scheme to be transformed into an attempt to spread Anglicanism across the Americas via the passage of an Act of English Parliament, something that a coalition of dissenter lobbyists came to oppose. Finally, chapter five is centred upon Madagascar and three particular schemes to colonise the island. The first was instituted in the 1640s by the Assada Company, the second by colonists from North America during the 1680s and the third and final by the Company of Scotland in 1701. This recurring colonial project intended to link the trades of the Americas and Indian Ocean, but it also stood to undermine the monopoly of the EIC. In the second case, the EIC was in a fragile position after 1688, following its support for James II, so the Company pursued the Madagascar colonists as pirates as a means to demonstrate the effectiveness of monopoly rule. The attempt by the Company of Scotland to found a colony there then produced the inverse, a piracy trial in Edinburgh that explicitly challenged the English Company’s grip on trade with the east. This prosecution fomented so much discord between England and Scotland that it ultimately made the case for strengthening the EIC’s monopoly, seeing the Company of Scotland abolished in 1701. The thesis then concludes by considering the implications of both understanding the history of pirates this way and interpreting the 1690s as the Age of Projects.

I: The Colonising of Ireland, Franco–Irish Networks and Piracy, 1689–1697

On 26 February 1694, two Irish sailors, Darby Collins and Patrick Quidley, were found guilty of piracy and robbery at a session of England’s High Court of Admiralty in London. The two men went to the scaffold protesting their innocence after a trial in which questions of allegiance had proven more significant than demonstrating the intention of wrongdoing.1 Both Collins and Quidley were condemned for piracy on account of having seized English ships while under the commission of James II, the Catholic king-in-exile to whom both continued in their loyalty. The Admiralty Judge Charles Hedges provided the verdict: as James was no longer a monarch, any commission he granted was simply that of a private person, invalid under the law of nations.2 Historians have tended to view this trial as an intriguing, but ultimately even-handed execution of the law, according it only a minor significance.3 Scratch below the surface, however, and unique circumstances appear that imply otherwise. For instance, in a rush to secure their condemnation, the English Privy Council dismissed and replaced two admiralty advocates who disagreed with the charge of piracy.4 Out of the five Irish sailors condemned for piracy in 1694, only Quidley and Collins were executed, while the remaining three were transported to the Caribbean as indentured servants. Equally, this trial did not set any kind of precedent. Nobody else tried at the Court for operating under commission from James was sentenced for piracy, despite the lengths to which the civilians had gone to secure a guilty verdict in the first place. To understand why it seemed so imperative that Quidley and Collins be found guilty, it is necessary look beyond the courtroom and consider the many local, regional and global contexts against which this piracy trial took place. Their conviction should not be seen as the impartial application of the law, but as part of a resurgent

1 ‘Sentences given in the High Court of Admiralty, 26 February 1694’, ‘Sheriff’s instructions for the Execution of Pirates and Traitors, 2 March 1694’, High Court of Admiralty: Court of Oyer and Terminar: Indictments and Proceedings Filed, 1692–1696, HCA 1/13, fos.32–34, The British National Archives (TNA). 2 Matthew Tindal, An essay concerning the laws of nations, and the rights of soveraigns with an account of what was said at the council-board by the civilians (1694). 3 M.J. Prichard and D.E.C. Yale (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction (1993), pp.clvii-clviii; J.S. Bromley, ‘The Jacobite Privateers in the Nine Years War’ in Idem, Corsairs and Navies, pp.159–162; Olive Anderson, ‘British Governments and Rebellion at Sea’, The Historical Journal, vol.3, no.1 (1960), pp.59–61. An exception which considers the longue durée English legal context of the trial is in: Rubin, The Law of Piracy, pp.74– 86. 4 ‘William Oldys’ Account of Proceedings before the Admiralty, September 1693’, Dr. Oldish’s plea for some seamen who were condemn’d as pyrates for fighting under K. James’s commission, circa 1693, MS Osborn185b, pp.1–3, The Beinecke Library, Yale University (YBL). 40 debate amongst Protestants about how plantation schemes in Ireland should be resumed and secured. At issue were connections that Irish Catholics had developed with France and the Caribbean, long-established networks only strengthened following the defeat of the Irish Jacobites in 1691. How should Protestants in England and Ireland react to these movements of people? Should Irish networks be severed to prevent French influence in Ireland, rendering it in practice a colony for England? Or could these same linkages be appropriated by Protestant colonisers to secure a more prosperous, autonomous future for Ireland? This was not a question that could truly be resolved by any parliament or council chamber, but only in practice on Ireland’s coasts and at the sessions of admiralty courts. This chapter will argue that the attempted prosecution of Irish Catholics for piracy during the Jacobite War was conducted as part of the ongoing debate about the purpose of Protestant colonisation schemes and how their objectives should best be transferred onto sea. The suppressing of Franco–Irish networks was viewed by politicians in England as part of a plan to reduce Ireland to a dependent supply colony, while Protestant landowners and merchants in Ireland sought to repurpose those networks to grow the island’s prosperity. Attempts to prosecute these sailors for piracy were part of the former design, intended to sever Irish Catholic connections with French dominions. In doing so, the English High Court of Admiralty sought to establish itself as the dominant authority on Ireland’s coasts, transforming the function of their institution. To explore this context to the piracy trials, the following will be divided into three sections. The first sketches the long history of English military interventions and colonisation schemes in Ireland, especially how they prompted thousands of Irish Catholics to leave the island’s shores for the European Continent and the Americas. By the outbreak of war once again in 1689, these migrants had formed extensive networks, most notably between Ireland, the Caribbean and the port towns of Brittany, maturing over time into an international Irish community, which stood ready to receive a further wave of exiles. In parallel, debates began to emerge among Protestants about the relationship of Protestant plantation on land to movements of people and goods on sea. The second section then considers how, after James II’s surrender at Limerick in 1691, Irish Catholics flooded into these international networks, seeing the endangered Jacobite cause meld with the commercial activities of the island in France and the Caribbean. Through a succession of close studies, it reconstructs the international networks of Irish Catholics in depth, tracing the existence of their wartime economy and how they made distinct possibilities of both the reinvasion of Ireland and

41 the French driving the English from the Caribbean. The final section then considers Protestant reactions to this new challenge. English politicians realised that renewed plantation schemes were no longer enough to secure the island from Catholic France and that, alongside territory, coastlines also had to be controlled in practice. The challenge for them became that no uncontroversial means to do so existed. Attempts to create an institutional solution revived Restoration-era debates about the relationship between plantation schemes and commercial exchange, but this time oriented around how to best neutralise Irish Catholic support for James II and Louis XIV. The final section moves to consider how the English Admiralty Board attempted to establish control of littoral Ireland, seizing “illegal” traders and privateers, who were then tried in its judicial arm, the High Court of Admiralty. The prosecutions of Irish Catholic sailors which followed are then tracked in detail, examining the controversies surrounding the attempts by the civilians to define them as pirates, before then weighing their implications for the “war against the pirates” later in the decade.

*** Across the seventeenth century, Irish Catholics came to migrate in large numbers both to continental Europe and across the Atlantic, yet they often did so involuntarily, as a consequence of foreign military interventions and colonisation schemes. Yet, over time, these outmigrations became networks that were built upon commercial exchange and solidified through the growing status of Irish Catholics in the regions they relocated to. Emigrants moved from serving as grist for the Habsburg war machine and an exploited labour force in the Caribbean to being active participants in European colonialism, especially as traders and planters. When the Jacobites surrendered at Limerick in October 1691, these networks, which spanned the Atlantic, provided significant opportunities for Irish migrants, serving only to amplify the threat that Protestants perceived from Catholic Ireland. Direct emigration to France and Spain formed an important first step in forging more permanent international connections for Irish Catholics. While broader demographic pressures common across Europe, such as real wage stagnation, unemployment and periods of dearth, played a role in pushing Catholics to leave, military interventions, beginning in 1570 with the suppression of the Desmond Rebellion, remained a significant cause.5 Successive attempts by the English crown to “reconquer”

5 An extensive literature exists on plantation schemes and their causes, for the most up to date overviews: Colm Lennon, ‘Protestant Reformations, 1550–1641’, John Jeremiah Cronin and Pádraig Lenihan, ‘Wars of Religion, 42

Ireland across the sixteenth century resulted in the ultimately unsuccessful attempts by Tudor monarchs to establish full control over the island, seeing ultimately failed colonisation projects attempted in Munster.6 These invasions were distinct from medieval interventions launched from England, as, by the second half of the sixteenth century, contemporaries such as Edmund Spenser viewed the contest for Ireland within the wider context of the European Wars of Religion.7 Shared bonds of religion became significant in determining the destinations of emigrants, many of whom left for Spain during the final two decades of the sixteenth century, promoting an increased flow of commodities and people between Ireland and the Iberian Peninsula.8 Some Catholic Irish also migrated to France during this period, but in much smaller numbers: around three thousand people prior to 1633, mostly poorer, transient populations to Paris and Brittany.9 However, mid-century

1641–1691’, Clodagh Tait, ‘Society, 1550–1700’, Annaleigh Margey, ‘Plantations, 1550–1641’ all in Ohlmeyer, New History of Ireland, vol.3, pp.196–219, 246–270, 273–297, 555–583; also see the essays in Ciaran Brady and Jane Ohlmyer (eds.), British Interventions in Early Modern Ireland (2004); Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British 1580–1650 (2001); for overviews of Irish emigration beginning in this period see: Enda Delaney, ‘Migration and Diaspora’ in Alvin Jackson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History (2014), pp.126–147; Donald M. MacRaild and Malcolm Smith, ‘Migration and Emigration, 1600–1945’ in Liam Kennedy and Philip Ollerenshaw (eds.), Ulster Society Since 1600: Politics, Economy and Society (2013), pp.141–144; Patrick Fitzgerald and Brian Lambkin, Migration in Irish History, 1607–2007 (2008), pp.73–112; Louis Cullen, ‘The Irish Diaspora of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), Europeans on the Move: Studies on European Migration 1500–1800 (1994), pp.113–149. 6 Steven G. Ellis, Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 1447–1603: English Expansion and the End of Gaelic Rule (2014), pp.352–358; While widely cited, earlier editions Ellis’s works remain controversial. See: Kenneth Nicholls, ‘Worlds Apart? The Ellis Two-Nation Theory on Late Medieval Ireland’, History Ireland, vol.2, no.2 (1999), pp.22– 26; Nicholas Canny, ‘Revising the Revisionist’, Irish Historical Studies, vol.118 (1996), pp.242–254; Steven G. Ellis, ‘Writing Irish History: Revisionism, Colonialism, and the British Isles’, The Irish Review, no.19 (1996), pp.1– 21; Nancy J. Curtin, ‘“Varieties of Irishness”: Historical Revisionism, Irish Style’, Journal of British Studies, vol.35, no.2 (1996), pp.195–219; Ciaran Brady, ‘Comparable Histories?: Tudor Reform in Wales and Ireland’ in Stephen G. Ellis (ed.), Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State, 1485–1725 (1995), pp.64–86; Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Nationalism and Historical Scholarship in Modern Ireland’, Irish Historical Studies, vol.26, no.104 (1989), pp.329– 351. 7 Edmund Spenser, A View of the Present State of Irelande (1596); Fynes Moryson, An Itinerary: Concerning his Ten Years Travel through the Twelve Dominions of Germany, Bohemia, Switzerland, Netherland, Denmark, Poland, Italy, Turkey, France, England, Scotland and Ireland (1617); Nicholas Canny, ‘Ireland and Continental Europe c.1600–c.1750’ in Alvin Jackson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History (2014), pp.334–342; Ciaran O’Scea, ‘Special Privileges for the Irish in the Kingdom of Castille (1601–1680): Modern Myth or Contemporary Reality?’ in David Worthington (ed.), British and Irish Emigrants and Exiles in Europe: 1603–1688 (2010), pp.107– 124; Tadhg Ó hAnnracháin, ‘The Strategic Involvement of Continental Powers in Ireland 1596–1691’ in Padraig Lenihan (ed.), Conquest and Resistance: Irish War in Seventeenth-Century Ireland (2001), pp.25–52. 8 Thomas O’Connor, Irish Voices from the Spanish Inquisition: Migrants, Converts and Brokers in Early Modern Iberia (2016), pp.33–59; Óscar Recio Morales, ‘Identity and Loyalty: Irish Traders in Seventeenth Century Iberia’ in David Dickson, Jan Parmentier and Jane H. Ohlmeyer (eds.), Irish and Scottish Mercantile Networks in Europe and Overseas in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (2007), pp.198–203; Louis Cullen, ‘The Irish Diaspora’, pp.121–123; Karin Schüller, 'Irish Migrant Networks and Rivalries in Spain, 1575–1659’ in Thomas O’Connor and Mary Ann Lyon (eds.), Irish Migrants in Europe After Kinsale, 1602–1820 (2003), pp.88–103. 9 Éamon Ó Ciosáin, ‘Hidden by 1688 And After: Irish Catholic Migration to France, 1590–1685’ in Worthington, British and Irish Emigrants, p.126. 43 upheavals, in the form of both the Confederate Wars and Cromwellian Conquest, saw Irish Catholics venture to France in far higher numbers, especially to the port towns of Brittany, such as St Malo, Nantes and Morlaix. In particular, extensive land confiscations and colonisation following the Cromwellian Conquest forced those of a higher socioeconomic status, including gentry and merchants, to begin settling in Brittany and Normandy as they had previously in Spain, forming the basis of an enduring Franco-Irish community.10 There were at least a thousand Irish people settled in northwestern France by the mid-1660s.11 As most were not restored to their estates after the Restoration, a sizeable number chose to remain in France and Spain, producing a further rise in the number of merchants residing in continental Europe with familial links to Ireland.12 By 1689, the impact of these networks on the island were visible, as port towns, such as Waterford, Dublin and especially Cork, grew at a considerably faster rate than landlocked towns, part of Ireland’s greater reorientation towards overseas exchange.13 The example of Cork is especially significant here, as its growing success during the seventeenth century owed to Irish movements westward into the Caribbean. Confession played a far less significant role in promoting this migration, which flowed mainly into English dominions but also in small numbers to Spanish and French colonies. From the 1630s, thousands of Irish indentured servants were traded out of Atlantic ports like Cork, Youghal and Galway into plantations in the Caribbean.14 During the following decade, prisoners taken during the Confederate Wars were shipped to the Caribbean, but their numbers were eclipsed by the outpouring of around fifty thousand prisoners following the Cromwellian Conquest.15 In small numbers at first, Irish

10 Nicholas Canny, ‘the Irish Colony in Bordeaux, 1757: A Representative Sample of Irish Communities Abroad?’ in Thomas Truxes (ed.), Ireland, France, and the Atlantic in a Time of War: Reflections on the Bordeaux-Dublin Letters, 1757 (2017), pp.32–50; Ó Ciosáin, ‘Irish Catholic Migration’, pp.128–133. 11 Mary Ann Lyons, ‘The Emergence of an Irish Community in Saint-Malo, 1550–1710’ in Thomas O’Connor (eds.), The Irish in Europe 1580–1815 (2001), p.107. 12 Louis Cullen, ‘Economic Trends, 1660–91’ in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), Early Modern Ireland, 1534–1691, 3rd ed. (1991), pp.387–407; Louis Cullen, ‘Galway Merchants in the Outside World’ in Diarmaid Ó Cearbhaill (ed.), Galway Town and Gown (1984), pp.63–65. For example, the merchant John Aylward traded between Waterford, Cadiz, St Malo and London predominantly using networks of family members and other Irish Catholics, ‘William Wilcox to John Aylward, 12 October 1683’, ‘James Breedy to Aylward, 20 July 1684’, ‘Walter Ryan to Aylward, 31 October 1683’, The Correspondence of John Aylward AY2, no.11, AY3, no.11, AY76, no.1, Arundel Castle Archive (ACA). 13 Raymond Gillespie, ‘War and the Irish Town: The Early Modern Experience’ in Lenihan, Conquest and Resistance, pp.295–8; Cullen, ‘Economic Trends’, pp.399–400. 14 Truxes, Irish American Trade, p.14. 15 Sean O’Callaghan, To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland (2000), pp.77–88; John Blake, ‘Transportation from Ireland to America, 1653–60’, Irish Historical Studies, vol.3 (1943), pp.267–81; David Harris Sacks, The Widening Gate: Bristol and the Atlantic Economy 1450–1700 (1991), pp.264–265. 44

Catholics also became active participants in colonising ventures. In English possessions, there was an early Irish majority in Montserrat, who established themselves as merchants and planters there, while other migrants took on similar roles at St Christopher’s as early as 1627.16 Their settlement proceeded at such a rate that, by 1678, a third of the population of the English-owned Leeward Isles were Irish.17 Yet they also ventured to areas beyond those claimed by the English crown. From 1635, Irish immigrants were received on French islands, such as Guadeloupe and, eventually, Hispaniola, where some were able to establish themselves as traders.18 This emerging population of Irish merchants in the Caribbean retained connections to Ireland, finding opportunities in the transition of the region to a sugar monoculture after 1660.19 Using their connections to cattle farming regions in Ireland, merchants sourced enormous quantities of provisions, exporting sugar and tobacco in return. By 1686, almost half of Ireland’s beef exports went to the West Indies, a trade that far eclipsed supply from any other part of Europe. As exchange with the West Indies grew in significance for Ireland, the island mirrored the trend in England, seeing Atlantic trade come to account for a far higher percentage of overseas commerce.20 A substantial proportion of Irish migrants entered the Caribbean as an exploited labour force, but by the late seventeenth century they also came to play a role as colonisers. While they are often studied separately, these two migration traditions did not exist in isolation from one another. Instead they interacted to produce oceanic networks, a phenomenon dubbed the ‘green Atlantic’ by some historians.21 For instance, Irish merchants who settled in France became involved in trading with the West Indies. Nicholas Geraldin (Fitzgerald), originally of Kilkenny, migrated to Nantes sometime after the 1641 uprising and remained there after unsuccessfully

16 John Hilton, ‘A Relation of the First Settlement of St Christopher’s and Nevis, 1675’ in Aubrey Gwynn (ed.), ‘Documents Relating to the Irish in the West Indies’, Analecta Hibernica, no.4 (1932), pp.170–171; Donald H. Akenson, If the Irish Ran the World: Montserrat, 1630–1730 (1997). 17 Block and Shaw, ‘Subjects Without an Empire’, pp.33–60; ‘Hilary Beckles, ‘A “riotous and unruly lot"’, pp.504– 522; Richard S. Dunn, Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624–1713 (1972), p.127. 18 William O’Reilly, ‘Ireland in the Atlantic World: Migration and Cultural Transfer’ in Ohlmeyer, New History of Ireland, pp.392, 398–399; Guy Saupin, ‘Les Réseaux Commerciaux Irlandes de Nantes sous la Règne des Louis XIV’ in Dickson et al., Irish and Scottish Mercantile Networks. 19 Beckles, ‘The ‘Hub of Empire’, pp.224–227. 20 Truxes, Irish-American Trade, pp.24–25. 21 Kevin Whelan, ‘The Green Atlantic: Radical Reciprocities between Ireland and America in the Long Eighteenth Century’ in Kathleen Wilson (ed.), A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity and Modernity in Britain and the Empire, 1660–1840 (2004), pp.216–238. 45 attempting to have his property restored in 1661.22 While the Geraldins traded wherever they could turn a profit, Nicholas and other members of his family formed a lucrative triangular trade between Brittany, Ireland and the French West Indies during the 1680s.23 Successive generations of the Geraldins continued their trans-Atlantic commerce from Brittany, joined by other Irish merchant families in utilising connections to Irish Catholics permanently settled in the Caribbean.24 These networks had an impact beyond merchant profits, however, and saw a continuing exchange of population between Ireland and those of Irish descent in continental Europe and the Americas. The testimonies of two Irish sailors later prosecuted by the English High Court of Admiralty provide an illustration of this enduring movement of people. The mariner John Walsh demonstrates how established Franco-Irish people could make use of Atlantic networks. Born in Nantes in 1670 to an Irish father and French mother, Walsh left for Ireland when he was thirteen years old and became apprenticed to a French merchant who lived in Clonmel. Throughout the following years, he served predominantly on ships journeying between Ireland, the French Caribbean and France. Walsh led a predominantly transient life, and he never truly settled in one place; he was sustained by, and had a role in, maintaining these networks.25 Others made their way to Ireland for the first time from the other side of the Atlantic. Daniel Callaghan was born in Martinique sometime in 1671 to Irish and French parents. As a child he was apprenticed to various merchants in the Caribbean, all of whom were family members, migrating first to Nevis and then to Montserrat. Seeking to establish himself in Ireland, he bound himself to a ship’s captain intending for Galway, but he was shipwrecked off the coast nearby and forced into vagrancy. Eventually he found service in the household of a Scottish planter in County Down.26 Before 1689, military interventions, land confiscations and colonisation projects in Ireland were always aided by the fact that detractors were expected to dutifully go into exile and not return. Yet

22 John Patrick Prendergast, The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland (1865), p.299; Richard Francis Hayes, Old Irish Links with France: Some Echoes of Exiled Ireland (1940), p.189. 23 Saupin, ‘Les Réseaux Commerciaux Irlandes de Nantes’, Dickinson et al., Irish and Scottish Commercial Networks; Aubrey Gwynn (ed.), ‘The Blake Family in the West Indies’ in ‘Documents Relating to the Irish in the West Indies’, pp.273–278. 24 The Geraldins continued trading to Ireland and the West Indies through the 1690s, see ‘Joseph Comerford to John Aylward, 17 October 1692’, ‘Daniel Arthur to Helena Aylward’, 15 April 1693’, ‘Patrick Comerford to John Aylward, 26 July 1696’, Aylward Correspondence, AY7, no.1, AY11, no.33, AY11, no.101, ACA; for other merchants see Giada Pizzoni, ‘British Catholics’ Commercial Strategies in times of International Warfare (1688– 1705)’, The Seventeenth Century, vol.32, no.1 (2017), pp.81–102. 25 ‘The Testimony of John Walsh, 8 September 1694’, High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Examinations of Pirates and Other Criminals, 1683–1694, HCA 1/52, fo.182, TNA. 26 ‘The Testimony of Daniel Callaghan, 9 May 1694’, Examinations of Pirates, HCA 1/52, fo.170, TNA. 46 a significant and unexpected long-term consequence of these movements of people and goods was the creation of an international Irish community, who, like Dutch merchants, sailors and colonists had previously, thrived as “go-betweens” in spaces between other European territories.27 Above all, kinship, religion and unique economic opportunities ensured that emigrants retained their connections to Ireland and, in turn, allowed the island to begin to find its place as an Atlantic power. From the early seventeenth century, English and Scottish military, administrative and commercial interventions in Ireland were consistently underpinned by the struggle to balance the view that the island was seen both as a Catholic threat and an untapped economic opportunity. Initial English and Scottish efforts were directed towards reducing the number of Catholics in Ireland, with plantation schemes instituted first in Munster from 1585, then Ulster after 1609, seeing around a hundred thousand English and Scottish colonists migrate to Ireland before 1641.28 The crown believed the Catholic Irish to be their foremost problem, a force that could only be truly broken by a policy of direct colonisation, summarised by James VI/I, when he claimed that ‘since we cannot now apply laws to fit the people…we will apply the people and fit them to the laws’.29 Anglican or Presbyterian immigrants were to implement “improvement” schemes: to settle large tracts of land in the hope that Protestant masters would either convert Catholics or at least render them profitable.30 A significant impetus for these colonisation efforts proceeded from the climate of intense anti-popery in England from the later sixteenth century, shaped by the still-fresh memory of the Marian persecutions, the continuing threat of Catholic plots against Elizabeth I and finally the thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605.31 Hence the initial aims of “improvement” projects were at once commercial and confessional, meaning the increase of Protestants and their profits in

27 Andreas Höfele and Werner von Koppenfels, ‘Introduction’ in Idem (eds.), Renaissance Go-Betweens: Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe (2005), pp.1–17. 28 Jane H. Ohlmeyer, ‘“Civilizinge of those Rude Partes”: Colonization within Britain and Ireland, 1580s-1640s’ in Canny, Oxford History of the British Empire, vol.1, p.139. 29 Quoted in Canny, Making Ireland British, p.47. 30 David Hayton, ‘From Barbarian to Burlesque: The Changing Stereotype of the Irish’ in Idem (ed.), The Anglo- Irish Experience, 1680–1730: Religion, Identity and Patriotism (2012), pp.1–24. Nicholas Canny, ‘The Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland to America’ in WMQ, vol.30 (1973), pp.575–598; Richard Barnabe, A new description of Ireland wherein is described the disposition of the Irish whereunto they are inclined (1610); Sir John Davies, A Discovery of the True Causes why Ireland was Never Entirely Subdued, nor Brought Under Obedience of the Crowne of England (1612). 31 Lake, ‘Anti-Popery’, pp.72–106. 47

Ireland.32 Yet the result was not widespread conversion, but a reification of confessional difference through the transfer of lands and wealth into the hands of Protestant immigrants.33 Following the gradual Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, which concluded in 1659, the recurring need to balance threat and economic opportunity prompted a divergence among Protestants. In particular, differences emerged in their understanding of how Ireland should be “improved” and for whose benefit. Here, it is beneficial to again briefly consider William Petty, who first received his lands in Ireland as part of the Cromwellian Land Confiscations.34 While initially responsible for overseeing the dispossession of thousands of Irish Catholics into Connacht and the Caribbean, his views, like those of many other Protestants in Ireland, gradually moved away from the belief that Catholics ought to be removed from Ireland by conversion or dispossession.35 Instead he claimed that the island was under-populated, while its lands and people remained under-utilised, arguing that solving unemployment and poverty would by themselves bring Catholics to Protestantism.36 Petty believed that outward emigration and workhouses would ensure that those opposed to any such designs were prevented from obstructing the overall objective of rendering Ireland profitable to Protestant landowners.37 He criticised some in England too, railing against their absentee landlordism and their imposing of heavy taxes, which he believed drew specie out of Ireland into England, arguing the island would never be improved and made Protestant if these practices continued.38 Thus he approved of the growing trade carried on in Ireland, as well as commercial links from the island with both the European Continent and the Caribbean; in fact he set out to encourage Irish commerce. Between 1676 and 1683 he served as Judge of the Irish High

32 Barnard, Improving Ireland, pp.1–16. 33 Jane H. Ohlmeyer, ‘Making Ireland English: The Early Seventeenth Century Irish Peerage’ in Brian Mac Cuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland, 1550–1700: Colonization and its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (2011), pp.131–147; S.J. Connolly, Contested Island: Ireland 1460–1630 (2007), pp.321–322; Harold O’Sullivan, ‘Dynamics of Regional Development: Processes of Assimilation and Division in the Marchland of South-East Ulster in Late Medieval and Early Modern Ireland’ in Brady and Ohlmeyer, British Interventions in Early Modern Ireland, pp.69–70; Alan Ford, the Protestant Reformation in Ireland, 1590–1641 (1985), p.131. 34 Toby Barnard, ‘Petty, Sir William (1623–1687)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Sept 2013, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22069, accessed 17 April 2017]. 35 McCormick, The Ambitions of Political Arithmetic, pp.84–118. 36 Barnard, Improving Ireland, p.30. 37 William Petty, A treatise of taxes and contributions shewing the nature and measures of crown-lands, assessments, customs, poll-moneys, lotteries, benevolence, penalties, monopolies, offices, tythes, raising of coins, harth-money, excize, &c. (1662), pp.14–19; Idem, The Political Anatomy of Ireland (1691). The latter work was effectively a compilation of Petty’s previous writings and ideas which had been circulated in manuscript, see Charles Henry Hull (ed.), The Economic Writings of William Petty, together with Observations Upon the Bills of Mortality, More Probably by Captain John Graunt, vol.1 (1899), p.121, n.1. 38 William Petty, Some of the observations made by W. P. upon the trade of Irish cattel (1673); Idem, The Political Anatomy of Ireland (1691), pp.68–93. 48

Court of Admiralty, where he attempted, ultimately unsuccessfully, to transform the Court into the sole authority in maritime affairs in Ireland, one not subordinate to its English counterpart.39 While a perception of the threat posed by Irish Catholics certainly remained, by 1689, Protestant landowners in Ireland increasingly advocated improvement, understood as the increase of Protestants and profits, but through the encouragement of trade alongside plantation schemes. Commerce, rather than just coercion, was increasingly seen as an important means to neutralise the Catholic threat. The developing ideology of Irish Protestants, however, had only a limited resonance the other side of the Irish Sea. After the Restoration, Charles II did not retain a commitment to the widespread plantation of Ireland, nor did he turn to promoting policies of commercialisation and improvement. He instead favoured an ambiguous middle ground to secure peace on the island by favouring Protestants but not heavily penalising Catholics. For instance, the partial reversal of the Cromwellian Land Settlement in 1662 only restored some Catholics to their estates, a measure seen as both overly-generous by Protestants and miserly by Catholics.40 A period of relative peace between the Stuarts and Catholics powers on the European Continent, particularly after the Treaty of Madrid in 1670, also meant that Ireland was, for the most part, not seen to be significant as a potential theatre of conflict.41 This peace in the end brought prosperity after years of upheaval, and some Irish landowners recovered over the course of two decades, bolstered, as previously demonstrated, by taking advantage of dispersed Irish populations in the Caribbean and on the Continent.42 Yet expanding Irish trade with the Caribbean quickly caught the eye of England’s merchants and, eventually, English Parliament. A string of statutes – first the Staple Act (1633) and then the Navigation Act (1673) – expressly forbade Irish merchants from directly trading in plantation goods without first landing in England.43 Yet Ireland was not the primary focus of these

39 Costello, The Court of Admiralty of Ireland, pp.50–53; ‘A Paper of Sir William Petty’s upon ye General Subject of ye Admiralty Court and Dr. Trumbull’s animadversions thereon, March 1678’, Pepys’ Papers, Rawlinson MS A.191, no.59, BLO; Robert Southwell, ‘A Defence of the Present Settlement of Ireland, 1685’, Miscellaneous Irish Papers, 1660–88, Carte MS 69, fos.343–357, BLO; Toby Barnard, ‘Interests in Ireland: the ‘fanatic zeal and irregular ambition’ of Richard Lawrence’ in Brady and Ohlmeyer, British Interventions in Early Modern Ireland, p.30; Thomas Bartlett, The Fall and Rise of the Irish Nation: The Catholic Question, 1690–1830 (1992), pp.9–11. The most decisive expression of this emergent interest was William Molyneux, The case of Ireland’s being bound by acts of Parliament in England (1698). 40 Karl S. Bottigheimer, ‘The Restoration Land Settlement in Ireland: A Structural View’, Irish Historical Studies, vol.18, no.69 (1972), pp.1–21. 41 Ó hAnnracháian, ‘Strategic Involvement’, p.44. 42 J.G. Simms, ‘The Restoration, 1660–85’ in Moody, Martin and Byrne, Early Modern Ireland, pp.420–453. 43 Truxes, Irish American Trade, p.7. 49 acts, nor did English commentators universally perceive a threat from Irish trade and perhaps as a result, enforcement remained insufficient and Irish traders continued to expand their participation in overseas commerce.44 By 1660, Protestant landowners and merchants in England and Ireland disagreed about how the island should be colonised, but the issue was contained by the hesitancy of the monarch to pick a side. On the one hand, some Protestant landowners in Ireland saw engagement in overseas trade, in which their products were exported to France and the slave plantations of the Caribbean, as fundamental to the success of their plantation schemes. On the other hand, commercial and political interests in England simply sought to isolate Ireland from the outside world, containing both the threat of Catholicism and any potential competition from the island’s merchants. By the late 1680s, a belief began to stir within England that Ireland had risen to become a competitor which acted against English interests through its growing participation in Atlantic commerce.45 In contrast, Irish Catholics looked, as they had done for over a century, to their connections with Catholic powers on the European Continent and to European possessions in the Americas, links which were well- established by the late seventeenth century. By the outbreak of the Jacobite War in 1689, at least three visions of Ireland’s future existed, all oriented around the relationship between colonisation on land and commerce on sea.

*** The coming of war once again in 1689 had a disproportionate impact upon poorer Irish Catholics, but even after the Jacobite surrender at Limerick in 1691, they were not without opportunities. Renewed land confiscations and plantations schemes forced many Catholics to leave their homes, in the process melding their economic survival with a continuing commitment to the Jacobite cause internationally. A Catholic wartime economy began to form, expanded by recent migrants but utilising networks which had grown up as a consequence of military interventions dating back decades. The coasts of Ireland suffered more than most areas as a consequence of the war. Catholics inhabiting the region between Kinsale and Waterford were first plundered by Dutch and English

44 Ibid., pp.8–13. 45 Nicholas Canny, Kingdom and Colony: Ireland in the Atlantic World, 1560–1800 (1988). 50 privateers, before then becoming subject to harsh military rule by Williamites.46 In October 1690, the taking of Cork harbour by Protestant forces was immediately followed by the raiding of the countryside around the port by soldiers.47 An officer at Cork around this time claimed that, by the time the Treaty of Limerick was signed, he had hanged around three thousand Jacobites and their sympathisers, while accumulating £12,000 worth of plunder.48 Within Ireland, the dispossessed turned to banditry, becoming what contemporaries termed ‘rapparees’, often allying themselves with army deserters and Jacobite soldiers who refused to surrender. Rapparees were especially common around Galway, the Kerry Coast and the countryside surrounding Cork, extending as far east as Clonmel in Tipperary.49 Although Protestant governors often characterised rapparees as a homogenous band of outlaws, their actions combined economic motivations with continuing loyalty to James II. They consistently targeted Protestants, committing highway robbery, attacks on their livestock and even arson.50 A proclamation issued by a band of rapparees in Tipperary summarised these combined motives when they claimed that they were ‘compelled to stand out upon our keeping in defiance of this present government & ruine & destruction of their subjects’.51 Rapparees do not fit a strict definition of outlaw, as they retained the support of many within Irish Catholic society. Accounts from a local level suggest that Irish Catholics, particularly women, supported rapparees until at least 1697.52 The assistance they received is evidenced in the case of William Burke, a former officer in James II’s service who operated in the countryside south of the

46 ‘An Extract of Part of a Letter from Captain Coall Commander of the Tyger in the River of Shannon, 12 August 1691’, Clark Correspondence, MS 749, vol.10, Trinity College Dublin Special Collections (TCD). 47 ‘Anonymous Report, October 1690’, State Papers: Ireland, 1689–1690, SP 63/352, fo.31, TNA. 48 ‘Richard Cox to Southwell, 8 October 1691’, The Papers of Robert Southwell, MS 1180, TCD. 49 ‘Waller to Southwell, 20 March 1694’, Munster Vice-Admiralty Records, vol.1, Add. MS 38147, fo.80, BL; ‘Philip Moore to Lords Justices, 20 June 1694’, ‘Abstract of Letters from Collectors about Privateers and Rapparees, 23 July 1694’, Papers of Sir Cyril Wyche: Papers, 1676–93, Series 2, Box 1, The National Archives of Ireland (NAI); ‘Lords Justices to Nottingham, 26 February 1691’, State Papers: Ireland, 1691, SP 63/353, fo.43, TNA. 50 ‘Philip Moore to Lords Justices, 20 June 1694’, ‘Abstract of Letters from Collectors about Privateers and Rapparees, 23 July 1694’, Wyche Papers, Series 2, Box 1, NAI; ‘Waller to Southwell, 7 June 1694’, Munster Vice- Admiralty Records, vol.1, fos.86–87, BL. 51 ‘By Captain Dormod Leary, Capt. John Hurley, Capt. Edmond Ryan, Matthew Higgins, John Murphy and the rest of their adherents, A Proclamation, 1694’, Papers Relating to Irish and Scottish Affairs, Rawlinson Manuscripts D.921, fo.98, BLO. 52 ‘Proposals offered by Anthony Maude, Thomas Toler and Joseph Damer for suppressing rapparees in Tipperary, submitted to the Lords Justices, undated (after 1694)’, Papers of Sir Cyril Wyche: Correspondence, 1634–1766, Series 1, Box 1, NAI; ‘Report, October 1690’, State Papers: Ireland, 1689–1690, SP 63/352, fo.31, TNA; ‘Henry Bellesyse to Godert De Ginkel, 8 September 1691’, ‘Hannah Booth to George Clark, 8 September 1691’, ‘Charles Oliver to George Clark, 15 September 1691’, Clark Correspondence, MS 749, vol.11, TCD; ‘Lords Justices to Nottingham, 27 August 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, fo.65, TNA; ‘Henry May to James Vernon, 20 July 1697’, State Papers: Ireland, 1697, SP 63/359, fo.74, TNA. 51

City of Galway. Burke is first mentioned in sources in early September 1691, having been captured by Williamite soldiers and sentenced to be hanged for treason. Shortly after his apprehension, however, he was broken out of gaol by two women who were known to host rapparees in their houses nearby. Investigations by Protestant soldiers in the region found that local Catholics harboured Burke and his men, while trading in goods stolen by his rapparees. By late September, more soldiers were billeted on the local population to try and force the surrender of Burke and his men, while the two women who helped him escape were threatened with prosecution. Acting as an intermediary, one woman, apparently married to one of the rapparees, offered to negotiate his surrender, on the condition that he and his followers could take exile in France. Burke and his men were eventually transported to Nantes in the later part of October 1691, along with other Jacobite soldiers leaving after the Treaty of Limerick.53 Rapparees, therefore, formed part of an informal economy among Irish Catholics, sustained by local networks but also serving as an outlet for continuing Jacobite resistance. Irish Catholics not only took part in and supported rapparee activity, they also aided French privateers who targeted English Atlantic shipping on Ireland’s littoral. The Munster Coast formed a chokepoint for Atlantic trade, where ships arriving from the Americas, laden with valuable cargoes of plantation goods, were heavily targeted. The impact was galling for English merchants. One representation from some of their number in Dublin reported in July 1694 that only four of the thirty-two ships they had dispatched to Jamaica had returned during the previous two years.54 The privateers’ success would not have been possible without the assistance they received in Ireland, as an account given by an English sailor captured by one of these vessels indicates:

I was carried from thence by ye said privateer to a place called black-sod in the county of Mayo, where the said privateer hall’d a shore … she continued there for the space of fourteen dayes, during which time, the countrey brought her in all sorts of provision vizt. Mutton, porke, poultrey & fish.55

Just as Irish Catholics supplied French privateers, these vessels in turn traded goods into the island. Multiple reports claim that Irish fisherman met with privateering vessels at sea, and then

53 ‘Henry Bellesyse to Ginkel, 8 September 1691’, ‘Malcolm Hamilton to Clark, 8 September 1691, ‘Henry Ballasyse to Clark, 19 September 1691’, ‘Henry Ballasyse to Ginkel, 12 October 1691’, Clark Correspondence, MS 749, vol.11, TCD; ‘Petition of William Burke, 1695’, A Collection of letters, grants, petitions, and miscellaneous documents relative to the history of Ireland, 1576–1751, vol.2, Add. MS 21136, fo.15, BL. 54 ‘Lords Justices to Privy Council, 24 July 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, fo.62, TNA. 55 ‘The Examination of James Smith taken before Robert Sandys Esq one of their majesties justices of the peace for the said county this 21 July 1694’, Admiralty Letters from Ireland, 1691–1701, ADM 1/3988, TNA. 52 used their local connections to transport goods ashore taken from English ships.56 These vessels were often secured with the aid of intelligence provided from Ireland. Around Bantry Bay, French privateers maintained contact with rapparees, who gave information about English shipping movements, resulting in the capture of at least twenty English merchant ships there between 1692 and 1694.57 Similarly, the crews of these privateering vessels appear to have been concerned with the success of rapparees activity inland. A justice of the peace in Wicklow described how Catholic priests organised collections there to support rapparees, money which French privateers then carried into Southwestern Munster.58 Even the very presence of French privateers on the coast aided rapparees, as by 1696 the privateers’ attacks on commercial traffic and the support they received in coastal towns forced soldiers garrisoned inland towards coastal areas, causing the number of rapparees to expand in the interior.59 Interactions between privateers and Irish Catholics provide an example of how important connections to France remained as a means to sustain Irish Catholic resistance after 1691. At the same time, cooperating with the French helped divert English Atlantic trade onto Ireland’s coasts, a potential lifeline of support for those who had been impoverished by the war and its aftermath. On closer examination, Irish Catholic support for French privateering appears as much a matter of aiding a continuing French war effort, as part of a growing commercial exchange with port towns in Brittany after the Treaty of Limerick. From 1692 onwards, Protestant officials on the coast of Ireland reported that recruits were transported from coastal towns into French privateering vessels at Kinsale, Cork and in County Kerry.60 They were, however, not the first to do so. By this date, the war had driven thousands from Ireland’s shores: 3000 from Munster alone during the conflict itself, followed by at least 21,000 men and 10,000 women after the Jacobite surrender.61 Many of

56 ‘Survey of the Provinces of Ireland and the populations therein’, State Papers: Ireland, 1690–1691, SP 63/353, fo.104, TNA. 57 ‘Lords Justices to Trenchard, 10 April 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, fo.46, BL; ‘Representation of Several Merchants of the Port of Limerick to the High Commissioners of the Admiralty, 12 June 1694’, Miscellaneous Papers of William III Relating to Ireland, Add. MS 28939, BL. 58 ‘Thomas Leigh to Cyril Wyche 17 April 1694’, Wych Papers: Correspondence, Series 1, Box 1, NAI; ‘Lords Justices to Trenchard, 27 August 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, fo.65, TNA. 59 ‘Benjamin Chetwoode to James Ellis, 22 July 1696’, Letters to James Ellis, 1689–1708, vol.6, Add. MS 28880, BL. 60 ‘Anonymous Report from Kinsale, 22 February 1692’, State Papers: Ireland, 1692, SP 63/354, fo.15, TNA; ‘Lords Justices to Trenchard, 1693’, State Papers: Ireland, 1693, SP 63/355, fo.217, TNA. 61 ‘Robert Southwell to King, 15 December 1691’, King-Lyon Papers, MS 1995/194, TCD; ‘An Extract of Part of a Letter from Captain Coall’, Clark Correspondence, MS 749, vol.10, TCD; Bernadette Whelan, ‘Women and Warfare 1641–1691’ in Lenihan, Conquest and Resistance, p.338. 53 these exiles found their way to the port towns of Brittany and some onto merchant and privateering vessels there. Examinations of captured ships crews conducted by the English High Court of Admiralty reveal the extent to which Jacobite exiles were involved in privateering on Ireland’s coasts, where recent migrants served alongside French and Franco-Irish sailors. Some vessels were almost entirely Irish in their composition; for instance, the Mary of Teignmouth was captured sometime in November 1692 while returning to St Malo with captured English prizes. This small sloop had thirteen in its crew, all of whom claimed to be Irish. Of these sailors, ten had left Ireland for the first time after Limerick, while the remaining three had previously operated out of France, serving on merchant ships that supplied James II’s army in Ireland.62 Others had mixed French and Irish crews; The Sun was another sloop taken in January 1693 off the coast of Cornwall while on its way to Ireland from St Malo. Of the captured crew, only four were Irish and the remaining members, likely around ten of them, were French. The four Irish sailors had all left Ireland following the surrender at Limerick, though one had previously served on merchant ships trading to France.63 Lastly, the exiles were also recruited onto ships crewed by descendants of Irish migrants. The Prince of Wales was seized in April 1693 off the coast of Brittany as they were sailing for Ireland with a crew of fifty, of whom twenty-eight were French and five were Irish, all having left the island following Limerick. The remaining seventeen claimed at least one Irish parent but were born elsewhere: fourteen in France, two in the French Caribbean and one in Portugal.64 These examples only offer a limited survey of Irish involvement in privateering, but begin to reveal how Jacobite exiles were absorbed into Franco–Irish networks created by generations of emigrants. Growing Irish participation in the Caribbean across the seventeenth century similarly bolstered the continuing French war effort. After news of William III’s invasion of England arrived there, many Catholics sided with the French, prompting widespread fear in English colonies that the whole region might be overrun.65 On St Kitts, Irish Catholics joined the French en masse, helping

62 ‘Examinations of Prisoners, 13–29 April 1693’, Examinations of Pirates, HCA 1/52, fos.147–160, TNA. 63 ‘Examinations of Prisoners, 17 January-14 February 1694’, Ibid., fos.163–165. 64 ‘Examinations of Prisoners, 6 February 1694–16 June 1694’, Ibid., fos.166–176. 65 ‘The Address of the Catholics in Jamaica to the Duke of Albemarle, 1687’, Tracts Relating to the Island of Jamaica, 1503–1692, vol.1, Add. MS 12429, fo.310, BL; ‘Edwin Stede to the Earl of Shrewsbury, 30 May 1689’, ‘ Joseph Crispe to Colonel Bayer, 10 June 1689’, ‘John Netheway to Colonel Bastian Bayer, 27 June 1689’, ‘Christopher Codrington to Lords of Trade and Plantations, 15 August’ in CSP Col, vol.13, nos.155, 193, 213, 345; ‘A Speech of the Earl of Inchiquin to the Assembly of Jamaica’, Jamaica Tracts, vol.1, Add. MS 12429, fo.338, BL; ‘A relation of what passed at Jamaica from the time the French landed on that Island to their going off, 1694’, Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Correspondence, 1694–1695, CO 137/1, fos.193–196, TNA. 54 them to first raid and then capture the island.66 Fears among English Protestants there of what they viewed as Irish defection caused rumours to spread that Catholics would join forces with African slaves and seize control of English possessions in the Caribbean for James II, effectively handing the region to Louis XIV.67 On Montserrat, Barbados and Antigua, the fear of an uprising was intense enough that any Irish Catholics deemed suspicious were arrested, disarmed and shipped to Jamaica, where they were detained or made to leave for French islands.68 Those who left joined Irish settlers in Hispaniola and Guadeloupe, as well as taking service in privateering vessels.69 The governor of Jamaica reported that, by 1690, large numbers of Irish inhabitants of Jamaica had left to serve on privateering ships, on account of both their Jacobitisim and their poverty, because they were ‘obliged that way to serve King James, and others through dissatisfaction, being in debt’.70 Their attacks also had a significant impact on English Atlantic trade. A combination of attacks by privateers and the Port Royal Earthquake of 1692 saw six of Jamaica’s fifteen parishes totally destroyed and the regions depopulated by the end of the war.71 After years of conflict, by 1696, the island’s governor claimed that privateering had brought almost all of the trade out of Jamaica to a standstill.72 The Irish sailors who served on privateering ships were also part of larger commercial networks operated by Irish Catholics out of Ireland and Continental Europe after 1691. The overlap between privateering and trading are outlined by Francis Lynch, who had settled in the French Windward Isles, most likely Martinique, before then migrating to Jamaica sometime before the war. After 1689, Lynch formed a plan with an Irish planter to ship indigo out of Jamaica to Saint-Domingue, but, when his confederate was unexpectedly killed in a French raid, he and several others seized

66 Beckles, ‘Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen’, p.519. 67 ‘A short remonstrance of the sufferings of the poor people of St Christophers, 11 July 1689’, ‘Henry Carpenter and Thomas Belchamber to Commissioners of Customs, 9 August 1689’, ‘Lieutenant-General Codrington to the Governor of Montserrat, 1 March 1690’, CSP Col, vol.13, nos.253, 361, 789; ‘Inchiquin to Lords of Trade, 31 August 1690’, Jamaica Entry Book, vol.1, CO 138/7. fos.2–4, TNA. 68 Beckles, ‘Irish Indentures Servants and Freemen, p.520. 69 ‘A relation of what passed at Jamaica’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1694–1695, CO 137/1, fos.193–196, TNA. 70 ‘A Brief Account of his Majesties Island of Jamaica during the time the French were preparing to attaque, 29 October 1694’, Ibid., fo.193; for accounts of Irish participation in French raids see ‘Beeston to Board of Trade, 15 May 1693’, ‘An Account of the Invasion of the Island of Jamaica by the French in the Year 1694’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1693–1695, CO 137/3, fos.38, 208, TNA. 71 ‘The French Kings Lieutenant upon the Island of Martinique hath sent the following Memoir to Monsieur de Chamlay, Jun 1693’, Ibid., fo.52; ‘The Present State of Jamaica, December 1696’, Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Correspondence, 1696–1699, CO 137/4, fo.112, TNA. 72 ‘Beeston to Board of Trade, Ibid. fo.32. 55 the ship and sailed to join the French on Hispaniola.73 While there, Lynch was made captain of a privateering vessel, and he sought to use his commission in conjunction with connections in Jamaica to establish a commercial network.74 Through the wife of another Irish Catholic in Saint- Domingue, Eleanor Stapleton, who lived in Jamaica, he sought to secure an English pass, enabling his crew to establish a trade between Jamaica, Hispaniola and Barbados. For unclear reasons, however, she reported the scheme to the Jamaican authorities, and the network never materialised.75 While Lynch was unsuccessful, his scheme demonstrates how privateering was viewed as but one of the commercial opportunities available within the international Irish community, part of larger flows of goods and people, which connected Ireland to the Americas. Where Lynch failed, other Catholic merchants succeeded. The activities of John Aylward, a merchant born in Waterford, illustrates how, following 1688, a wartime economy was funded by Irish merchants who were already established abroad. Aylward first migrated sometime in or before 1672 to Malaga, where he exported a range of goods, predominantly wine and fruit to London or ports in Munster, and imported draperies from London, fish from Cornwall and provisions from Cork and Waterford.76 On 16 April 1687, he married Helena Porter, also of a Waterford family and widow of a French merchant who had probably operated out of St Malo. Since her previous husband’s death, Helena had inherited an estate in Brittany and used her husband’s contacts to establish herself as a merchant, trading between Ireland and France.77 Shortly after her marriage to John Aylward, the couple relocated to St Malo to take advantage of Helena’s connections there, while they continued to trade as they had previously out of Malaga through a factor.78 John took

73 ‘A Brief Account of Jamaica, undated’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1694–1695, CO 137/1, fo.193, TNA. 74 ‘Examination of John Pacrow a French Deserter, 25 June 1694’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1693–1695, CO 137/3, fo.108, TNA. 75 ‘The Informacon of Ellinor Stapleton aged twenty-two years or thereabouts informes as followeth, 1 August 1694’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1694–1695, CO 137/1, fo.198, TNA. 76 For pilchards imported from Cornwall and draperies from London see ‘Thomas Pengelly to Aylward, 17 October 1674’, Correspondence of John Aylward, AY1, no.1, ACA; ‘William Wilcox, 12 October 1683’, Ibid., AY2, no.11 and passim; ‘John Porter to Aylward, 15 July 1684’, Ibid., AY69, no.1; ‘William Wilcox to Aylward, 21 May 1684’, Ibid., AY3, no.8; William Martin to Aylward, 30 August 1686’, Ibid., AY5, no.20. For imports from Ireland see: ‘Nicholas Lincoln to Aylward, 22 September 1684’, Ibid., AY3, no.30; John Maccarrell to Aylward, 10 August 1685’, Ibid., AY4, no.36; ‘Dominic Lynch to Aylward, 2 October 1685’, Ibid., AY4, no.38 and passim; Nicholas Aylward to John Aylward, 28 May 1688’, Ibid., AY14, no.7. Wine and fruit exports from Malaga see: ‘James Breedy to Aylward, 20 July 1684’, ‘Peter Wadding to Aylward, 13 August 1684, Ibid., AY3, nos.11, 25; ‘John Porter to Aylward, 15 July 1684’, Ibid., AY69, no.1. 77 ‘Peter Power to Aylward, 2 May 1687’, Ibid., AY72, no.1; For Helana’s trading contacts see: ‘Patrick Roach to Helena Porter, 15 August 1686’, Ibid., AY124, no.5; ‘Edward Gough and Dominick Lynch to Helena Porter, 31 January 1686’, Ibid., AY125, no.29. 78 Continuing trade into Malaga through the 1690s is detailed in Ibid., AY108. 56 direction of the greater part of Helena’s business, and from Brittany he was able to partner with established Franco-Irish families, such as the Geraldins (Fitzgeralds) of Nantes, and French merchants, like the Desages of St Malo.79 Around the time they relocated, John Aylward also began trading out of Jamaica, predominantly indigo into St Malo and London, as well as tobacco to Ireland, in exchange for draperies and provisions.80 Like many other Irish merchants after the Restoration, Aylward was able to take advantage of a relatively open trade into France and Spain, where he appears to have worked wherever and with whoever would turn a profit. When considering most of Aylward’s long-term contacts, it is clear that he had a preference for trading with other Irish Catholics, or with those married into his extended family. By the outbreak of war in Ireland in 1689, many of his factors were Irish Catholics, including Walter Ryan in London, Dominic Lynch in Cadiz, William Furlong in Jamaica and, established that year, Edward Creagh in Amsterdam.81 Family connections were also significant; in Waterford he used his aunt, then his cousin Joseph Comerford, and in Cork he used Edward Gough, likely his cousin by marriage, as was another of his important London contacts, Peter Power.82 One exception was Thomas Brailsford, a London-based Protestant who partnered with Aylward in early 1689 in numerous ventures, though this relationship was established predominantly to contravene anti-Catholic legislation and the prohibition on trade with France.83 Between the Restoration and the outbreak of war, Aylward was able to use bonds of common religion, nationality and kinship to secure a small fortune by trading between England, Ireland, Spain, France and the Caribbean. The outbreak of war effectively criminalised how Aylward and his contemporaries traded. Nevertheless, he and others continued, even prospered, by the new opportunities it presented. The first problem Aylward faced was that English Parliament, as part of its legislative agenda following

79 After 1687, Helena only remained involved when John was absent, ‘Daniel Arthur to Helena Aylward, 15 April 1693’, Ibid., AY11, no.33; by 1690, Aylward held part share in ships trading to Ireland with both Nicholas Geraldin and Duhoux Desage, see ‘Bill of Lading, St Malo, 29 March 1690’, Ibid., AY104, no.8. Also see Nancy Locklin, Women’s Work and Identity in Eighteenth Century Brittany (2007), pp.107–108. 80 ‘Francis Atkins to Aylward, 5 July 1688’, Aylward Correspondence, AY13, no.7, ACA. The Jamaica trade is discussed in, ‘Walter Ryan to Aylward, April 1689’, Letters to John Aylward, 1689–1701, MS 41685, National Library of Ireland (NLI). 81 Correspondence with Ryan begins in ‘Walter Ryan to Aylward, 31 October 1683’, Aylward Correspondence, AY76, no.1, ACA; Lynch is first mentioned in ‘James Breedy to Aylward, 20 July 1684’, Ibid., AY3, no.11; their arrangements are discussed in ‘Dominic Lynch to Aylward, 2 October 1685’, Ibid., AY4 no.38; Furlong is established as a factor in Jamaica in 1688, ‘Peter Power to Aylward, 26 July 1688’, Ibid., AY72, no.16; Creagh is first mentioned in: ‘Francis Butler to Aylward, 30 January 1690’, Ibid., AY20, no.44. 82 ‘Bill of Lading, St Malo, 18 February 1690’, Ibid., AY104; ‘Joseph Comerford to Aylward, 17 October 1692’, Ibid., AY7, no.1; ‘Edward Gough to Aylward, 6 September 1688’, Ibid., AY45, no.9; for Peter Power, Ibid., AY72. 83 Brailsford’s correspondence is in Ibid., AY18. 57 the 1688 Revolution, declared trade from France into England and Ireland illegal.84 Initially, this move appeared to spell disaster for Aylward and his contacts, who despaired that their only hope now lay in the return of James II.85 As this sentiment would suggest, support for the king-in-exile quickly became entwined with economic self-interest for merchants like Aylward. With his trade into London initially cut, he found opportunities in Ireland assisting the Jacobite war effort. He took advantage of James’s offer of French passes to any vessels that supported his cause by shipping provisions there from St Malo – at least six vessels before 1691.86 Aylward and his partners quickly realised the rewards of trading in commodities deemed illegal, devising a host of methods to contravene legislation. For instance, to trade into London, he channeled his shipping through the factor Edward Creagh in Amsterdam, carried on vessels captained by Danes, carrying both English and French papers.87 Aylward also bought shares of privateering vessels, taking a cut of any profits from what they captured and using them to transport provisions he purchased in Ireland into France.88 At least some of this money was channeled into the Jacobite court at St Germain, where he acted as a creditor to cash-strapped courtiers.89 As other Irish Catholics did in Ireland and the Caribbean, Aylward combined allegiance to James II with the pursuit of profit. He did so because trade of dubious legality was profitable, because it allowed him to continue using the contacts he already had and, importantly, because it provided opportunities without compromising his allegiance to the king-in-exile. From rapparees in County Kerry, to sailors fitting out in the French Caribbean, to merchants in St Malo, international Irish networks ensured that Limerick did not end the contest for Ireland. Instead the conflict shifted onto the sea. Irish Catholics formally owned no overseas territory, and their sovereign languished in exile, but nevertheless they were able to use existing trade connections to wage a kind of war-by-proxy with England, and to sustain those driven from their

84 ‘William and Mary, 1688: An Act for Prohibiting all Trade and Commerce with France’ in John Raithby (ed.), Statutes of the Realm, vol.6 (1819), pp.98–103. 85 Quote in ‘Walter Ryan to Aylward, 6 December 1688’, Aylward Correspondence, AY76, no.11, ACA; ‘Walter Ryan to Aylward, 13 May 1689’, Letters to John Aylward, MS 41685, NLI. 86 ‘A Journal of what has Passed in Ireland since March 1689’, Correspondence and Papers of James II, of Queen Mary Beatrice, of James Francis Stewart the Old Pretender, their Secretaries and Adherents, 1689–1701, Carte MS 181, fo.87, BLO; The bills of lading for St Malo are in Aylward Correspondence, AY105, ACA. 87 ‘Brailsford to Aylward, 12 April 1689’, ‘Brailsford to Aylward, 27 June 1689’, Ibid., AY18, no.9. 88 ‘Power and Agnes to Aylward, 11 October 1692’, Ibid., AY7, no.3; ‘Charles Horde to Aylward, 11 November 1691, Ibid., AY51, no.3. 89 ‘David Arthur to Aylward, 22 March 1692’, ‘David Arthur to Aylward 1692, 14 May 1692’, ‘Robert Power to Aylward, 31 May 1692’, Ibid., AY51, nos.1, 4, 5. 58 homes by the consequences of the conflict in Ireland. Indeed, the passage after 1691 of new penal laws in Ireland targeting Catholics, together with renewed plantation schemes, only drove people to make use of these technically illegal networks in greater numbers.

*** As plantation schemes intended to subdue Catholic Ireland proceeded once again after 1691, extensive details of continuing trade and military connections between Ireland and France became increasingly clear to Protestant landowners. Collectively, they agreed that the coasts of the island should be controlled, yet these coasts were covered by numerous overlapping legal jurisdictions, with no one institution possessing the ability to enforce prohibitions in practice. At the same time, the extent to which overseas networks used by Irish Catholics should be actively suppressed was disputed, as was precisely how to punish those captured collaborating with France. The precise response to the existence of Franco–Irish cooperation was not determined by any kind of grand governmental strategy. Instead it was shaped by the stance of individuals and interest groups, all of whom advocated different solutions, depending upon whether they believed that Ireland should be an English colony or autonomous kingdom. In practice, these differences on how to address the Franco-Irish threat would be thrashed out both between and within legal institutions across the course of the Nine Years War. By 1694, governments in England, Ireland and the Caribbean had begun to realise the scale of aid being offered by Irish Catholics to the French war effort.90 They became aware of this fact because of reports provided by those who actually observed the passages of ships along Ireland’s coasts. James Waller, the Deputy Vice-Admiral of Munster and lieutenant governor of Kinsale, became an important source of information for senior Irish and English admiralty officials. In his many letters written after 1691, he described the arrival of French ships across Munster, recording an enduring traffic in brandy and wine, exchanged for provisions that ultimately supplied French armies in Europe.91 He perceived that this traffic threatened Protestant rule, because it encouraged

90 ‘Lords Justices to Trenchard, 2 December 1693’, Copies of Letters of the Lords Justices of Ireland, Carte MS 170, fo.65, BLO; ‘Beeston to Lords of Trade, 10 June 1693’, ‘Beeston to Lords of Trade, 5 April 1694’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1693–1695, CO 137/3, fos.50, 102, TNA. ‘Nottingham to Sydney, 9 June 1691’, F. Bickley (ed.), Report on the Manuscripts of Allan George Finch Esq of Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland, vol.3 (1957), pp.105–106. 91 ‘James Waller to Southwell, 27 October 1693’, Munster Vice-Admiralty Records, vol.1, Add. MS 38147, fo.48 and passim, BL; This trade is also described in ‘The Deposition of Edmund Everard of Gray’s Inne, after 4 July 1691’, Bickley, Finch Manuscripts, vol.3, p.366. 59 rapparee attacks and supplied intelligence to the French government.92 Catholics, he claimed, were complicit in and encouraged these exchanges, and, as the most port and customs officials across the coast were of the same faith, this trade continued largely unabated.93 Waller similarly described trade between Ireland and the French Caribbean, seizing a small number of vessels that he later found to have made the trans-Atlantic voyage to supply plantations.94 Here, Waller was doing more than simply observing this commercial traffic as it existed. For decades, the jurisdiction of the Irish High Court of Admiralty and especially its vice-admiralty courts had been eroded by municipal and customs bodies, a fact consistently resented by admiralty officials like Waller.95 He chose to provide reports that conveyed local customs collectors as complicit in maintaining Franco-Irish links, forming part of a larger attempt to use the war to bolster the jurisdiction of Irish admiralty courts. Of course, the root issue mentioned by Waller, that Catholics used connections to France to resist Protestant rule, was not contested. Yet interested parties apportioned blame in different ways. A customs official based in Dublin claimed that the prohibition of commerce with France was to blame, illegality having made French trade so lucrative that Catholics were drawn to it even more than before. As evidence, he cited the annual value of trade between Ireland and England falling from £130,000 to £100,000 following the conclusion of the Jacobite War.96 Other Irish Protestants saw Catholic merchants as the culprits. These merchants were said to retain Jacobite sympathies, with the Lords Justices of Ireland claiming in 1693 that they were ‘covetous and ill affected’.97 The concerns of commercial society in London were broader. They feared not only a potential French invasion of Ireland, but that trade connections out of Ireland into France and the Caribbean meant that Catholic merchants were now formidable competitors. Pamphlet material published across the early 1690s expressed these fears publically.98 All of these concerns were doubtless justified.

92 ‘Waller to Southwell, 27 October 1693’, Munster Vice-Admiralty Records, vol.1, Add. MS 38147, fo.48, BL. 93 ‘Deposition of James Waller, 15 March 1694’, The Rights and Jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral of England asserted in Ireland by a Process of the Postillion Ketch, 1693, Egerton MS 744, fo.34, BL. 94 ‘Waller to Southwell, 17 June 1693’, Munster Vice-Admiralty Records, vol.1, Add. MS 38147, fo.26, BL. 95 William Petty on the Admiralty in Ireland, March 1677’, Pepys’ Papers, Rawlinson MS A.191, no.59, BLO; ‘Edward Whitaker to Hedges, 9 February 1696’, Letters and Papers Relating to Admiralty Affairs, 1691–1698, Add. MS 25098, fo.457, BL; Costello, The Court of Admiralty of Ireland, pp.20–52. 96 ‘John Leslie to King, 30 January 1694’, King-Lyon Papers, MS 1995/326, TCD. 97 ‘Lords Justices to Nottingham, 21 October 1693’, Lords Justices Letters, Carte MS 170, fo.33, BLO. 98 Walter Harris, Remarks on the affairs and trade of England and Ireland (1691); Anon., The linnen and woollen manufactory discoursed with the nature of companies and trade in general: and particularly, that of the company’s for the linnen manufactory of England and Ireland. With some reflections how the trade of Ireland hath formerly, and may now affect England (1691); Anon., The Late K. James’s commission to his privateers to ravage, plunder, 60

Customs officials on the coast were complicit, prohibitions had incentivised illegal trade and increasingly-successful Catholic merchants did retain Jacobite sympathies. Nevertheless, these differences of emphasis reflected uncertainty about how Protestants should respond to the situation, each being motivated by a particular vision of Ireland’s future. The position taken by most Protestant landowners and merchants in Ireland is best represented by Cyril Wyche, an English politician who was first appointed to the Irish Privy Council in 1692.99 Wyche had certainly read William Petty, specifically his Political Anatomy, owning earlier manuscript copies of the tract.100 During his time as Lord Justice, Wyche sought to pacify the island, suppressing rapparees and privateers on the coasts and using the knowledge of local Protestants to do so.101 His concern was not to prosecute rapparees who opposed plantation projects, but to ensure that Irish Catholics could be made useful as a labouring class. He and the other Lords Justices began to implement what they believed would be the beginning of a solution on 2 July 1694, issuing a proclamation that offered clemency to rapparees who surrendered and either returned to previous forms of employment or left Ireland for France.102 In August of 1694, he produced a justification for this measure: Ireland, he claimed, was not ‘well peopled’, and key to transforming it into a productive country for England was ensuring that the land was tended and improved.103 At the same time, because the Lords Justices favoured the prosperity of Protestants in Ireland, they also believed that the kingdom should have the right to continue trading with any peoples that Stuart subjects were not at war with. In October 1693, when they were instructed to stop all corn exports out of Ireland to anywhere except England – an attempt to starve Louis XIV’s troops in Flanders – Wyche and the other Lords Justices protested. Such a measure, they argued, would further impoverish Ireland, causing merchants there to resent the low prices they received

burn, sink, and destroy all the ships and goods of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1692); John Cary, A discourse concerning the trade of Ireland and Scotland, as they stand in competition with the trade of England (1695); Francis Brewster, Essays on trade and navigation in five parts (1695), pp.11–33. 99 Charles Ivar McGrath, ‘Wyche, Sir Cyril (c.1632–1707)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30117, accessed 26 April 2017]. 100 ‘Inferences from the Premises’, ‘Considerations Relating to the Improvement of Ireland, not only as to the encreasing of its domestick wealth, but also of its money & Bullion’, Wyche Papers: Miscellaneous, Series 1, Box 3, fos.3, 35, NAI. 101 ‘Proposals offered by Anthony Maude, Thomas Toler and Joseph Damer for suppressing rapparees in Tipperary, submitted to the Lords Justices’, ‘Philip Moore to Lords Justices, 20 June 1694’, ‘Abstract of Letters from Collectors about Privateers and Rapparees, 23 July 1694’, Wyche Papers, Series 2, Box 1, NAI. 102 ‘Proclamation of the Lords Justices of Ireland, 2 July 1694’ in James Kelly and Mary Ann Lyons (eds.), The Proclamations of Ireland 1660–1820 (2014), pp.335–338. 103 ‘Report of the Lords Justices of Ireland, 27 August 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, fo.65, TNA. 61 from England and draining specie out of the country.104 They took issue with the English Admiralty Board, who they claimed did nothing to suppress French privateering on the coast and were only interested in seizing merchant ships for trading illegally, which could then be condemned as prizes in England.105 Like Petty before him, Wyche believed that only through overseas trade could Ireland (by which he meant Irish Protestants) prosper, so, if colonisation was to succeed on land, it was paramount to allow legal trade to continue on the island’s coasts. While Wyche and his contemporaries believed that greater prosperity would cause the Catholic threat to subside, the view in England was different. A broad consensus emerged among merchants and politicians that, alongside the danger posed by French influence, commercial competition from Irish Catholics and Protestants alike posed a threat. Following the surrender at Limerick, the English politician Edward Harley summarised what had become the dominant perspective amongst his peers, that ‘If the lands of Ireland do not pay for the draining of English blood and treasure, England must in short time become bog and wilderness’.106 The sea, he claimed, must now become a barrier between Irish Catholics, the European Continent and the Americas, rather than a means of exchange or a pathway for invasion, remarking that, ‘As for the sea, it is undeniable that, until the dominion be entirely recovered, England will be poor and continually exposed’.107 This position was supported most fervently by English merchants, particularly those from Bristol who were heavily involved in trade with the Caribbean.108 These traders were keen to establish that their interests were those of all England. In the mid-1690s, they articulated this thought most clearly in an address intended to be sent to England’s Parliament, complaining that Irish merchants had almost completely driven them from the provisioning trade to the West Indies, and proposing in response:

104 ‘Lords Justices to Privy Council 21 October, 1693’, State Papers: Ireland, 1693, SP 63/355, fo.105, TNA; ‘Lords Justices to Trenchard, 28 November 1694’, ‘Lords Justices to Shrewsbury, 29 January 1695’, Lords Justices Letters, Carte MS 170, fos.165–166, 173–174, BLO. 105 ‘Lords Justices to Admiralty, 31 March 1694’, ‘Lords Justices to Admiralty, 18 May 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, fos.33–34, 54, TNA. 106 Gordon Goodwin, ‘Harley, Edward (1664–1735)’, rev. David Whitehead, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12336, accessed 11 May 2017]. 107 Paul M. Kerrigan, ‘Ireland in Naval Strategy 1641–1691 in Lenihan, Conquest and Resistance, p.174; ‘Edward Harley to Robert Harley, 24 October 1691’, Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission: The Manuscripts of his Grace the Duke of Portland, Preserved at Welbeck Abbey, vol.3 (1897), p.478. 108 Sacks, The Widening Gate, pp.304–329. 62

Confineing the exportation of their [Irish] product only hither…this will make Ireland profitable to England, and in some measure recompence the vast charges we have been at for its reduction and delivery out of the hands of foreign powers and popish cut-throats.109

Their requests, of course, gelled with similar beliefs within the upper echelons of English government, as expressed by politicians like Harley. The interests of traders with links to plantation colonies in the Americas combined with English government ministers, together advocated that the island should become a provisioning colony for England, losing much of the autonomy it currently enjoyed. It was admiralty courts which became a convenient institution for the channeling of both these interests. A system of convoys was suggested by the Vice-Admiral of Kinsale, Robert Southwell, intended to protect Atlantic shipping, as well as the treasure shipments of the EIC, which often stopped in Cork.110 In facilitating these interests, both English and Irish admiralty officials saw an important opportunity. In order to establish a greater role for themselves in safeguarding Ireland’s coasts, they sought to begin wrestling back control from local governments and courts, which they felt had usurped their authority in recent years.111 Officials representing the Vice-Admiralty of Kinsale stressed the many uses of putting ships into Irish waters, which included preventing a potential French invasion into Ireland, protecting trading vessels, suppressing enemy privateers and seizing Irish ships that were trading illegally.112 From as early as 1691, ships began to patrol Irish waters, but in practice, they prioritised the latter objective. The Irish government complained that privateers focused upon seizing illegal traders whose cargos they could claim as a prize in England, while little thought was given to the protection of legal Irish trade.113 In a sense, the admiralty officials instituted the inverse of what Irish Catholics were attempting. In becoming the representatives of English interests on Ireland’s coasts, they set about diverting potential Irish Catholic wealth into English hands. By 1694, therefore, two plans had emerged and were being enacted to secure Ireland’s shores. The first served Irish landowners and emphasised clemency and

109 ‘Edward Hackett to Thomas Day, 2 December 1695’, Papers on Irish Trade, Add. MS 5540, fo.78, BL; Cary, A Discourse Concerning the Trade of Ireland and Scotland, p.6. 110 ‘Proposals for the English Admiralty, undated’, Letters Relative to the Southwells and Kinsale, Add. MS 9714, fo.129, BL. 111 ‘Charles Porter and Thomas Corningsley to English Admiralty, 7 March 1691’, Admiralty Letters from Ireland, 1691–1701, ADM 1/3988, TNA. 112 ‘John Pultenay to Sydney, 29 November 1692’, ‘Richard Aldworth to Admiralty, 26 January 1694’, Admiralty Letters from Ireland, 1691–1701, ADM 1/3988, TNA. 113 A conservative estimate suggests that an average of 23 a year were condemned before 1696, see High Court of Admiralty: Prize Court: Sentences in Prize Cases, HCA 34/16–34/20, TNA. 63 leniency for Catholics so that Protestants might utilise their labour in plantation and overseas trade. The second, by contrast, served English merchants and politicians, deploying convoys to extend garrison government onto sea, severing Irish Catholic links to France and with the ultimate intention to seal off Ireland from the wider world altogether. As might be expected, conflict between these two visions soon erupted. It was manifested most clearly in the case of the Postillion, a ketch found to be bringing pitch and salt into Ireland from France during 1693. On 23 August, James Waller, the Deputy Vice-Admiral of Kinsale received word that a vessel from France was soon to land at Crookhaven in County Cork. While his initial attempt to capture the ship failed, he was able to track it to Cork itself, where he had it seized on 26 August.114 When customs collectors in Dublin heard about the seizure, they balked, believing it to be an encroachment upon their jurisdiction for the Kinsale Vice-Admiralty’s officials to seize a vessel in port. In such an unprecedented situation, both sides began to line up supporters from a range of public bodies. Dublin’s customs officials appealed to the Irish Lords Justices in early September, who ordered the Kinsale Vice-Admiralty Court to remit the ship into their hands, which they begin condemning the ship in the Irish Exchequer Court. Waller responded with a writ from the English High Court of Admiralty, claiming that he retained the authority to seize the Postillion, and he had the case referred to the English Privy Council.115 On a surface level, this dispute was about institutional authority, but ultimately it was a contest over who controlled movements of people and goods. The substance of the arguments given in this case reveal a debate present throughout the proceedings, centred around whether the Irish mariners who served on such vessels continued to be subjects in law, or if they had become enemies. These positions mapped directly onto disputes between wealthy Protestants in Ireland and English political and commercial interests. Dublin’s customs collectors, favoured by the former, made the argument that Catholics on board these ships were subjects and so fell under their jurisdiction, while representatives of the English and Irish admiralties, supported by the latter, claimed that they should be considered enemies. Robert Southwell provided his core argument to the English Privy Council, in which he attempted to interweave the interests of the admiralty courts, parliaments and the monarch in upholding his

114 ‘Waller to Southwell, 26 September 1693’, Rights and Jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral of England, Egerton MS 744, fo.7, BL. 115 ‘Admiralty Judges Report, 18 April 1694’, Ibid., fos.39–40. 64 jurisdiction’s right to the seizure. He claimed that, as those aboard ship had chosen to trade with an enemy during a time of war, they had committed a crime tantamount to treason, which broke their bonds of allegiance, meaning that they were no longer subjects. Only admiralty courts retained the right to prosecute traitors who violated the law of nations, and, therefore, they retained the right to the vessel. He sweetened this central argument by claiming that a verdict in favour of Southwell’s Court supported the royal prerogative under which the institution operated, upheld the authority of the English Privateering Act (1692) enacted to prevent trade with France and secured greater revenues for the crown through the ship’s condemnation in England. Above all, he argued, this case was about preventing trade between Ireland and France, something that he claimed representatives of the Irish government routinely ignored, despite its dangerous consequences, as they personally profited from it.116 The more straightforward position taken by the Dublin customs officials was articulated by the Irish Lords Justices, who denied that they encouraged trade with French merchants, but also rejected the classification of the Jacobite privateers as enemies.117 They cited that two recent statutes forbidding trade with France stated that anyone Irish on these vessels remained subjects, as in the case of any other illegal traders, rather than enemies, and so they were liable to fines in Ireland, rather than prosecutions in England.118 The first verdict offered by the English Solicitor General on 20 September 1694 agreed with Southwell and maintained that anyone Irish who traded with France was indeed an enemy and possibly a traitor.119 Even after the Irish Privy Council appealed the decision, a revised verdict that emerged on 8 December 1694 upheld the previous ruling. There was compromise, however, in that Irish customs collectors could also seize vessels in port, with the right to the craft going to whoever captured a suspected ship first.120 In the case of the Postillion, admiralty officials had been successful in positioning themselves as advocates of the English right to punish trade with France. Yet they had not received the unequivocal verdict they sought. Instead, disputes over institutional rights had produced a situation in which each and neither side was victorious and in which ambiguity reigned, as these sailors remained subjects in Ireland and enemies in England.

116 ‘Robert Southwell to Richard Aldworth, 17 October 1693’, Ibid., fos.11–13. 117 The Lords Justices were Cyril Wyche, Richard Levinge and Michael Boyle, Archbishop of Armagh. 118 ‘Privy Council Meeting Minutes, 12 February 1694’, Rights and Jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral of England, Egerton MS 744, fo.27, BL. 119 ‘Order of Council, 29 November 1694’, Ibid., fos.40–42. 120 ‘Report from the Admiralty Commissioners, 8 December 1694’, Ibid., fo.44–46. 65

The case of the Postillion allows a glimpse of a debate that would only become more complex in the English High Court of Admiralty. After 1692, the institution attempted to exercise its right to prosecute captured Irish Catholics as enemies and, in the process, establish legal precedents that would allow them to easily conduct prosecutions. Their targets were Irish sailors who served under privateering commissions from James II and Louis XIV, almost all of them the displaced poor but potent symbols of continuing Irish connections to France and the Jacobite cause. Like the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, the English body had seen a progressive erosion of its jurisdiction over the course of the seventeenth century.121 For its Judge, Charles Hedges, proving that the institution was the correct mechanism to suppress Franco–Irish links made these important convictions to secure. Yet, as in the case of the Postillion, these were uncharted waters. Advocates were in majority agreement that these sailors should be tried, but many legal questions had to be tackled. How far, for instance, did Irish Catholics have the right to maintain their allegiance to the king-in-exile, or even Louis XIV? While they were enemies, what specific crime should these sailors be prosecuted for? Could the charge be upheld in practice? All of these challenges were made more vexing by the hybrid nature of the Court’s criminal jurisdiction, which drew upon elements of both civil and common law, affecting both criminal definitions and standards of evidence. While it was relatively easy to articulate a position that Ireland should be reduced to a colony and Catholics who stood in the way should face punitive legal action, institutional mechanisms had to be directed and refined in order to implement this policy. These trials of Irish sailors spanned the period 1692 to 1696, and the civilians trod a fine line in applying the law. They had to balance the pragmatic pursuit of convictions, with the securing of final verdicts which both reinforced the status of the convicted as enemies and stressed the illegality of Irish allegiance to Catholic monarchs overseas. The first privateers with Irish sailors on board were brought into London in July 1692: two vessels serving under commission from James II, funded by the Geraldins of St Malo.122 For almost a year, captured Irish sailors languished in the Marshalsea and Newgate Prisons, increasing in number to almost a hundred before the English Privy Council turned to a discussion of their

121 Prichard and Yale, Hale and Fleetwood, pp.clxxi-cxcviii. 122 Notes in Miscellanies Relating to Maritime Law, MS 148, fos.69–70, Codrington Library, All Souls College, Oxford (ASO). 66 situation on 7 June 1693.123 The outcome which the Privy Council wished for was clear, that the sailors should be convicted of a capital crime for continuing to serve King James. Within Ireland this had been straightforward enough; rapparees and those who advocated directly for a Jacobite restoration could be charged with high treason, others for robbery or murder. On sea, however, criminal prosecutions were somewhat different, and Charles Hedges singled out two potential crimes to be applied in the cases of these Irish sailors: piracy and high treason. As the case of the Postillion hinted, high treason was an obvious choice, grounded on the fact that the sailors were aiding an enemy in a time of war, which was a felony and a capital crime in common law. Use of high treason asserted that Irish Catholics owed allegiance to William III and that he was, in law, the only sovereign they could have, irrespective of whether they left for France as part of the Treaty of Limerick. The second crime they opted for was piracy, which was more problematic than high treason, as it was a purely civil law crime and had no agreed-upon definition in common law.124 While treason suggested service to an enemy monarch, piracy implied that the sailors’ commissions from James II were not issued by a legitimate sovereign and thus James was no king at all. Opting for the latter, the piracy trials commenced in July 1693, but an unexpected controversy soon unfolded. Two of the advocates, William Oldys and Thomas Pinfold, both voiced their objection to the charge of piracy against the sailors, the former claiming that ‘these shew a commission signed James Rex at the Court of St Germain’, so he could not be prosecuted as a pirate, which he defined as ‘a sea robber, who has thereby lost his right in the law of nations’.125 The English Privy Council made clear that objecting was not a privilege granted to the advocates. Oldys was first interrogated on suspicion of holding Jacobite sympathies and then dismissed from his position, along with Pinfold.126 The trials proceeded in spite of this controversy, and on 26 February 1694 a sentence of piracy was passed against five of the twelve sailors on trial, citing that, as James Stuart was now a private person, any privateering commission he issued was invalid. Even so, Oldys continued to fight the use of piracy, having the sailors petition the House of Lords to plead that the proceedings of the trial be investigated. As no response has been recorded and the

123 ‘Trenchard to Admiralty, 7 July, 1693’, CSP Dom., vol.4, pp.216–217; ‘List of Captives Taken During 1693’, Indictments and Proceedings Filed, 1696–1700, HCA 1/14, fo.1, TNA. 124 Pritchard and Yale, Admiralty Jurisdiction, p.clxxxvi; Rubin, The Law of Piracy, pp.19–95. 125 ‘Admiralty Commissioners to William Oldys and Thomas Pinfold, July 1693’, Miscellaneous Admiralty Papers, 1693, Rawlinson MS A.452, BLO; Dr. Oldish’s Plea, MS Osborn 185b, pp.2–3, YBL. 126 Ibid., fo.11. 67 convictions stood, he was ultimately unsuccessful.127 Keen to broadcast their success, the High Court of Admiralty’s advocates then published a transcript of the trial.128 At first glance then, the civilians were successful. They had been able to secure convictions, with piracy being used to explicitly punish continuing Irish loyalty to James, strengthening the Court’s record on controlling Ireland’s coasts in the process. The arguments offered by both sides in this case reveal the extent to which the advocates had to work to justify this verdict. The debate effectively pitted a common law understanding of piracy against a civil law one, centred on the significance of intention.129 Oldys penned his position in a treatise, which was circulated in manuscript after his dismissal.130 He expressed a common law understanding of the crime, claiming that piracy was ultimately the crime of robbery within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, also drawing upon the Grotian argument that ‘pirates and brigands are banded together for wrong-doing’, and therefore criminal intent was what defined piracy.131 Even if the commission from James was invalid, Oldys argued, knowledge that what they sought to do was illegal had to be proven to make the charge valid. He maintained that the Irish sailors had left Ireland before the Treaty of Limerick and therefore had no sense that what they did was a crime.132 If piracy was knowing, indiscriminate robbery at sea, then they were innocent. The advocates’ response was given in print by Matthew Tindal in 1694 and offered a civil law understanding of piracy as those who commit attacks on shipping at sea without a commission from a recognised sovereign.133 This was an interpretation that derived initially from the writings of Alberico Gentili and accorded more strongly with royal prerogative, as well as being the more established position before the 1690s, when proclamation rather than statute had tended to

127 ‘The Humble Petition of John Golding, Thomas Jones, John Ryan, Darby Collins… lately try’d and condemned as pyrates and traytors, 1694’, Indictments and Proceedings Filed, 1696–1700, HCA 1/14, fos.13–31, TNA. 128 Anon., An account of the tryals of Captain J. Golden. Thomas Jones. John Gold. Lawrance Maliene. Patrick Whitley. John Slaughter. Const. D’Heaity. Richard Shewers. Darby Collins. John Ryon. Dennis Cockram. John Walsh (1694). 129 Rubin, The Law of Piracy, pp.74–85. 130 Numerous copies of this have survived suggesting a substantial circulation, Dr. Oldish's Plea, MS Osborn 185b, YBL; ‘An Account of the Examination in September 1693 of Dr. Oldys’, Miscellaneous Theological Papers Chiefly Relating to the Non-Jurors, Rawlinson MS D.373, BLO; ‘An Account of the Examination in September 1693 of Dr. Oldys’, Law School Small Manuscript Collection, Harvard Law Library (HLL). 131 See Chapter 2, below; Stephen C. Neff, Hugo Grotius on the Law of War and Peace (2012), p.3. 132 ‘The petition of the Privateers to the House of Lords, September 1693’, Dr Oldish’s Plea, MS Osborn 185b, pp.9– 28, YBL. 133 Matthew Tindal, An Essay Concerning the Laws of Nations (1692), pp.8–9, 18; Rubin, The Law of Piracy, pp.19– 21. 68 determine what the English government considered piracy.134 In the context of Ireland, Tindal saw his interpretation as having a clear utility for English Protestants. He argued that only a distinct people with their own sovereign could be esteemed as enemies and possess the right to issue privateering commissions, expressed through the rhetorical question: ‘Would it not be very absurd in the Tories (rapparees), though they plundered Passengers and robbed Market-people by the late King’s Commission, to expect to be used as Enemies?’.135 The condemnation of the five sailors under the latter definition, therefore, was a rare victory for civil over common law, as the High Court of Admiralty’s criminal jurisdiction fell predominantly under the latter. In the end, Hedges got what he wanted: piracy was used to secure a conviction and Tindal was said to have been rewarded with an annual salary of £200 for his efforts.136 Yet Oldys was still able to eventually derail proceedings. Tindal’s definition had proved practical, but quickly it became apparent that there were obstacles to its continuing usage. This Admiralty Court Session remains the only one in which Irish sailors were convicted for piracy when serving under James II’s commission, and there were two reasons for this. First, as an argument provided by Oldys suggests, if England could execute the Jacobite privateers because William III did not accept James’s legitimacy as a monarch, then Louis XIV – who had never recognised William’s claim – could do the same to any captive English sailors.137 Equally, word of the trial’s details made its way to St Germain. In response, any vessels that were granted commissions by the exiled king thereafter were also recommended to obtain one from French admiralty officials. The belief held at the Jacobite court was that in England they would not dare to prosecute prisoners with both commissions for piracy, as it would be a serious violation of the law of nations. The writ of the law of nations dictated that these Irish sailors could not be made into pirates long term, and the usage of the crime to overturn the legitimacy of James II’s commissions proved first controversial in England, then unworkable as a result of its diplomatic

134 In comparison with the two acts of 1535 and 1536, which only mention piracy as one of a number of maritime offences, there were dozens of royal proclamations, detailed in Miscellany on Admiralty and Maritime Law, MS 43.1, fos.4–30, Trinity Hall Special Collections (TH); Artemis Gause, ‘Gentili, Alberico (1552–1608)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10522, accessed 11 May 2017]. 135 Tindal, Laws of Nations, p.21; the use of Tory in the context of Ireland originates from the Irish word tóraí, meaning ‘theives’: McGrath, ‘Politics, 1692–1730’, p.132. 136 B.W. Young, ‘Tindal, Matthew (bap. 1657, d. 1733)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, May 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27462, accessed 11 May 2017]. 137 ‘A letter from an English soldier in Flanders, 20 March 1694’, Miscellaneous Theological Papers Chiefly Relating to the Non-Jurors, Rawlinson MS D.373, fos.62–64, BLO. 69 implications. The problem remained for the Court’s advocates, however, that by late 1694 the Marshalsea still held hundreds of Irish sailors captured serving on privateering vessels.138 Instead, the civilians relied upon the crime of high treason in their prosecutions, which, although lacking the precision of piracy in refuting James’s claim, still condemned Catholic allegiance to foreign monarchs. High treason also had its problems, however. Standards of evidence demanded it be proved that the accused was indeed on the captured ship and that they were born in the dominions of the Stuarts. For the Irish sailors, honesty was not the best policy here. In July 1694, three of them admitted to being born in Ireland and cited the Treaty of Limerick in defence of their right to take a French commission, only to be told that the treaty was not an adequate defence and subsequently be executed.139 Here, the greater fluidity accorded to Irish identity by their history of overseas migration provided a strategy. Jailors in the Marshalsea reported a sense of fraternity among the sailors, who coordinated numerous escape attempts.140 It is not surprising, therefore, that those examined after July 1694 had consistent responses to questioning, learning from the experience of the first three sailors condemned for high treason. When subsequently examined, the sailors claimed to have been born in France or the French Caribbean, or they refused to state where they were from. While it would have been more difficult for an English person to make such claims, the known existence of an international Irish community at least made what they attested plausible and, if true, meant that they would be considered prisoners of war and ransomed back to France.141 For instance, on 4 September 1694, twelve prisoners were examined, all identified as Irish by the ship’s captain who had captured them. Upon examination, however, they all claimed to have been born in Brittany.142 This behaviour was mirrored by a second crew found on 20 September on a vessel with commissions from Louis XIV. Despite also being identified as Irish, they simply claimed they were French and refused to cooperate further when examined.143 Monitions issued by the Court aided in accumulating some evidence, but the tactic used by the sailors proved relatively successful. At the following session of the High Court of Admiralty, held on 6 November 1694, of

138 ‘List of Prisoners awaiting trial in the Marshalsea and the Savoy, 3 November 1694’, Court of Oyer and Terminar: Indictments, HCA 1/13, fo.49, TNA. 139 ‘Indictments in the High Court of Admiralty, 7 June 1696, Ibid., fo.15. 140 Miscellany Relating to Maritime Law, inserts 1–6, ASO. 141 ‘Bridgeman to Hedges, 29 July 1695’, Charles Hedges Letterbook, Add. MS 24107, fo.21, BL. 142 ‘Examinations of Prisoners, 4 September 1694’, Examinations of Pirates, HCA 1/52, fos.181–184, TNA. 143 ‘Examinations of Prisoners, 20 September 1694’, Ibid., fos.184–188. 70 the twenty-eight who stood accused of high treason, only five were found guilty.144 Frustrated, Charles Hedges attempted to implement measures to produce a greater conviction rate. In early 1695, he gave instructions to all English ship captains to note the nationality of any captives they took and listen for any instance of them speaking Irish.145 However, by December 1694, the vast majority of those brought in with a French commission were still being acquitted, as the sailors continued to obscure their origins, and the advocates struggled to amass the required evidence that they were born in Ireland.146 Unlike in the case of piracy, the Court did have some success in using high treason to consistently produce convictions. However, their failure to obtain a guilty verdict in the majority of cases speaks to the difficulty of applying English law to Irish subjects, who used their participation in an international community to successfully contest many prosecutions. Despite the Court’s limited success, the English Admiralty Board continued to pursue prominent captains they knew to be serving James II at sea. They made multiple attempts to capture Captain Philip Walsh of Ballynacooley, who escaped their clutches and eventually made so much from privateering that he was able to establish his family as merchants in St Malo.147 There were also some signs that the English advocates’ resolve in securing convictions was beginning to crack and that they sought to make the best out of a difficult situation. Dominic Masterson of Galway received his privateering commission from St Germain in July 1694 and was ordered to capture English vessels along the Irish coast.148 By October, he was waiting off the coast near Galway to escort ships laden with provisions back to France, but his vessel was caught in stormy weather and driven into the harbour.149 He and his crew were arrested, with anyone among them believed to be Irish shipped to England for trial.150 Masterson obviously feared the consequences of being seen to be a

144 ‘Summary of Proceedings in the High Court of Admiralty, 6 November 1694’, Indictments, HCA 1/13, fo.50, TNA. 145 ‘Proposals for the easy conviction of Traytors and Pyrats, 2 February 1695’, Hedges Letterbook, Add. MS 24107, fos.6–7, BL. 146 ‘Charles Hedges to William III, 21 December 1695, Ibid., fo.43. 147 Melville Henry Massue, The Jacobite Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Grants of Honour (1903), p.242; ‘Pedigree of Philip Walsh of St Malo’, Genealogical Office Manuscripts, MS 162, pp.44–47, NLI; ‘Deposition before William Ballard, Commissioner of the Revenue in Cork, February 1693’, ‘Cassell to Sydney, 28 July 1693’, State Papers: Ireland, 1693, SP 63/355, fos.27, 63, TNA; ‘Lords Justices to Admiralty, 29 March 1694’, Lords Justices Letters, Carte MS 170, fos.97–98, BLO. 148 ‘James II’s Commission for Dominic Masterson, 6 July 1694’, Copies of Correspondence of the 2nd Earl of Middleton, Secretary of State to James II During His Exile, Carte MS 256, fo.53, BLO. 149 ‘Lords Justices to the Duke of Shrewsbury. 29 January 1695’, Lords Justices Letters, Carte MS 170, fos.77–78, BLO. 150 ‘George St George to Hedges, 19 October 1694’, Letters and Papers Relating to Admiralty Affairs, Add. MS 25098, fo.117, BL. 71

Jacobite and had thrown his commissions overboard, then lied under examination, claiming that he had only been commissioned by Louis XIV.151 The captain had not been robbing ships indiscriminately; yet, despite his request to await confirmation from France, the civilians suspected his connection with the exiled king and threatened to prosecute him for piracy. When a copy of the commission arrived and they could not prove a treason charge, Masterson avoided execution when the Admiralty Court offered him a pardon on the condition that he enter the service of William III and swear an oath of allegiance.152 While Hedges and the other advocates still sought to enact exemplary punishments upon these sailors, they were no longer willing to go to such lengths for the sake of individual convictions. The last significant capture of the war made by the Admiralty Board was of Thomas Vaughan, an Irish captain, most likely from Galway, or perhaps, as he claimed, from Martinique.153 Vaughan had been captaining privateering vessels since 1692, most notoriously attacking and temporarily occupying the Arran Islands off the coast of Galway in 1693, while his compatriots raided and robbed the Protestants who had settled there.154 After an unsuccessful attempt to capture him that same year, the Admiralty Board was eventually able to track and seize his ship in July 1695.155 Seeking to circumvent the need to prove high treason, the Court’s advocates first tried to connect Vaughan with the theft of a ship in England some years previously, before his current commission was issued.156 This line of questioning implies that they still wanted to convict him for piracy but shied away from proceeding, as they had in 1692 against someone with a commission from James II. The eventual decision on how to try him was postponed, however, after he was broken out of jail in August 1695 and fled to Hamburg.157 By the time of Vaughan’s later recapture, circumstances for the High Court of Admiralty changed. By 1696, the advocates had tried and mostly failed to situate themselves as effective

151 ‘The Examination of Dominic Masterson, 21 August 1694’, State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356, fo.67, TNA. 152 Miscellany Relating to Maritime Law, fos.258–262 (ASO). 153 The Examination of Thomas Vaughan, late Commander of the Ship Loyal Clancarty, 27 July 1695’, Indictments, HCA 1/13, fo.95, TNA. 154 Massue, Jacobite Peerage, p.239; ‘Thomas Revett to Schomberg, 24 May 1693’, State Papers: Ireland, 1693, SP 63/355, fo.38, TNA. 155 ‘Sydney to Nottingham, 1 June 1693’, Ibid., fo.53; Commission of Thomas Vaughan, 11 July 1694’, Earl of Middleton Correspondence, Carte MS 256, fo.57, BLO. 156 ‘The Examination of Thomas Vaughan, late Commander of the Ship Loyal Clancarty and others, 27 July 1695’, Indictments, HCA 1/13, fo.95, TNA. 157 ‘Thomas Vaughan to Jacque Michel, 2 May 1696’, Ellis Papers, vol.6, Add. MS 28880, fos.123–124, BL; ‘Edward Whittaker to Charles Hedges, 22 August 1695’, Hedges Letterbook, Add. MS 24107, fo.21, BL. 72 enforcers of the prohibition on Catholic connections with France. They had done so with the support of English commercial and political interests who intended to enact punishment for the damage done to Atlantic commerce and to stymie Louis XIV’s influence on the island. Yet events further east meant that the Court’s focus would soon shift to the Americas, where many further, more fruitful opportunities to extend their jurisdiction lay. During the summer of 1695, the EIC were providing testimonies of similarly illegal trade in the Americas, involving “pirates” operating out of Madagascar.158 The Third Navigation Act (1696), which passed through English Parliament in April, represented the crystallisation of what Bristol merchants had sought from the admiralty courts, outlawing the importation of all goods from the Americas into Ireland. At the same time, it afforded the High Court of Admiralty no direct role in policing this renewed prohibition. They were, however, granted the right to establish vice-admiralty courts in the Americas, which retained the right to also prosecute illegal traders.159 The English body, therefore, had the potential to substantially expand their reach and appear to have shifted their priorities onto pursuing pirates from Madagascar, rather than concentrating on their authority in Ireland. This transition was captured very decisively in a Court Session during 1696. The hunt for the escaped Thomas Vaughan proceeded alongside the search for the crew of Henry Avery, as pressure to have captured Irish sailors prosecuted continued. In August 1695, William III had ordered the advocates and Irish Lords Justices to ensure the sailors were not tried in any local courts in Ireland and were instead quickly transported to England for trial.160 Indeed, when Vaughan’s escape was reported to the King on 8 September, they were ordered to ensure he was recaptured and tried quickly.161 In the case of Henry Avery and his crew, there was a similar urgency to their capture. They stood accused of robbing a ship belonging to the Mughal Empire off the coast of Madagascar, with the EIC claiming that relations with the Mughal Shah Aurangzeb would be damaged irreparably if the Company did not track down and execute them.162 The first to be captured was Vaughan, in April 1696, having been discovered and arrested by Paul Rycaut, the English resident in Hamburg.163 After a delay caused by Vaughan once again making his escape, he was shipped to

158 See Chapter 5, below. Burgess, Politics of Piracy, pp.51–64. 159 ‘William III, 1695–6: An Act for preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade’ in John Raithby (ed.), Statutes of the Realm, vol.7 (1820), pp.103–107. 160 ‘Blathwayt to Lords Justices, 11 August 1695’, Hedges Letterbook., Add. MS 24107, fo.20, BL. 161 ‘Blathwayt to Lords Justices, 8 September 1695’, Blathwayt Letterbook, Add. MS 37992, fo.102, BL. 162 See chapter 5, below. 163 ‘Rycaut to Trumbull, 15 May 1696’, A Collection of Paul Rycaut’s Letters, 1696–1700, vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153, BL; Rycaut was resident in Hamburg from August 1689 until May 1700, S. Anderson, ‘Rycaut, Sir Paul 73

England on 12 June.164 Members of Avery’s crew began to arrive in the Marshalsea in July, having individually made their way to Ireland, England and, for a smaller number, the Americas. Those who fled to Ireland were captured in Kinsale in August and transported to London for trial, where they joined others captured around the same time in England.165 The two separate cases served to ultimately bookend the question, first raised by Oldys, of how to define piracy. The issue remained the extent of behaviours and circumstances that could make an individual guilty of piracy. On the one hand, Avery’s crew fitted the bill under the common law definition of robbery at sea, having no obvious allegiances or commissions they could claim that motivated their actions. On the other, Vaughan could only be easily condemned as a pirate under civil law, and convicting him required doing so in spite of his French commission. The issue was specifically discussed following Vaughan’s recapture in late July 1696, when Charles Hedges, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty debated how to prosecute ‘that pirat Vaughan’ in a meeting with the Privy Council.166 The decision made against him at this stage remains unclear, but by October the potential consequences of prosecuting Vaughan for piracy were spelled out in a letter written from Hamburg by Paul Rycaut, who had been instrumental in his capture. He reported in October that, if Vaughan were executed for piracy, then Louis XIV had vowed to do the same in reparation to an English prisoner held in goal, a retaliation which Oldys had already warned of back in 1693.167 At this point the civilians abandoned any thought of attempting to try Vaughan as a pirate and focused instead on Avery’s trial, which they afforded priority. Vaughan’s trial, scheduled for 26 October 1695, was postponed to make way for Avery’s crew.168 In the end, both cases were concluded on 6 November 1696 at the same session of the High Court of Admiralty. Vaughan and a substantial number of the twenty-eight men serving Avery were found guilty. This decision upheld a confirmation of the common law definition of piracy, as Avery’s men were prosecuted for piracy and Vaughan for high treason.169 Shortly afterwards in December, Hedges

(1629–1700)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2008); retrieved 15 Sep. 2018, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128–e-24392]. 164 ‘Rycaut to Trumbull, 12 June 1696’, Rycaut Papers, vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153, fo.7, BL. 165 ‘Charles Porter to Blathwayt, 19 August 1696’, State Papers; Ireland, 1696, SP 63/358, no.145, TNA. 166 ‘Trumbull to Hedges, 21 July 1696’, CSP Dom., vol.7, p.282. 167 ‘Rycaut to Trumbull, 26 October 1696’, Rycaut Papers, Lansdowne MS 1153, fo.33, BL; ‘A letter from an English soldier in Flanders’, Papers Relating to Non-Jurors, Rawlinson MS D.373, fos.62–64, BLO. 168 Anon., The Tryals of Joseph Dawson, Edward Forseith, William May, [brace] William Bishop, James Lewis, and John Sparkes for several piracies and robberies by them committed in the company of Every the grand pirate (1696), p.9. 169 ‘Indictment against Thomas Vaughan and John Murphy, 31 October 1696’, Indictments, HCA 1/14, fo.46, TNA. 74 had copies of the proceedings of both trials on the same day printed, constituting both their permanent adoption of a common law definition and a wider shift of attention from regulating movements of people onto Ireland’s coasts towards the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.170

*** For Irish Catholics who believed French support remained their best hope to secure a Jacobite restoration, the peace treaty signed at Ryswick on 20 September 1697 was the final blow to their hopes. If they continued to fight, they would be declared outlaws in the eyes of all European authorities, no longer sheltered by English acceptance of France as a legitimate enemy. In the Caribbean, one Irish sailor James Kelly continued the fight regardless. When told of the peace while he was raiding the coast of Jamaica in early 1698, Kelly reportedly replied that ‘he knew of none till King James was in England’.171 He was subsequently exiled from Saint Domingue by Jean-Baptiste du Casse, the French governor and fled to the Bahamas. There, he found a base of operations amongst the sailors who attacked Mughal and Safavid shipping in the Red Sea.172 As he continued to rob English shipping, Kelly was denounced as a pirate by both English and French governors across the Caribbean, and in the end he was captured and executed on Saint Domingue.173 His condemnation and eventual demise marks the disentangling of the most ardent Jacobites from the francophone world as peace concluded, seeing them move beyond the official protection of any European power. This chapter has argued that, during the Nine Years’ War, a range of Protestant interests attempted to assert their exclusive right to dominion in Ireland, not just through colonisation projects on land but by controlling movements of people and goods at sea. The impact of war forced thousands of poor Irish Catholics to leave for France and the French Caribbean, where they entered networks formed initially by the history of British military intervention and plantation, but which had since matured. Their existence made the threat of a Jacobite resurgence very real, representing Louis XIV continuing to influence the island by proxy. Protestant landowners, merchants and politicians universally perceived this threat, but many legal jurisdictions crisscrossed Irelands’

170 Anon., The tryal and condemnation of Capt. Thomas Vaughan for high treason in adhering to the French-king and for endeavouring the destruction of His Majesties ships (1697). 171 ‘Beeston to DuCasse, 15 November 1698’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1696–1699, CO 137/4, fo.246, TNA. 172 ‘Beeston to Board of Trade, 20 January 1699’, Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Entry Books, 1696–1700, CO 138/9, fo.250, TNA. 173 ‘Beeston to Board of Trade, 28 February 1699’, Ibid., fos.280–284. 75 coasts, each of which spoke for particular interest groups. At least two visions emerged for how colonisation projects should best be reflected on sea. The first, advocated by English merchants and government figures, argued for the sealing off of Ireland to cut Franco–Irish connections and eliminate the island as a commercial competitor of England, rendering it a dependent colony in practice. The second, provided by Protestants in Ireland, advocated a lenient policy that would allow them to harness Catholic labour and trade networks. Granted an opportunity by anxieties about these movements of goods and people, the advocates of English High Court of Admiralty attempted to use piracy trials to play their part in implementing the former idea. Yet divisions among the admiralty’s advocates over the finer points of law and the legal strategies of the Catholics they prosecuted made them unable to secure the verdicts they sought. Above all, they failed in their efforts to create pirates in order to advance their own institution’s prospects, heralding the failure of the particular vision of empire it represented. As in the case of the Postillion, the drift of the Court’s attention to the Americas saw jurisdictional ambiguity endure in Ireland, a de facto victory for Irish Protestants. Colonisation projects on the island continued to facilitate Irish trade with the wider world, rather than seeing the island closed off and rendered peripheral in an empire controlled from London. Yet in the process, they had seen the crime of piracy converted from a wartime measure to suppress Roman Catholic attachment to France and James II to a means to control movements of people beyond far beyond Europe. As had been the case many times before, the crime served as a tool honed by English political and commercial interests in relation to Ireland, to then be applied elsewhere.

II: The Darien Scheme and Venture Calvinism in the Caribbean Sea, 1695–1701

In a proclamation of 1699, Don José Sarmiento y Valladares, Viceroy of New Spain, denounced a band of colonists who had recently disembarked on an island in the Gulf of Darién, eastern Panama. This colonisation project, known to historians since simply as the Darien Scheme, was established some months earlier in October 1698 by predominantly Scottish settlers who envisaged their colony of Caledonia as an entrepôt, linking commercial traffic between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The colourful terms in which Sarmiento condemned the scheme, however, raise some important questions about this settlement’s place within the history of European colonialism. He claimed to be convinced of the need ‘to exterminate the Scottish pirates, with a number of reasons informing my decision’, most importantly ‘to extirpate the heresy they could introduce by their weakness among the ignorant pueblos, the diabolical malaise spreading among their villages, with the common enemy [Satan] infecting and infesting them all’. Sarmiento believed these actions to be justified, because the damage they would inflict was proven by similar experiences ‘from the year 81 to 88 … where, not content with the robberies and lootings of the rivers, they [English pirates] took captive women, children and priests’.1 Here, Sarmiento historicised the Scots’ colony, likening it to the raids of Caribbean “pirates” that had plagued the Spanish Americas for well over a hundred years. In Sarmiento’s estimation, the heresy, financial cost and human damage these colonists would inevitably cause were interwoven – connections he was not exceptional in making. As might be expected, the Council of the Indies at Seville and Pope Innocent XII also decried these Scottish “pirates”, claiming that the Catholic faith, indigenous peoples and Spanish subjects would suffer if they were not dislodged.2 More surprisingly, a similar connection was made by English observers. In early January 1699, the crew of a Royal African Company vessel warned officials in Havana that the convoy of Scottish ships that had recently arrived in eastern Panama came crewed

1 ‘exteminar piratas escozesses por los motivos que persuaden eficazmente mi resolucion’, ‘extirpar la eregia que puede introducir por su debilidad en los yndios la diabolica malizia difundiendola entre la ignorancia de aquellos pueblos este y el comun enemigo para infizionarlos, y infestarlos todos’, ‘desde el año de 81 hasta el de 88 … donde no se contentaron con los robos, y saqueos de los caudales, sino con el cautiverio de los naturales mugeres, niños, y religiosos’ all from ‘Don José Sarmiento y Valladares to Don Martin de Aranguren Zavala, 28 March 1699’, Francis Russell Hart Collection, 1573–1936: Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.10, MHS. 2 ‘Council of the Indies to the King, 9 May 1699’, Ibid., fo.10; ‘James Stanhope to William Blathwayt, 13 August 1699’, Osborn Manuscripts, MS OSB 2, Box 8, fo.178, YBL. 78 by notorious pirates, intent on attacking the treasure fleet.3 Despite these concerns, there is no evidence, in any source, that Scottish mariners captured Spanish shipping while at Panama or that they intended to do so when they set out from Scotland. Given the unusual deployment of such a familiar word, it is worth asking why, exactly, contemporaries viewed the colonists at Darien as pirates. One can begin to understand this description of the Scottish colonists as pirates by accepting that, during its lifetime, the Darien Scheme was not viewed as unique, but as one instance of a familiar colonial paradigm with its roots in the European Wars of Religion. Colonists from France, the Netherlands, England and Denmark had all gained footholds in the Caribbean Sea through an essentially parasitic relationship with the Spanish overseas territories, as peripheries, rather than establishing their own dominions through conquest, plantation or settler colonialism.4 As early as 1519, the lure of gold and silver, alongside the opportunity to attack Europe’s preeminent Catholic power pushed generations of Europeans, especially Calvinist reformers, to raid Spanish towns and the treasure shipments that sailed from Central America. Unified by their faith and denied access to political or economic privilege in Europe, these sailors and their backers practiced venture Calvinism: high-risk, profitable enterprises, justified by the zero-sum calculation that Rome’s losses were Reformed Christianity’s gains. The predominant function of these venture Calvinists was as a source of capital, in the form of bullion, either as specie or unminted precious metals – resources they diverted into trade and investment around the Atlantic. Venture Calvinism generally operated without explicit sovereign approval and with little regard to peace treaties, its adherents targeting Spanish dominions precisely because their sovereign either opposed reform or stopped short of military action to protect it. That said, venture Calvinists themselves never claimed to be aggressive, but retaliatory, enacting reprisals upon Spain in response to perceived Catholic aggression in Europe. This practice should, however, be differentiated sharply from Calvinist colonies in North America. Venture Calvinists were less concerned with permanent settlement or personal morality than with diverting Catholic Spanish revenue streams into the hands of reformers in Europe, actions that have to be understood as part of a crusading rather than a missionary

3 Specifically they claimed that sailors on the ships ‘had been corsairs and that they had made incursions, when a pirating and had seized certain Indians and also a great lots of gold and these same Indians had told them that much more of it remained’, ‘Deposition taken at Havana, 9 January 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.6, MHS. 4 Gould, ‘Entangled Histories, pp.764–786; Lorenzo Veracini, ‘‘Settler Colonialism’: Career of a Concept’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol.21, no.2 (2013), pp.313–333. 79 mentalité. The overall function of this type of venturing was to force open and redirect closed capital flows and forge new trading networks, practices that became an important motor in driving the Protestant colonisation of the Caribbean. Existing literature has at times touched on this connection.5 Karen Kupperman, in particular, did so when she wrote of ‘Puritan colonization from Providence Island to the Western Design’, but this continuity is merely a fragment, part of a larger, bullion-seeking model that tracks the rise and fall of international Calvinism, stretching from La Florida to Caledonia.6 For over a century Spain endured these attacks and condemned those who committed them as pirates, but by the later seventeenth century the practice had produced rival models of colonisation. It was this legacy that framed and ultimately undermined the Darien Scheme. How exactly the Scottish colony fitted into the history of the Caribbean, has yet to be considered fully by scholars. The efforts of the Company of Scotland, the joint-stock company that planned and funded it, loom especially large in national histories of Scotland. In a tradition stretching back to Defoe, this historiography continues to explore and debate the significance of the colony’s eventual failure for the nation’s path to Union with its southern neighbour.7 Recent Scottish historiography adds further texture to this still-important narrative, introducing a more detailed understanding of the Company itself and the Scheme’s role in the development of a Scottish public sphere.8 Increasingly, however, a number of historians have begun to pick up where Francis Russell Hart left off in 1929, by considering both Spanish and Central American perspectives on Darien.9 Two notable accounts have recently used source materials in Seville to flesh out the place of the scheme within a Spanish imperial context and cite the colony’s destruction as contradicting

5 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.70–79; Kris Lane, Pillaging the Empire: Piracy in the Americas, 1500–1750, 2nd ed. (2016), p.17; Carl Schmitt, Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation (2015), trans. Samuel Garret Zaitlin, passim. 6 ‘Errand to the Indies: Puritan Colonization from Providence Island through the Western Design’, WMQ, vol.45 no.1 (1988), pp.70–99. 7 Daniel Defoe, The History of the Union between England and Scotland (1709); The most comprehensive account of the Darien Scheme remains: John Prebble, The Darien Disaster (1968). Significant older accounts include: T.C. Smout, Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union, 1660–1707 (1963). For newer examples see Christopher A. Whatley, The Scots and the Union: Then and Now (2007), pp.166–175 and, most ambitiously: MacInnes, Union and Empire, pp.173–181. 8 Bowie, Scottish Public, passim; Douglas Watt, The Price of Scotland: Darien, Union and the Wealth of Nations (2007). 9 Julie M. Orr, ‘New Caledonia´s Wake: Expanding the Story of Company of Scotland Expeditions to Darien, 1698– 1700’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2014); Christopher Storrs, ’Disaster at Darien (1698–1700)? The Persistence of Spanish Imperial Power on the Eve of the Demise of the Spanish Habsburgs’, European History Quarterly, vol.29, no.1 (1999), pp.5–38; Francis Russel Hart, The Disaster of Darien: The Story of the Scots Settlement and the Causes of its Failure, 1699–1701 (1929). 80 traditional accounts of Spain’s gradual imperial decline after Philip II.10 Most innovative, however, has been Ignacio Gallup-Díaz’s discussion of Darien within the context of indigenous geopolitics in Panama. He has argued that the Scottish colony constituted just one instance in a long history of European involvement in the region and that, like others before them, eventual fate of the Scottish colonists was influenced by their ability to navigate the region’s power relations. He also views the 1690s as a particular historical moment, in which many different European peoples stood poised to attempt settlements in Central America. This chapter most keenly follows after this latter approach, stressing that observers situated Darien within the longue durée history of the Caribbean Sea, but did so as a means of debating its legitimacy within the particular context of the later 1690s. This chapter will argue that, because the Gulf of Darién was viewed as a location that historically drew pirates, opponents of the Scottish colony were able to position it within a much older debate about colonisation in the Caribbean Sea. Protestants had persistently built their presence in the Caribbean through plundered gold and silver, a presence that over time came to manifest in two colonial forms: the plantation colony and the commercial entrepôt. Those with interests in the former took after Spanish officials in arguing, as a means to suppress new colonisation attempts, that the latter encouraged pirates. Caledonia, imagined by William Paterson as a free port, was thus fitted into this existing context, allowing planter interests in colonies such as Jamaica to argue that the scheme would not just encourage pirates, but also benefit French plans to seize control of the Caribbean. This argument won them the support of public institutions in England, which were essential in undermining the efforts of the Company of Scotland. The Scottish Company eventually came to realise that they were part of this competition, and its backers set out to overturn the support that the planters had been able to secure in England. They were, however, unsuccessful, and the continuing opposition of Spanish and planter interests served to replicate the conditions faced by earlier Protestant colonisers in the region, causing the new settlers to eventually replicate venture Calvinism. Making the case for this history of the Darien Scheme, what follows will be divided into three sections. The first provides a macro overview of the origins and rise of venture Calvinism. It shows how, across the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the pursuit of bullion and religious reform entwined in attacks on Spanish dominions throughout the Caribbean Sea. These raids eventually

10 Ignacio Gallup-Díaz, The Door of the Seas and Key to the Universe: Indian Politics and Imperial Rivalry in the Darién 1640–1750 (2002), ch.4. 81 gave way to two rival colonial forms, the entrepôt, embodied in Curaçao, and the plantation colony, exemplified by Jamaica, but also led to the creation of pirate and piracy as rhetorical and legal mechanisms of colonial exclusion. The second section then considers the lobbying efforts that determined the project’s legality and the first expedition to Panama. It begins with a discussion of how Darien was informed by this legacy of Caribbean colonisation, a fact that was used against the Company of Scotland by agents representing plantation owners in England. These representatives were able to argue that the colony would encourage pirates and strengthen French ambitions in the Caribbean, winning them the support of Parliament and the Board of Trade in England as well as William III himself. As a consequence, the Company of Scotland entered the Caribbean under the same conditions as many Calvinist peoples before them, diverting them into a similar pattern of conflict with Spanish settlers. The third section considers the domestic response to the first expedition in Scotland, the events of the second colonisation attempt and the fallout of the Scheme’s eventual failure. It begins by reconstructing the unsuccessful attempt by the Company of Scotland to reposition the scheme as opposing a projected Franco–Spanish alliance, intended to break political support for planter interests in England. As a consequence of this failure, conditions in Central America remained unchanged, funnelling the colonists into even more closely replicating venture Calvinism. This contest between these two colonial models was finally resolved in Seville, where the Company of Scotland itself was placed on trial for piracy before the Casa de la Cotratación in 1701. The refusal of William III to intervene in the case would make the guilty verdict that followed into a resounding victory for the Caribbean planters.

*** As was known widely at the time, the Company of Scotland did not enter an unspoiled and undesired region of jungle on arrival in eastern Panama during the autumn of 1698. Europeans had journeyed to the Gulf of Darién for over 150 years, pursuing the tremendous mineral wealth of the Americas and many were willing to steal or commit acts of violence to obtain it.11 Alongside these developing predatory behaviours came vocabularies to describe and regulate them. The centuries- long contest for the wealth of Central and South America became formative in the development of both piracy as a crime and the allegorical figure of the pirate. Initially Mediterranean concepts, the

11 Gallup-Díaz, Door into the Seas, ch.1, para.10. 82 context of Spanish overseas expansion and the European Wars of Religion saw them rolled out around the world.12 Those they sought to exclude were Protestants, predominantly Calvinists, who came seeking the shipments of gold and silver that departed annually for Cadiz and Manilla. Over time, this venture Calvinism became both secularised and the basis for colonisation of the Caribbean by Protestants. To understand this history is to appreciate the lens through which contemporaries later chose to understand the Darien Scheme and the well-worn debates that were being articulated through its conception and application. The roots of venture Calvinism lay less in Geneva or Zwinglian reform than in Extremadura and the Reconquista.13 Initial European colonisation of the Caribbean by Iberians set the pattern for how all newcomers entered the region thereafter. The settlements constructed across the Greater Antilles by Spanish soldiers and adventurers after 1493 possessed limited military, commercial and political capabilities, and they were ultimately a continuation of the Iberian colonisation of the Azores and the Canary Islands, which had begun during the 1430s.14 By 1514, Spanish outposts of this kind existed at Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Cuba and Jamaica, as well as on the coasts of Panama.15 Increasingly, in these small settlements, the entwined confessional and economic rewards of the Reconquista were transferred, most notably through the encomienda system after 1497.16 Initially, a desire for labour by encomenderos drove widespread practices of forced labour and plantation, with these outposts becoming bases to secure Taíno and Caribe labourers. Hernán Cortés’s expedition of 1519 served to somewhat shift this focus on account of the vast quantities

12 Schmitt, Land and Sea, pp.59–83. 13 Graeme Murdock, Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europe’s Reformed Churches, c.1540–1620 (2004), pp.8–15. Recently, scholars have begun to consider continuity between the colonialism of Spain and other Europeans, including: Barbara Fuchs, ‘Religion and National Distinction in the Early Modern Atlantic’ in Linda Gregerson and Susan Juster (eds.), Empires of God: Religious Encounters in the Early Modern Atlantic (2011), pp.58–86; Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World, passim but specifically pp.3–29 in this context; Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra, Puritan Conquistadors: Iberianizing the Atlantic 1550–1700 (2006); Anthony Pagden, The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology (1982). 14 Joseph F. O’Callaghan, ‘Castile, Portugal and the Canary Islands: Claims and Counterclaims 1344–1479’ in José- Juan López-Portillo (ed.), Spain, Portugal and the Atlantic Frontier of Medieval Europe (2013), pp.169–192; David Abulafia, The Discovery of Mankind: Atlantic Encounters in the Age of Columbus (2008), pp.82–89. 15 Stuart B. Schwartz, ‘The Iberian Atlantic to 1650’ in Nicholas Canny and Philip Morgan (eds.), The Atlantic World c.1450–c.1850 (2011), pp.158–151. 16 For the transferal of Iberian societal and legal practices to the Americas see Tamar Herzog, Defining Nations: Immigrants and Citizens in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America (2003); Kathleen Deagan, ‘Dynamics of Imperial Adjustment in Spanish America: Ideology and Social Integration’ in Susan E. Alcock et. al. (eds.), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History (2001), pp.179–195; L.C. Green and Olive Patricia Dickason, The Law of Nations and the New World (1993), pp.4–34, 143–160. 83 of gold and silver he secured by plundering the Aztec Confederation.17 After many further raids during the following years, precious metals began flowing out of the mines of Peru and Central America towards Spain via these Caribbean islands. Yet, for the conquistadors, this pursuit of wealth did not conflict with their Catholic faith. Figures like Cortés may not have believed that what they did was divinely sanctioned, but they did believe themselves to be the recipients of divine favour as the inheritors of both El Cid and the Reconquista.18 Successive generations of Spanish writers had no issues lionising the conquistadors as the vanguard in the expansion of God’s Kingdom.19 The first colonisation of the Caribbean after the 1490s, therefore, drew upon Iberian precedents to fuse the pursuit of precious metals, slave trading and other forms of commerce. They did so with the underlying justification that, in doing so, they embarked upon a form of crusade, blazing a trail for the expansion of Latin Christendom.20 At the same time, islands like Cuba came to be covered with plantations built on unfree labour but also functioned as commercial entrepôts that allowed the Spanish crown to harness the vast wealth of the Americas. While widespread belief in, or at least enthusiastic dissemination of, la leyenda negra among Protestant peoples suggests that they abhorred Spanish colonialism, in practice, all aspiring imperial powers in the Atlantic emulated them.21 Cortés’s riches attracted widespread attention in Europe, and it was French sailors who were next drawn across the ocean in pursuit of American

17 Joseph C. Miller, ‘The Sixteenth Century’ in idem, The Princeton Companion to Atlantic History (2015), p.18; Geoffrey Plank, ‘War and Warfare in the Atlantic World’ in D’Maris Coffman, Adrian Leonard and William O’Reilly, The Atlantic World (2014) p.271; Daviken Studnicki-Gizbert, A Nation upon the Ocean Sea: Portugal’s Atlantic Diaspora and the Crisis of the Spanish Empire, 1492–1640 (2007), p.26; Murdo J. Macloed, ‘Spain and America: The Atlantic Trade, 1692–1720’, L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America (1984), p.351; Henry H. Keith, ‘New World Interlopers: The Portuguese in the Spanish West Indies, from the Discovery to 1640’, The Americas, vol.12, no.2 (1969), pp.362–363. 18 Hussein Fancy, The Mercenary Mediterranean: Sovereignty, Religion, and Violence in the Medieval Crown of Aragon (2016), pp.53–97; Brad S. Gregory, Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (1999), pp.74–96; Cañizares-Esguerra, Puritan Conquistadors, pp.39–50; Barbara Fuchs, Mimesis and Empire: The New World, Islam, and European Identities (2001), pp.18–20; Anthony Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c.1500–1800 (1995), p.74; René Jara and Nicholas Spadaccini, ‘The Construction of a Colonial Imaginary: Columbus’s Signature’ in Idem (eds.), Amerindian Images and the Legacy of Columbus (1992), pp.8–13, 78–83 and passim; D.A. Brading, The First America: The Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots and the Liberal State, 1492–1867 (1991), pp.25–57; Anthony Pagden, ‘Identity Formation in Spanish America’ in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds.), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World 1500–1800 (1987), pp.51–54. 19 Cañizares-Esguerra, Puritan Conquistadors, pp.19–20; Jennifer Robin Goodman, Chivalry and Exploration, 1298–1630 (1998) p.164. 20 Abulafia, Discovery of Mankind, pp.224–238. 21 Patricia Gavatt, ‘Rereading Theodore De Bry’s Black Legend’ in Margaret R. Greer, Walter D. Mignolo and Maureen Quilligan (eds.), Rereading the Black Legend: The Discourses of Religious and Racial Difference in the Renaissance Empires (2008), pp.225–243; William S. Maltby, The Black Legend in England: The Development of Anti-Spanish Sentiment, 1558–1660 (1971). 84 bullion. The lucrative potential of raids on Spanish shipping were realised in 1523, when the commander Jean Fleury captured two vessels stocked with treasure amassed by Cortés.22 The onset of the French Reformation, however, markedly changed the significance accorded to these raids.23 By the 1550s, Calvin’s doctrine had secured converts amongst urban merchants and landless artisans in greater proportions than in rural areas, causing French Protestant – popularly called Huguenot – populations to expand disproportionately in the port towns of Normandy, as well as Montpellier and La Rochelle.24 This blend of militarised reform, merchant capital and often displaced artisan populations facilitated the outfitting of vessels, intent on precious metals and crewed increasingly by reformers.25 The emergence of a form of resistance theory in Calvinist communities aided this development, as jurists produced coherent political philosophies arguing for the importance of opposing Rome through means up to outright revolt and military action.26 Thus attacks continued out of towns like Dieppe even during peacetime, while in times of war they inflicted significant injuries in the Spanish Caribbean, temporarily capturing Cartagena in 1543, Santiago de Cuba in 1553 and Havana in 1555.27 Growing religious tensions in France, alongside the eruption of the first episode in the French War of Religion in 1562, saw these raids come to facilitate colonisation schemes. As the reform movement began organising in France, some nobles converted to Calvinism, seizing control from clergy, most notably through Gaspard de Coligny’s open conversion in 1558.28 Coligny himself was among the sponsors of two predominantly Huguenot colonial projects in Brazil (1557) and Florida (1562), both publically envisioned on the part of moderate reformers as fortified trade posts.

22 Philip P. Boucher, France and the American Tropics to 1700: Tropics of Discontent? (2008), pp.41–42. 23 Penny Roberts, Peace and Authority during the French Religious Wars, c.1560–1600 (2013), pp.13–23; Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe (2012), pp.192–193; Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (2002), pp.130–138; Francis M. Higman, ‘French Speaking Regions, 1520–62’, Jean-François Gilmont, The Reformation and the Book (1998), trans. Karin Maag, pp.110–116, 134–136; Mark Greengrass, The French Reformation (1987), pp.21–41. 24 Owen Stanwood, ‘The Huguenot Refuge and European Imperialism’ in Raymond A. Mentzer and Bertrand Van Ruymbeke (eds.), A Companion to the Huguenots (2016), p.396; Mack P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562– 1629, 2nd ed. (2005), pp.33–38; Greengrass, French Reformation, pp.42–62, 81. 25 Lane, Pillaging the Empire, p.24; Boucher, France and the American Tropics, pp.41–43; Alan James, The Navy and Government in Early Modern France, 1572–1661 (2004), p.14; Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Ages of Philip II, vol.1 (1972), trans. Sian Reynolds, p.617. 26 Robert M. Kingdon, ‘Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550–1580’ in J.H. Burns and Mark Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (1991), pp.193–218. 27 Latimer, Buccaneers of the Caribbean, p.11; Nina Gerassi-Navarro, Pirate Novels: Fictions of Nation Building in Spanish America (1999), pp.21–22. 28 Allan A. Tulchin, ‘Church and State in the French Reformation’, The Journal of Modern History, vol.86, no.4 (2014), pp.857–861; Holt, The French Wars of Religion, pp.50–54; J. Shimizu, Conflict of Loyalties: Politics and Religion in the Career of Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 1519–1572 (1970). 85

The militant wing of French reform openly envisioned these colonies as bases from which they could secure gold and silver to support further reform in France.29 Despite the efforts of initial moderates like Coligny to control both colonies, La Florida was eventually used as a staging post to attack Havana – the point where Spanish treasure shipments converged – provoking the colony’s destruction.30 Yet the collapse of these schemes and the intensification of violence during the Wars of Religion after 1567 did little to deter French reformers from travelling to the Americas. In fact, they stepped up their attacks there, vowing to enact reprisals for the loss of both colonies, destroyed, as they claimed, by the rage of savage antichristian forces.31 They emulated Spanish colonists even while they condemned their beliefs, forcefully pursuing bullion and casting their actions as the necessary and forcible advancement of true Christianity, the first instances of venture Calvinism. To protect these flows of gold and silver, it was clear that a now-extended Spain required laws and rhetorical strategies to combat interlopers. Following on from attacks by French corsairs during the 1520s, Iberian commerce was progressively centralised for protection into ports around the Isthmus of Panama, practices ultimately formalised in 1566 by Pedro Menéndez de Avilés into the two annual departures of the flota and the galeones.32 However, while this system provided a clearer means for officials to determine which subjects traded legitimately, they still lacked a language to identify, deter and punish foreign intruders.33 Initially, Huguenot attackers were dubbed corsarios luteranos, ‘Lutheran corsairs’ where ‘Lutheran’ stood as a catch-all term for reformer.34 The use of corsair suggests less that they considered Huguenot raids a form of “privateer” (for which there was no direct translation in Spanish), than the adaptation of a vocabulary used predominantly in the context of the Mediterranean to describe Moorish and,

29 Nate Probasco, ‘Catherine de Medici and Huguenot Colonization, 1560–1567’ in Estelle Paranque, Nate Probasco and Claire Jowitt (eds.), Colonization, Piracy and Trade in Early Modern Europe: The Roles of Powerful Women and Queens (2017), pp.41–72; Philip Benedict, ‘The Dynamics of Protestant Militancy: France, 1555–1563’ in Philip Benedict et. al. (eds.), Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555–1585 (1997), pp.35–50; Jon Butler, The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in the New World (1983), pp.41–43. 30 Latimer, Buccaneers of the Caribbean, p.18; Silvia Castro Shannon, ‘Religious Struggle in France and Colonial Failure in Brazil, 1555–1615’, French Colonial History, vol.1 (2002), pp.51–55; John T. McGrath, The French in Early Florida: In the Eye of the Hurricane (2000), pp.50–72, 106–107. 31 Neil Kamil, Fortress of the Soul: Violence, Metaphysics, and Material Life in the Huguenots’ New World, 1517– 1751 (2005), pp.138–142; Boucher, France and the American Tropics, pp.52–58. 32 Schwartz, ‘The Iberian Atlantic’, p.158; Oscar Cruz Barney, El Combate a la Piratería en Indias, 1555–1700 (1999), pp.13–18. 33 Kenneth R. Andrews, The Spanish Caribbean: Trade and Plunder 1530–1630 (1978), pp.69–70. 34 Juan Juarez-Moreno, Corsarios y Piratas en Veracruz y Campeche (1972), pp.3–4. 86 latterly, Ottoman sailors attacking Christian vessels at sea.35 Yet corsario luterano was largely descriptive and denoted heretical status rather than a more precise form of criminality that could be challenged in any secular court with a maritime jurisdiction. Any new criminal charge, however, had to be located within emergent legal theories that justified Iberian claims to the Americas. Emperor Charles V had initially asserted his Atlantic dominium, through secular Roman law precepts, which were soon tempered and sacralised in response to criticism from Thomist scholars, seeing Spain and Portugal positioned as the sole defenders of the res publica christiana beyond Cape Verde.36 As a result, dominion over the Americas was conferred not just through the papal bulls of 1493 and the Treaty of Tordesillas, but also through the Habsburgs’ defence of Latin Christendom via consecutive processes of reconquista in the Mediterranean and conquista in the Americas.37 The nebulous Iberian concept of piratería (piracy) connected with these claims for several reasons.38 Roman law drew its conception of the crime from a reading of Cicero’s description of pirates as hostis humani generis (enemies of mankind), generis not understood to mean mankind in the most literal sense, but that, as subsumption into the res publica was the ultimate destiny of mankind, to oppose Rome was to attack civilisation itself. Pirata signified that, in lieu of this fact, those who attacked the Republic in the Mediterranean Sea

35 Wolfgang Kaiser and Guillaume Calafat, ‘The Economy of Ransoming in the Early Modern Mediterranean’ in Francesca Trivellato, Leor Halevi and Cátia Antunes (eds.), Religion and Trade; Cross-Cultural Exchanges in World History (2014), pp.110–114; Phillip Williams Empire and Holy War in the Mediterranean: The Galley and Maritime Conflict between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires (2014), pp.32–38; Maximiliano Barrio-Gozalo, Esclavos y Cautivos: Conflicto Entre la Cristiandad y el Islam en el Siglo XVIII (2006), pp.21–22; Don Felipe de Albornoz, ‘Instruction given to your Majesty that you May Command, that the Ocean Sea be Fortified and Defended against all enemy pirates whether French or English’ in P.E.H. Hair (ed.) (trans), To Defend Your Empire and the Faith (1990), p.52, 64; Christine Isom-Verhaaren, Allies with the Infidel: The Ottoman and French Alliance in the Sixteenth Century (2011), pp.57–59, 72–74; Protestants were able when necessary to find substantial common ground with Islamic peoples, especially as it was “popery” not “the Turk” who presented the greatest immediate threat to them geopolitically, Jerry Brotton, This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World (2016), pp.61–86; Godfrey Fisher, Barbary Legend: War, Trade and Piracy in North Africa 1415–1830 (1957), pp.83–95. 36 Louise Hodgson, Res Publica and the Roman Republic: 'Without Body Or Form' (2017), pp.105–162; Anthony Pagden, ‘Defending Empire: The School of Salamanca and the “Affair of the Indies”’ in Idem, The Burdens of Empire, 1539 to the Present (2015), pp.45–62; Policante, The Pirate Myth, pp.9–15; Kaius Tuori, ‘The Reception of Ancient Legal Thought in Early Modern International Law’ in Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (2012), pp.1016–1018; Rubin, The Law of Piracy, pp.14–19; Pagden, Lords of all the World, pp.46–62. 37 Fuchs, Mimesis and Empire, pp.139–162; Paula Oliveira e Silva, ‘The Concept of ius gentium: Some Aspects of Its Doctrinal Development from the “School of Salamanca” to the Universities of Coimbra and Évora’ in Idem, The Concept of Law (lex) in the Moral and Political Thought of the ‘School of Salamanca’ (2016), pp.106–123; Nara Fuentes-Crispín, Periplos Ilustrados, Piratas y Ladrones por el Caribe Colonial (2013), pp.89–92; John M. Headley, ‘The Habsburg World Empire and the Revival of Ghibellinism’ in David Armitage (ed.), Theories of Empire, 1415– 1830 (1998), pp.65–68. 38 Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (1973), vol.2, trans. Sian Reynolds, pp.865–869; Fisher, Barbary Legend, pp.137–168. 87 were not legitimate enemies, but literally beyond all recognised law.39 From here, it is possible to see how the Spanish crown, styled as a global defender of the res publica christiana, benefitted from this conception of piracy. Under the Ciceronian paradigm, any encroachment by foreigners into the Atlantic Ocean became an attack on Christendom itself, making the perpetrators pirates rather than legitimate enemies.40 In Europe and the Mediterranean, Spain did recognise the sovereignty of other Catholic princes and their right to wage maritime warfare, but it did not afford a similar right to Ottoman vassal states in North Africa, or to anyone serving a “heretical” sovereign. Anyone in the latter two categories were beyond and against the res publica christiana; so by definition pirates, being beyond and against Christendom if they attacked Spanish subjects or encroached into spaces their sovereign claimed at sea.41 The universalist claims of Spain, Portugal and the Papacy became folded into the secular crime of piracy, criminalising the attacks of reformers while underscoring the divine basis of Iberian dominium in the Atlantic. It was this conception of piracy that would later prove central in the contest between planters and the Company of Scotland over the Darien Scheme’s legality. By the late 1560s, the European Wars of Religion had spilled over into the Caribbean, seeing French Calvinists challenge the Habsburg grip on American bullion, predominantly silver. The crime of piracy and the epithet pirate came to be applied to reformers as a means to enforce the Iberian monopoly on the wealth of the new world, becoming part of an emergent secular legal framework. While these first instances of venture Calvinism did lead to some colonisation projects, they remained insurgents without a sovereign who would ever support their actions in the Caribbean. As a result, no lasting projects or coherent defence of colonisation, either in law or political philosophy, emerged in this initial period. It was reformers from the Low Countries who were the first to coherently challenge Iberian legal theories in both writing and practice. As part of their struggle against Philip II’s rule, the attacks of the Sea Beggars spread from Europe to the Caribbean after 1568, seeing Spain’s now-extended legal system endure its first major test. The Watergeuzen, or Sea Beggars, were sailors in the employ of Protestant nobles forced out of the Low Countries and into exile following the eruption

39 Heller-Roazen, The Enemy of All, pp.13–22; De Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World, pp.141–157; The relevant passages from Cicero are Greenwood, The Verrine Orations, vol.2, IV, 9, 21; Miller, De Officiis, III, 29, pp.385–386. 40 See Latimer, Buccaneers of the Caribbean, pp.3–4; Hanna, Pirate nests, p.49; Anna María Splendiani, Cincuenta Años de Inquisición en el Tribunal de Cartagena de Indias, vol.1 (1997), pp.182–185. 41 Heller-Roazen, The Enemy of All, pp.86–88,108–109, 117–118. 88 of the Dutch Revolt in 1568. At least 192 of these sailors were tried and executed for piracy before 1572, their convictions standing on the supposition that they were commissioned and given commissions of reprisal by the “heretic” William of Orange, rather than a legitimate Christian sovereign.42 The Dutch encountered similar legal proceedings when they began moving eastwards into the Indian Ocean, where the Estado Da Índia executed a number of Dutch sailors for piracy during the earliest years of the seventeenth century.43 If the Protestant Low Countries ever wanted to carve a permanent place for itself in the Americas, this war would have to be fought in law as well as in practice. A direct challenge to the legality of these prosecutions came from the jurist Hugo Grotius in his tract De iure praedae, penned in 1603. In the text he worked both to refute the charge of piracy and argue for the Dutch right to wage war at sea, preoccupations that led him to challenge Iberian claims to overseas dominium in general.44 His arguments rested upon a secularised understanding of ius gentium (the law of nations) drawn from classical authors but also leaned heavily on la leyenda negra, which he used to attack arguments that Spanish or Portuguese claims could be justified on the grounds that they expanded Christendom.45 After the truce of 1609, Grotius aired his views in print, along with a revision of some of his arguments, in the pamphlet Mare liberum.46

42 Oscar Gelderblom, The Political Economy of the Dutch Republic (2016), pp.226–232; Peter J. Arnade, Beggars, Iconoclasts, and Civic Patriots: The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt (2009), pp.216–220; Lunsford, Piracy and Privateering, p.45; James, The Navy and Government, pp.14–16; J.C.H. De Meij, De Watergeuzen en de Nederlanden 1568–1572 (1972), pp.310–312, 313–317; 329–333; Engel Sluiter, ‘Dutch-Spanish Rivalry in the Caribbean Area, 1594–1609’, The Hispanic American Historical Review, vol.28, no.2 (1948), pp.165–196; Euan Cameron, The European Reformation, 2nd ed. (2012), pp.386–390; Andrew Pettegree, ‘Coming to Terms with Victory: The Upbuilding of a Calvinist Church in Holland, 1572–1590’ in Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke, and Gillian Lewis (eds.), Calvinism in Europe, 1540–1620 (1994), pp.160–180; Wiebe Bergsma, ‘The Low Countries’ in Robert Scribner, Roy Porter, Mikulas Teich (eds.), The Reformation in National Context (1994), pp.67–79; Guido Marnef, ‘The Dynamics of Reformed Religious Militancy: The Netherlands, 1566–1585’, in Benedict et. al, Reformation, Revolt and Civil War, pp.55–60. 43 Peter Borschberg, ‘The Seizure of the Sta. Catarina Revisited: The Portuguese Empire in Asia, VOC Politics and the Origins of the Dutch-Johor Alliance (1602–c.1616)’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol.33, no.1 (2002), pp.44–48. 44 Michael Kempe, ‘Beyond the Law: The Image of Piracy in the Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius’ in Hans W. Blom (ed.), Property, Piracy and Punishment: Hugo Grotius on War and Booty in De Iure praedae - Concepts and Contexts (2009), pp.384–385; Peter Borschburg, Hugo Grotius, the Portuguese and Free Trade in the East Indies (2011), pp.40–53; Hugo Grotius, ‘De Iure Praedae’ in Gwaladys L. Williams and Walter H. Zeydel (ed.) (trans.), De Iure Praedae Commentarius (1950), pp.95–124. 45 Martine Julia Van Ittersum, Profit and Principles: Hugo Grotius, Natural Rights Theories and the Rise of Dutch Power in the East Indies 1595–1615 (2006), pp.103–104; Franco Todescan, ‘‘‘Sequuntur Dogmatica De Iure Praedae” Law And Theology In Grotius’s Use Of Sources in De iure praedae’ in Blom, Property, Piracy and Punishment, pp.281–389; Mark Somos, ‘Secularization in De iure praedae: From Bible Criticism to International Law’, Ibid, pp.147–191; Richard Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (2001), pp.79–95. 46 Van Ittersum, Profit and Principle, pp.336–342. 89

The latter tract, which grew to become the theoretical underpinning for Dutch overseas expansion, saw Grotius build his case by arguing that the ocean was not a form of territory to be owned and alienated as private property, but instead common to all who adhered to his conception of ius gentium.47 Although Grotius appears avowedly secular, it is worth noting that his writings were intended to undermine Rome’s universalist claims. His refutation of Phillip II’s charge of piracy illustrates this point, as he drew upon Cicero, arguing that it was by ‘a common maritime right, possessed by other free nations also, that the Roman People were authorised to distribute fleets for the protection of sailors and to punish pirates’.48 He defined piracy by intention of wrongdoing, rather than by sovereign legitimacy or confessional allegiance, as had previously been applied in Spanish law.49 Above all, while Grotius built his arguments in favour of Dutch rights upon a secular understanding of ius gentium, its very articulation was intended to undermine the entwined dominium of Spain, Portugal and Rome beyond Europe. Thus venture Calvinism developed an attendant framework in secular law, one that would aid Protestants in settling permanent colonies. This concept of mare liberum became fundamental to Dutch expansion into the Caribbean.50 The Dutch West India Company (WIC) initially focused on raiding Spanish commercial traffic, continuing even during the period of truce after 1609, and later also established slave plantations in Brazil and Guyana.51 In particular, the WIC were animated by the pursuit of gold and silver, culminating in Piet Heyn famously capturing the Spanish flota in 1628.52 These raids saw Dutch outposts established across the Caribbean, first at Tortuga and Tobago during the late 1620s, followed by their first permanent colony of this type at Curaçao, established amid a combination of Calvinist piety, free trade and plunder.53 The Dutch began to occupy the island as early as 1625,

47 Hugo Grotius, ‘Mare liberum’ in Robert Feenstra (ed.), Hugo Grotius: Mare Liberum, 1609–2009 (2009), pp.49– 95, 127–132; Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (2002), pp.52–57. 48 Grotius, De Iure Praedae, p.237. 49 Hugo Grotius ‘Mare liberum’ in Ibid., pp.7–9, 36–41, 95–99, 133–135. 50 Johannes Postma, ‘A Reassessment of the Dutch Atlantic Slave Trade’ in idem. And Victor Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce: Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping, 1585–1817 (2003) pp.115–138; Johannes Postma, The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1600–1815 (1990), pp.174–178. 51 Wim Klooster, ‘The Northern European Atlantic World’ in Canny and Morgan, Oxford Handbook of the Atlantic World, pp.165–166; Linda M. Rupert, Creolization and Contraband: Curacao in the Early Modern Atlantic World (2012), pp.31–34; Linda M. Heywood and John K. Thornton, Central Africans, Atlantic Creoles, and the Foundation of the Americas, 1585–1660 (2007), pp.33–36. 52 Latimer, Buccaneers of the Caribbean, pp.41–59. Henk Den Heijer, ‘The West African Trade of the Dutch West India Company, 1674–1740’, Postma and Enthoven, Riches from Atlantic Commerce, pp.156–159; Henk Den Heijer, ‘The Dutch West India Company, 1621–1791’ in Ibid, pp.85–96. 53 Cornelius Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580–1680 (1971), pp.78–88, 129–137. 90 before formally capturing it in 1634, when it became a base from which they laid siege to ports such as Maracaibo, Santa Maria and Cartagena.54 At the same time, early Dutch Curaçao possessed a millenarian character, which, in turn, aided its eventual expansion into an entrepôt. Sephardic Jews, who arrived in the colony in the 1650s, held important commercial and eschatological purposes for the colony. Many of the Dutch colonists believed in the importance of reunifying the Jews with Native Americans as the lost tribes of Israel, while at the same time, the Sephardim’s enduring connections in Spain made it possible to form extensive trade links into the mainland.55 As in the case of emergent applications of international law in the Caribbean, during the ensuing years, any explicitly confessional aspect of Curaçao faded as it transitioned to a free port seeking to draw the trade of all nations.56 Thus the Dutch transformed their initial practices of trading and looting Spanish shipping into a means to further national reformation, break open new markets and, eventually, generate their own legal theories to defend their presence in the Americas. Venture Calvinism underpinned their initial overseas expansion, before giving way to the Grotian conception of mare liberum, embodied most clearly in the Caribbean entrepôt. Like reformers from the Low Countries, English sailors also embraced venture Calvinism as a practice. Mariners such as Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh were amongst the first English people to practice maritime predation in the Caribbean, although they were moderate reformers rather than followers of Calvin.57 Their efforts led to the initial creation of several small, temporary outposts in the Caribbean.58 This situation changed under James VI/I and his son Charles I, both of whom went to great pains to ensure that attacks against shipping in the Caribbean Sea were curbed.59 The crown’s support for Spain, combined with the promise of precious metals, prompted some

54 Ibid., p.134; Wim Klooster, ‘The Jews in Suriname and Curaçao’ in Paolo Bernardini and Norman Fiering (eds.), The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West 1450–1800 (2001), p.353. 55 Ibid., pp.353–361; Benjamin Schmidt, ‘The Hope of the Netherlands: Menasseh Ben Israel and the Dutch Idea of America’ in Bernardini and Fiering, The Jews and the Expansion of Europe, pp.97–101; Adam Sutcliffe, ‘Jewish History in an Age of Atlanticism’ in Richard L. Kagan and Philip D. Morgan (eds.), Atlantic Diasporas: Jews, Conversos, and Crypto-Jews in the Age of Mercantilism, 1500–1800 (2009), p.25. 56 Rupert, Creolization and Contraband, pp.35–42; During the later 1690s, contemporaries still reported that Curaçao was a base for “piracy”: ‘Samuel Staat to Abraham De Peyster, 10 July 1699’, De Peyster Papers, 1690– 1709: Dutch Letter Translations, pp.64–66, NYHS. 57 Both were the children of reformist ministers but are characterised as religious moderates by historians, Bruce Wathen, Sir Francis Drake: The Construction of a Hero (2009); Mark Nicholls and Henry Williams, ‘Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn., Sept 2015 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23039, accessed 28 Sept 2017]. 58 Lane, Pillaging the Empire, pp.40–42; Kenneth R. Andrews, Elizabethan Privateering: English Privateering During the Spanish War 1585–1603 (1966), pp.124–131; Zahedieh, ‘The Merchants of Port Royal’, pp.570–93; Joyce Lorimer, English and Irish Settlement on the River Amazon 1550–1646 (1989), pp.35–60. 59 Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism c.1530–1700 (2001), pp.136–137. 91

Calvinists, still then within the Church of England, to claim their right to continue waging a just war of reprisal. Most prominent of these figures was Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, who, like many other Puritans, found himself disillusioned with Stuart alliances with Catholic powers and suspicious of growing Arminianism within the English Church.60 He funded numerous attacks on Spanish possessions in the Caribbean, most notably out of Bermuda between 1616 and 1620, while the precious metals they took became important investment for the development of plantation farming in the colony.61 Rich subsequently backed the Providence Island Colony, which in 1631 set out to establish a Puritan settlement off the coast of Nicaragua, a vantage point from where they intended a combination of plantation farming as well as a secure source of bullion from Spanish commercial traffic.62 After nearly ten years, the colony was destroyed by a fleet dispatched out of Havana, which justified the attack as action against a ‘den of thieves and pirates’.63 Despite this setback, the onset of Britain and Ireland’s own wars of religion in 1639 ultimately led to state backing for these English Puritans’ private war in the Caribbean.64 Rich and the colony’s other investors secured substantial political preferment as a result of Parliament’s victory in the English Civil Wars and subsequently gained favour with Oliver Cromwell, who sought to build upon their experiences with his Western Design of 1655. Though the Design failed and saw the Commonwealth capture Jamaica rather than Hispaniola, few sought to transform it into a plantation colony like Guyana or an entrepôt like Curaçao.65 By the 1655, the English state appropriated aspects of venture Calvinism to secure territory in the Caribbean, although Jamaica’s future remained as yet unclear.

60 Nicholas Tyacke, ‘The Puritan Paradigm of English Politics, 1558–1642’, The Historical Journal (2010), pp.539– 542. 61 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.58–86; John C. Appleby, Women and English Piracy, 1540–1720: Partners and Victims of Crime (2013), pp.25–26. Sean Kelsey, ‘Robert Rich, second earl of Warwick (1587–1658)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23494, accessed 29 Jan 2017]. 62 Karen O. Kupperman, Providence Island, 1630–1641: The Other Puritan Colony (1995), pp.93–95, 282–283, 311–313; Idem, ‘Errand to the Indies: Puritan Colonization from Providence Island through the Western Design, WMQ, vol.45 (1988), pp.70–99. 63 Quoted in Latimer, Buccaneers of the Caribbean, p.85. 64 Rachel Foxley, ‘Oliver Cromwell on Religion and Resistance’ in Charles W.A. Prior and Glenn Burgess (eds.), England’s Wars of Religion, Revisited (2011), pp.209–230; Valerie Pearl, ‘Thompson, Maurice (1604–1676)’, rev. Anita McConnell, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008. [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/38061, accessed 13 May 2018]; John Morrill, ‘The Religious Context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5 Series, vol.34 (1984), pp.155–178. 65 Nuala Zahedieh, ‘Trade, Plunder and Economic Development in Early English Jamaica, 1644–89’, The Economic History Review, vol.39 (1986), pp.205–222. Idem., ‘The Merchants of Port Royal’, pp.570–593. 92

Following the island’s initial capture, the Calvinist mores that had led to the Western Design quickly faded. After 1655, many on the island continued to attack Spanish towns and shipping, yet, as the Wars of Religion receded in Europe and the restored House of Stuart itself continued the war with Spain, the impetus pushing English reformers to the Caribbean dissipated.66 Equally, as a result of generations of these sailors operating in the Caribbean, they began to create a distinct, localised culture, different from those who had preceded them. Sailors who made their living through plunder and free trade in the Caribbean Sea became known as buccaneers. One of the first printed accounts of the buccaneers translated from Spanish into English claimed that ‘since that Curasao, Tortuga, and Jamaica have been inhabited by English, French and Dutch, and bred up that Race of Hunts-men, than which, no other ever was more desperate, nor more mortal Enemies to the Spaniards, called Bucaniers’.67 Just as the legal theories generated around the colonisation of the Caribbean appropriated and secularised confessional conflict, venture Calvinism gave way across the later seventeenth century to the more individualistic, secular practice of buccaneering. At the same time, English plantation farming practices, initially established in the Chesapeake and Barbados, were introduced into Jamaica, initially funded by large amounts of stolen Spanish silver.68 In doing so, planters, who still prized the accumulation of bullion above all other commodities, began to emphasise that a positive balance of trade, labour and cash-crop production were now the best means to acquire it.69 Following the Treaty of Madrid in 1670 and the realisation of the vast profits brought by sugar production, buccaneers were increasingly viewed by planters less as a form of investment and more as a drain on Jamaica’s labour force. Here, two competing visions for Jamaica’s future emerged, one as an entrepôt that trafficked the trade of all nations and the other of a plantation colony built upon unfree labour.70 This emergent desire to assert control over the movement of people and goods played out through political battles in the colony between

66 Hill, ‘Radical Pirates?’, p.166. 67 A.O. Exquemelin, Bucaniers of America, or, A true account of the most remarkable assaults committed of late years upon the coasts of the West-Indies (1684), unpaginated introduction. 68 Zahedieh, ‘The Merchants of Port Royal, pp.570–593. 69 Barth, ‘Reconstructing Mercantilism’, pp.257–290; Thomas Mun, A Discourse of Trade, from England unto the East-Indies answering the diverse objections which are unusually made against the same (1621) these ideas were developed in a more influential tract not published until 1664, Idem., Englands treasure by forraign trade. or, the ballance of our forraign trade is the rule of our treasure (1664); Petty, A treatise of taxes and contribution (1662); Samuel Fortrey, Englands interest and improvement. Consisting in the increase of the store, and trade of this kingdom (1663). 70 Anon., The present state of Jamaica with the life of the great Columbus the first discoverer : to which is added an exact account of Sir Hen. Morgan's voyage (1683), Exquemelin, Bucaniers of America. 93 supporters of the planters and buccaneers, eventually resolved in dramatic fashion by the Port Royal earthquake of 1692, which destroyed the colony’s centre of buccaneering. In Jamaica, stolen bullion funded the formation of a plantation society rather than a free port comparable with Curaçao to the south. Those who continued to seek precious metals as the buccaneers had done now found themselves outlaws, condemned thereafter by English authorities as pirates. From the mid-sixteenth century, venture Calvinism emerged as an important motor driving the colonisation of the Caribbean by Protestants. Iberian monopolisation of new world bullion, the papal dispensation that underpinned it and the ultimate benefit both realities bestowed upon Catholic peoples all meant that religious war and the pursuit of an American source of capital became initially entangled.71 Emulating the smash-and-grab tactics that defined the early Spanish Caribbean, French reformers were the first to contest this monopoly, sacralising maritime predation into an expression of religious war in the process. These practices were then adopted by Dutch and the English mariners, both using the bullion they obtained to become advocates of separate colonial models: one built upon mare liberum that sought to draw flows of people and goods through entrepôts, the other relying on plantation farming that sought to confine labour, increasingly unfree, to islands. Yet equally significant was how Spain responded to the damage inflicted by reformers. Spanish governments consistently searched for commercial regulations, as well as legal concepts, to punish interlopers and assert the divine origins of their dominium, all of which found their eventual expression through a criminal conception of piracy. By the 1690s, English colonisers in particular shared more with Spain than they would ever wish to admit; having built their presence in the Caribbean on plundered Central American wealth, planters now turned on the excesses of their earliest tactics, disowning those who continued to practice them as pirates.

*** The way in which Scottish commentators spoke of Catholic Spain in relation to the Darien Scheme underwent a marked tonal shift over the course of the colony’s existence. In 1698 the Company of Scotland claimed to extend a hand of friendship, seeking to engage in an enriching free trade with Central America. Yet by 1700, one Kirk minister was able to attest that, in eastern Panama, they acted where their fellow Protestants would not, promoting a colony to bring about ‘the ruin of the

71 The papal dispensation was granted through the Inter Caetera, a bull issued in 1493, see Robert S. Miola (ed.), Early Modern Catholicism: An Anthology of Primary Sources (2007), pp.482–484. 94

Antichrist, their Golden Mines shall no more uphold their accursed dignity’.72 A later English observer lampooned the Company for how they eventually acted, claiming they ‘pretend an honest and fair trade to East-India and mean invasion and piracy on Spain’, that they departed intent on ‘filling Scotland with gold’ and the scheme ‘startled all honest men and made them ask: is this the first fruits of the new reformation of the church in Scotland?’.73 These quotations could easily be drawn from similar disputes ranging back over a hundred years, and this element of pentimento – older imperial languages and forms resurfacing – proved persistent around Darien.74 Irrespective of what the Company of Scotland intended, they did not operate independently of the region’s history or the immediate circumstances of the 1690s. They came up against the fact that, like all similar projects before them in the Caribbean, their proposals angered Spanish interests, but they did so at a time when fears grew amongst English colonists that France intended to seize control of the entire region. Political leaders in Europe were unsure about how to prevent this eventuality, presenting an opportunity for individuals to propose solutions. In this context, the Darien Scheme, first imagined by the trader and financier William Paterson, reignited the conflict over the future of colonisation in the Caribbean, which was held to have been resolved with the Port Royal Earthquake. These models presented fundamentally different ideas about how to utilise flows of goods and people. The entrepôt required a substantial throughput of both, while plantation societies required a constantly replenished but static labour force alongside regimented exchanges of goods. Darien quickly became the most recent project to advance the former scheme. Situating this older debate within the context of the 1690s was the initial challenge which planter agents in England faced, as they sought influential allies to oppose the Company of Scotland’s project. The idea for a new European settlement in Panama came from the experience of William Paterson, a Lowland Scot who one source claims was witness to the changes taking place in Jamaica during previous decades.75 He was said to have immigrated to Port Royal sometime after

72 Philo-Caledonian, Scotland's present duty, or, A call to the nobility, gentry, ministry and commonalty of this land to be duely affected with and vigorously to act for, our common concern in Caledonia, as a mean to enlarge Christ's kingdom, to benefit our selves, and do good to all Protestant churches (1700), p.9. 73 Anon., Hereditary Succession in the Protestant Line Unalterable, in Answer to the Scots Bill of Security (1704), pp.2–5. 74 Patricia Seed, American Pentimento: The Invention of Indians and the Pursuit of Riches (2001). 75 James Hodges, A Defence of the Scots abdicating Darien including an answer to the defence of the Scots settlement there (1700), pp.2–4; there is also a satirical rehearsing of Paterson’s early life as the ‘Scots peddler’ in Anon., Hereditary Succession in the Protestant Line, Unalterable (1704), pp.3–4. 95

1673 and was likely on the island when Bartholomew Sharp discovered that an overland route to the Pacific was possible after sailing up the Gulf of Darién.76 This discovery precipitated the raiding of gold and silver mines in Panama by Dutch and English buccaneers, who were then able to proceed to the poorly defended Spanish towns in the Pacific. The idea that Paterson developed during his early lifetime was, possibly as a result, largely a variant on existing Spanish trade routes, specifically the flows of silver that ran from Potosí into Central America, before being shipped west from Acapulco to Manila and east to Cadiz via Havana.77 The difference in the Scottish project was that they imagined that the American specie would become concentrated into a port founded in or close to Panama, drawing sailors and merchants trading commodities from both the east and the west. It was something of an unusual proposal, akin to transposing a free port like Curaçao as close to a ready supply of bullion as possible, and in this respect it drew predominantly upon a Dutch precedent. This ambition is encapsulated in Paterson’s turn of phrase: ‘it will be manifest that trade is capable of increasing trade, and money of begetting money to the end of the world’.78 Yet it was also influenced by the context of Jamaica and the aspirations of buccaneers during the 1670s. By 1685, Paterson was promoting some form of the idea in Amsterdam, while in 1690 it may have almost taken form with the founding of the abortive Americaense Compagnie in Brandenburg.79 It is worth noting that the project at this point differed substantially from the eventual form taken by the Darien Scheme, as Paterson imagined it as an internationally funded venture, rather than a purely Scottish one. He found another potential home for his idea when he invested in, and became a Director of, the Company of Scotland, established by Act of Scottish Parliament on 26 June 1695. This Scottish association has to be understood as initially having some similarity to the Dutch WIC, in that they enjoyed state backing, were envisaged as a company acting as a secular authority and held a broad remit in terms of the kinds of trade they were expected to encourage.80 As a result, Paterson had to persuade the Company of Scotland to adopt his scheme,

76 Mark Horton, “To Transmit to Posterity the Virtue, Lustre and Glory of their Ancestors’: Scottish Pioneers in Darien, Panama’ in Caroline A. Williams (ed.), Bridging the Early Modern Atlantic World: People, Products, and Practices on the Move (2009), p.133. 77 Flynn, ‘Silver in a Global Context’, pp.224–229; William Paterson, ‘A Proposal to Plant a Colony in Darien’ in Saxe Bannister (ed.), The Writings of William Paterson (1859), pp.115–162, esp.126–128, 131–133, 150–160. 78 Ibid., p.158. 79 Andrew Forrester, The Man Who Saw the Future: William Paterson’s Vision of Free Trade (2004), pp.31–44; David Armitage, ‘Paterson, William (1658–1719)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn., Sept 2010 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21538, accessed 14 Dec 2016]. 80 Koot, Empire at the Periphery, pp.22–23. 96 rather than turning their interests eastwards along established trade routes, as others within the Company advocated.81 His initial proposals, delivered in 1696, were supported by the testimony of the buccaneer Lionel Wafer, who pitched the venture in Panama to the Company’s directors as a rich and fertile region beyond the control of Spain, populated by amicable natives and filled with precious metals.82 By July, Paterson had convinced the Company to fund this project, and they had selected the Gulf of Darién as their eventual location. It is easy to see how such proposals stood to upset myriad commercial and political interests. This was an especially bad time to be disturbing the balance of power in the Caribbean. For English governments there, the Nine Years’ War had served to underscore the precarity with which Stuart dominions were held. The temporary loss of St Kitts and near-loss of Jamaica in 1694 both helped inform this perspective, with governors warning that a lack of population made the islands vulnerable to French conquest.83 After the Peace of Ryswick in 1697, this was not a fear that subsided. A succession crisis in Europe loomed on account of Charles II’s ill-health and lack of an heir, raising the spectre of a Bourbon inheritance of the Habsburg dominions. By 1699, the prospect that Louis XIV would come to control all of the Spanish Empire by proxy was made more likely by the death of the heir to the undivided Spanish crown, Joseph Ferdinand.84 In parallel, both Spanish and English politicians began to notice numerous French projects underway in the Caribbean Sea, as well as in the Gulf of Florida. New fortified settlements were established on the Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Espiritu Santo Bay, alongside rumoured interest in the Gulf of Darién, all of which were accompanied by a general build-up of French military capacity. The purpose of this increased activity was to be ready to launch attacks upon Spanish Americas should the Habsburg’s dominions be partitioned, or the English and Dutch should the Bourbons inherited them undivided.85 Officials throughout the Caribbean relayed this information to their compatriots in Europe, watching French activity nervously across the later 1690s. English politicians in particular

81 See Chapter 5, below. 82 Paterson, ‘A Proposal’, pp.115–162; Hodges, A Defence, pp.38–43. 83 ‘Beeston to William Blathwayt, 10 June 1693’, ‘Beeston to Blathwayt, 5 April 1694’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1693–1695, CO 137/3, fos.50, 102; TNA; ‘Beeston to BOT, 8th April, 1696’, ‘Council Meeting Minutes, 20th July 1696’, ‘An Account of the Invasion of the Island of Jamaica by the French in the Year 1694’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1696–1699, CO 137/4, fos.5–6, 38, 280, TNA. 84 Jeremy Black, ‘Warfare, Crisis and Absolutism’ in Euan Cameron (ed.), Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History (2001), pp.224–226. 85 ‘Stanhope to Blathwayt, 27 August 1699’, Osborn Manuscripts, MS OSB 2 Box 8, fo.178, YBL; ‘Council of the Indies to the King, 4 May 1699’, ‘Council of the Indies to the King, 9 May 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N- 189, fols.6, 10, MHS. 97 believed that they should be matching these colonisation efforts or strengthening their hold over colonies that already existed, but they were unsure of how to do so without also provoking the Spanish crown.86 This was a threat that only grew in political significance as the Darien Scheme proceeded. Across the later-seventeenth century a gradual transfer was underway in the anglophone world. It was increasingly France, rather than Spain, that was perceived as the greater threat in the Caribbean. Yet this political context alone does not explain why the Darien Scheme drew such opprobrium; indeed, it is feasible that the directors could have successfully positioned the colony as a bulwark against France, rather than making an enemy of Spain. Nor was it simply that William III or English government ministers exhibiting a kneejerk reaction to a Scottish venture. It was, after all, not the first colonisation project launched by Scots.87 Instead, shortly following the formation of the Company of Scotland, commercial interest groups set out to secure public support wherever they could for a strong response to the scheme. After it emerged that the Company intended to settle in the Caribbean Sea, Jamaican planters became the staunchest opponent of the project, seeking to quash any proposed entrepôt close to their island. Both greater interest in the Panama region and the opposition of Jamaica’s planters to new colonies there are illustrated in the ill-fated colonial project of English ship’s captain and Quaker, Richard Long. During the summer of 1697 he attempted to persuade the English Privy Council to sponsor an expedition to secure plate wrecks and gold mines in Central America.88 While the Privy Council did not initially fund his scheme, Long was referred to the Admiralty Board, who allowed him a commission to conduct his search.89 By 9 August 1698, he had arrived at Port Morant in Jamaica, and there he was informed that buccaneers were no longer present in the Gulf of Darién, making the region “vacant”.90 His ensuing travels around eastern Panama convey his growing excitement at the prospect of harnessing the trade previously held by these sailors. Long formed links with the Tule (known today as the Guna), a Native American people in Panama who had an

86 ‘Vernon to William III, 8 June 1699’, James Vernon’s Correspondence, 1693–1701, Add. MS 34348, fo.47–48, BL; ‘Vernon to Blathwayt, 22 August 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.39, Add. MS 9747, fo.17, BL; ‘Deposition taken at Havana, 9 January 1699’, ‘Don Diego to Charles II, 24 February 1699’ Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fols.1, 6, MHS. 87 Devine, Scotland’s Empire, pp.26–48; Landsman, Scotland and its First American Colony, pp.99–194. 88 CSP dom, 1697, p.146. 89 ‘Richard Long to Admiralty, 25 April 1698’, Admiralty Board: Captain’s Letters: L, ADM/1/2033, TNA. 90 ‘Long to Admiralty, 24 October 1698’ Ibid.; ‘Vernon to Blathwayt, 19 August 1698’, Osborne Manuscripts, OSB MS 2, Box 9, fo.198, YBL; ‘Long to the Duke of Leeds, 15 February 1699’, Egmont Papers, vol.108, Add. MS 47132, p.56, BL. 98 established history of resisting Spanish attempts at missionisation and political control. He brokered alliances with a number of capitanes, individuals within Tule society who drew power from alliances they were able to secure with Europeans.91 Realising that the region was not in fact vacant, he then focused on securing alliances amongst the Tule.92 His goal became to form the early stages of a colony, fuelled by a source of gold or silver from poorly guarded mines further up the Gulf and supplied with provisions from trade with his allies locally. He also encountered French buccaneers nearby, who had intermarried with the indigenous people to form a maroon community, and who he was told occasionally made attempts on Spanish mines some distance away.93 He struck a deal with a capitane called Captain Diego who believed that Long would similarly bring English settlers, likely over whom the Tule believed he would have authority.94 Leaving four men with Diego as hostages, Long then departed for Jamaica on the 3 December, seeking recruits to bring his project to fruition. When he returned to Jamaica, however, he immediately encountered opposition from the planters there. They claimed that his scheme would drain labour out of the island; as Long put it: ‘The great men at Jamaica are much against such a settlement in the Gulph, either by English or Scotch … fearing a great part of their common people would run away from them to live there’.95 In late December, unable to secure the people and supplies he needed, the Quaker then sailed for England, where he hoped to find support for his scheme. There he reshaped his project and pitched it the Duke of Leeds.96 He stated the advantage of the region for trade into China and the Indian Ocean, enabled by a readily accessible supply of bullion – an almost identical proposal to what Paterson had provided in 1696. He also emphasised that what he pitched was a means to secure the region from growing French ambition, claiming that the maroon community he encountered was merely the first step in their colonising the region. Long also proposed a variant of the scheme to David Leslie, Earl of Leven, in which English and Scottish colonists would settle on the tract he had agreed with Diego, similarly as a means to obstruct French designs.97 However, Long found no

91 Gallup-Díaz, The Door of the Seas, paras.61–63. 92 ‘Long to Admiralty Board, 17 June 1700’, Captains Letters, ADM/1/2033, TNA. 93 Ibid. 94 ‘Long to Admiralty Board, 17 June’, Captains Letters, ADM/1/2033, TNA. 95 ‘Long to Leeds, Egmont Papers, Add. MS 47132, p.58, BL. 96 2004 "Osborne, Thomas, first duke of Leeds (1632–1712)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 15 Sep. 2018. 97 ‘Long to Leven’, Colonel Leven’s Darien Papers, 1699–1700, ADV.MS 83/7/3, fo.6, NLS. 99 favour in England or Scotland, and, like many such proposals during the Age of Projects, his colonisation scheme never materialised. Shortly after the establishment of the Company of Scotland in 1695, Paterson and the other directors were initially successful in drawing investment from the London merchant community. Yet, in doing so, they provoked a backlash from those who imagined the damage the Company might do. It was the EIC who first expressed alarm about the Company of Scotland, believing that they sought a direct trade into the east, and at a time when they were weakened by the recent weakening of their monopoly.98 The EIC’s agents drew up reasons for opposing their new opponent on 4 December 1695 to deliver to English Parliament, claiming that their Company contravened the Navigation Acts and would draw English investors and sailors to Scotland, allowing them to then seize North American markets for manufactured goods.99 These arguments held an especial significance for those invested in the slave trade. Another monopoly company struggling at the time was the Royal African Company (RAC), which also submitted its arguments to Parliament, asserting that the correct response was to enhance its monopoly privileges to match the Company of Scotland.100 This argument caught the attention of Jamaican agents in London, as Gilbert Heathcote, a merchant who was involved with the New EIC but also held substantial commercial and familial ties with the island, insisted they break the RAC’s monopoly entirely. This move, he claimed, would increase the availability of cheap slave labour, which could then be redirected covertly towards the Spanish Main, in turn drawing bullion to the island.101 In the end, the Jamaican agents had their way. Parliament refused to reinstate the monopolies of either the EIC or RAC, yet rumours circulated in London that the Scottish Company were bound for Panama. This new information prompted planter interests to push for further action.102 Debates reminiscent of those about Jamaica in the 1670s resurfaced as the planter agents likened the projected Scottish settlement to Curaçao, maintaining that colonists would be drawn by the promise

98 See Chapter 5, below. 99 ‘Court of Committees Meeting, 4 December 1695’, East India Company Court Book 1695–1699, IOR/B/41, BL; ‘A Paper Delivered by Mr. Doddington from the East India Company, 5 December 1695’, House of Lords Papers 23 November to 3 December 1695, HL/PO/JO/10/1/525/1486 no.955(a), Parliamentary Archive (PA), London. 100 The decline of the Royal African Company’s monopoly is outlined in William A. Pettigrew, ‘Free to Enslave, Politics and the Escalation of Britain’s Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1688–1714’, WMQ, vol.64 (2007), pp.3–38. 101 ‘Statement of the Royal African Company, 12 December 1695’, ‘Statement of the Agents for Jamaica, 13 December 1695’, House of Lords Papers, nos.955(c6), 955(d), PA; Jacob M. Price, ‘Gilbert Heathcote, first baronet (1652–1733)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Oct 2008. 102 ‘Reasons Humbly Offered to the Lords Spiritual and Temporall for Carrying on the Trade to India in a Regulated Company, 6 February 1696’, House of Lords Papers, no.955(m2), PA. 100 of riches and become pirates there, leading common people from the island and weakening their ability to defend against French invasion.103 The proposals submitted by the agents were digested by the House of Lords, and some of them were included in the Bill for Regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade (1696), intended as a restatement and strengthening of the Navigation Acts.104 Even at this early stage, planter interests stated what was to be their entrenched position about Darien. As had been the case with Long, they argued that the project would draw the population of their island away to become pirates. Yet, to drive home the strategic implications of this movement of people, they also argued that it would worsen their relations with Spain, weakening Stuart dominions against France. This dispute followed Paterson to the European Continent, where, in the final months of 1696, he led expeditions to both Amsterdam and Hamburg to secure further investment.105 Opposition was fierce, first from the Dutch East India Company (VOC) in Amsterdam and then from Paul Rycaut, English resident in Hamburg. Although ordered to obstruct the Company of Scotland by the English Board of Trade, the latter’s resistance was borne of more than his professional obligations. Rycaut had a long history of connections with English trading interests, dating back to his appointment as resident at Smyrna in 1667, where he had begun to develop links with the Hamburg and Levant Companies, both of which relied upon supplies of tobacco and sugar for their trade, and both of which also lobbied the English Parliament back in December 1695 opposing the Company of Scotland.106 He employed numerous measures to hinder Paterson and his followers, including lobbying the Hamburg Senate to prevent them from establishing a factory in the city and publishing an anonymous tract casting doubt on the legitimacy of the trade proposed by the

103 ‘Proposals for securing the trade of Jamaica, undated’, BOT Jamaica Correspondence, 1696–1699, CO 137/4, fo.52, TNA. 104 Leo Stock, Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments Respecting North America, vol.2 (1927), pp.132– 144; The summary of the Lords’ opposition is listed in The humble address of the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, 13 December 1695 (1695), pp.3–4; An Act for preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade, Clauses IX-XV. The Spanish ambassador would later exaggerate when reassuring the Spanish crown that they had at this point declared it treason for anyone English or Irish to enlist with the company: ‘Alexander Stanhope to Don Antionio Ubilla, 10 May 1699’, Osborne Manuscripts, MS OSB 2, Box 8, fo.179, YBL. 105 ‘Board of Directors Minutes, 12 August 1696’, Journals of the Court of Directors of the Company of Scotland, 1696–1707, vol.1, Royal Bank of Scotland Archive (BSA), Edinburgh. 106 ‘Statement of the Levant Company, 18 December 1695’, House of Lords Papers, no.955(f); Sonia P. Anderson, ‘Rycaut, Sir Paul (1629–1700)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/24392, accessed 15 Dec 2016]. 101 scheme.107 When Paterson discovered what Rycaut had done, he claimed that they had been ‘villified & defamed as a company of Beggars’.108 Here, he likened the Scots’ position to that of the Sea Beggars during the Dutch Revolt, whom Elizabeth I had similarly refused to aid, as she feared repercussions from Phillip II.109 At the same, Rycaut’s agent, Richard Orth, reported rumours swirling around the Scottish venture in Hamburg to the Board of Trade. He spoke of the Scottish colonists’ intention to capture Spanish mines in Central America, how known pirates had been recruited to join the project and how French commercial interests were now considering a similar project in Panama as a result.110 By the end of April 1697, Paterson and the other commissioners were forced to leave Hamburg without the investment they sought, while a cloud of suspicion hung over what they truly intended. Both the lobbying of the planter agents and the reports supplied by Orth made their way to the recently established English Board of Trade, whose members had already heard that the Company of Scotland intended to set out for the Gulf of Darién by October 1696. On 16 of the month, Jamaican agents bluntly reminded the board that ‘more bullion is yearly imported from Jamaica than from all the other Colonies’, yet this was endangered through depopulation, as in recent years ‘many have turned pirates’, an eventuality they claimed Darien would encourage, and, should the island wither, France would ‘become masters of the mines of Mexico and Peru’.111 This message was then supplemented by the news delivered by Orth and Rycaut during early 1697.112 While already suspicious about what the Scottish Company intended, the Board then heard that they had been in contact with the now retired buccaneer Lionel Wafer, who were summoned along with William Dampier to appear before them on 30 June.113 Together, these men gave a similar account to that which had been provided to the Scottish directors the previous year, emphasising the opportunities that they would have for trade into the Pacific, the mines nearby and the fictitious

107 ‘Rycaut to Trumbull, 25 September 1696’, ‘Rycaut to Trumbull, 16 March 1697’, ‘Rycaut to Trumbull, 30 March 1697’, Rycaut Letters, vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153, BL. 108 ‘Rycaut to Trumbull, 16 February 1697’, Ibid. 109 Lunsford, Piracy and Privateering, pp.44–46. 110 ‘Orth to Trumbull, 21 September’, ‘Orth to Trumbull, 12 October’, Rycaut Letters, vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153, fos.44–48, TNA; ‘Extract of a letter from Mr Orth, 30 April 1697’, ‘Orth to Trumbull, 17 September 1697’, ‘Orth to Trumbull, 12 November 1697’, Board of Trade Records: Foreign Trade A, CO 388/6, unfoliated, TNA. 111 CSP col., vol.15, no.324. 112 Board of Trade Records: Foreign Trade A, CO 388/6, passim, TNA. 113 ‘Meeting Minutes, 30 June 1697’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 2 July 1697’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 6 July 1697’, Board of Trade Records: Journal, 1698, CO 391/10, fos.138–140, 153, TNA. 102

Native American ‘Emperor of Darien’ who could help them obtain both.114 One member of the Board wrote in October that their concern had moved from the danger the scheme posed to the plantation trade, to fears that it would result in ‘hostilitys and depredations upon the Spaniards’.115 They then submitted this evidence to the solicitor general and requested that a proclamation be issued forbidding all subjects from contact with the project. Under their recommendation, William III agreed to the measure.116 By 1698, therefore, as tensions over an ensuing conflict in the Caribbean grew, commercial interests succeeded in using this climate to rearticulate a much older debate. Difficult economic conditions as a consequence of war and famine in Scotland had allowed Paterson to secure support for his free trade project, both from the Company of Scotland and Scottish Parliament. In reply, planter agents succeeded in positioning themselves as the truest representatives of English government interest in the Caribbean, although they had used particular arguments to persuade English authorities that this was the case. They had woven together the growing fear of French designs in the Caribbean with the older argument that an entrepôt in Panama would mean pirates raiding Spanish towns and shipping. With no allies to speak of and without the support of their sovereign, the Company of Scotland’s colonists entered the Caribbean under the conditions that many Calvinist peoples had faced before them. As the Company’s colonisation efforts proceeded, established power relations in the Caribbean ensured that a free port could not be established by peaceful means, causing the project to gradually ease closer to replicating the practices of earlier venture Calvinists. On 2 December 1699, the colonists finally arrived at what they called Golden Island in the Gulf of Darién. The first people they encountered were Tule capitanes, who had previously used alliances with transient English, French and Dutch sailors to navigate complex regional geopolitics.117 When the Company’s colonists arrived, they met a number of capitanes, who presumed that they resembled English-speakers they had encountered previously and therefore

114 ‘The Answers to the Queries Proposed by the Honourable Committee, 6 July 1697’, Board of Trade: Foreign Correspondence, CO 388/6, TNA. 115 Quoted in Gallup Díaz, The Door of the Seas, para.230. 116 ‘The Attorney and Solicitor Generals’ Response to the Queries made them relating to the Scotch East India Company, 9 August 1697’, Board of Trade: Foreign Correspondence, CO 388/6, TNA; ‘Blathwayt to Vernon, 3 October 1697’, ‘William Blathwayt to James Vernon, 7 October 1697’, Blathwayt Correspondence, vol.14, Add. MS 37992, fos.181–182, 186, BL. 117 William Dampier, A new voyage round the world describing particularly the isthmus of America (1697), pp.238– 279 and passim. 103 were predominantly interested in Spanish gold and silver. This association was illustrated shortly after the Scots’ arrival, when they were visited by one Tule, who, in an attempt to foster good relations, gave ‘praise of Captain Swan and Captain Davies two English privateers who he said were his particular friends, and whom he knew in the South Sea (Pacific)’.118 During the early months of 1699, the colonists formed what came to be a long-lasting alliance with a Tule who introduced himself as Captain Pedro. Accounts provided prior to Scottish settlement mark out Pedro as being in charge of a small band vying for position with other capitanes in the region; one passage describes a dispute between Pedro and a rival over who was the ‘better man’ and that he had recently aided French sailors in their attempt to access gold mines further up the Gulf.119 Pedro’s ambitions led him into contact with both the Scottish settlers and Spanish soldiers during January 1699. Initially, seeking easier access to trade with the colonists, he urged them to settle a fortified position on the mainland near his village, telling them that Spanish forces were already massing to attack the colony.120 Pedro and his band then made their way to Toubacanti, an outpost used by the government of New Spain to conduct diplomacy amongst the nearby indigenous and maroon communities. When there, the Tule encountered a Spanish scouting party intent on discovering what the Scottish colonists planned, so he attempted to broker a better arrangement, claiming that through ‘art and deceit’ he could lead them to these newcomers.121 He asked for gold in return for the information, but when the soldiers revealed they had none Pedro departed in search of a better deal. He returned to the Scottish settlement and informed them that ‘a Spanish party 26 in number besides Indians and negroes’ was nearby.122 Believing that this party meant invasion was imminent, the Council of Caledonia resolved to strike first, prompting a skirmish in which the scouts were routed by the combined forces of Pedro’s band and the settlers. Both groups returned to the island colony shortly thereafter.

118 ‘Captain Pennycook’s Journal from the Madera Islands to New Caledonia, 1698’ in George Pratt Insh (ed.), Papers Relating to the Ships and Voyages of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies (1924), pp.78–80. 119 ‘Long to Admiralty, 17 June’, Captains Letters, ADM/1/2033, TNA. 120 ‘The Deposition of Benjamin Spencer, 12 August 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.48, MHS. 121 ‘Deposition of Domingo De Rada, 10 February 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.136, NLS. The Scots had been sent to secure a foothold on the mainland with the potential for securing access to gold mines further inland, ‘Orders to Captain Drummond, 6 February 1699’, Leven’s Darien Papers, Adv.MS 83/7/3, fo.13, NLS. 122 ‘De Rada Deposition’; ‘Mr. Montgomery’s Letter to the Council of Caledonia, 6 February 1699’, Darien Papers, fo.123, NLS. 104

Immediately following the conflict at Toubacanti, Caledonia’s government sought to calm the situation through diplomacy.123 An opportunity to do so came when one of their ships was captured and brought into Cartagena during February 1699; its crewmen were interrogated about their intentions to trade at Portobello, before then being committed to prison on suspicion of piracy.124 The Council of Caledonia dispatched one of the colony’s officers, Alexander McGhie, to negotiate the prisoners’ release on 11 March. McGhie was instructed to offer the Spanish authorities a truce and the opportunity to trade with their colony, but also asserted that, if they continued to deny the Scottish right to settle, then they would enact reprisals for the seizure.125 When he arrived in Cartagena, he was granted an audience with the governor, Pedro de Olivera Ordoñez, who was far from obliging, tearing up the peace offering and denouncing the Scottish colonists as ‘rogues and pirats’.126 True to their word, the Scottish Council responded by issuing all of its ships with letters of marque, instructing them to take any Spanish vessels then encountered.127 In Mexico City it was similarly interpreted that the colonists’ actions were in violation of the initial papal grant and Tordesillas, signalling that they did not intend peaceful settlement. The Viceroy of New Spain made the charge more explicit when he ordered Caledonia’s destruction in late March, justified because, he claimed, the colonists were pirates and would encourage the spread of heresy.128 Spanish officials responded to the settlement on the mouth of the Gulf of Darién just as they had other European newcomers for hundreds of years, dubbing them pirates and vowing to destroy their settlement. In doing so, however, the Caledonia’s Council felt provoked to seek reprisals. The inhabitants of the colony nevertheless persisted and attempted to break into Central American markets. By April 1699, their situation had become desperate. The English proclamation had been sent to Jamaica and was distributed across Stuart dominions in the Americas, blocking provisions while famine and disease ravaged the colony.129 For assistance they turned to Domingo De Rada, a merchant from nearby Santa Maria who they had captured during the skirmish at

123 ‘Council of Caledonia to the Governor of Santa Maria, 15 February 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.140, NLS. 124 ‘Testimony of James Graham, 20 September 1700’ in Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.150, NLS. 125 ‘Council of Caledonia to the Governor of Cartagena, 11 March 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.157. 126 ‘The memorial of the Council General of the Company of Scotland to Seafield, 8 April 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.165, NLS. 127 ‘Council of Caledonia to Edinburgh Directors, 8 April 1699’, Ibid., fo.163. 128 Don José Samiento to Martin de Aranguren Zavala, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.4, MHS. 129 ‘William Paterson’s Report Relating to the Collony of Caledonia, 19 December 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.35, NLS. 105

Toubacanti.130 During his months of imprisonment at Caledonia, De Rada secured good relations with the colony’s Council, providing them with intelligence about Spanish towns and military capacity in the region.131 Believing him to be their connection to markets in the Spanish Main, De Rada was offered his freedom as a further peace offering, but on the condition that he worked to establish trade between Santa Maria and their colony.132 When he was released and returned to the town in early May, however, officials there presumed that following the battle he had conspired with the Scots at Caledonia to establish illegal trade links. De Rada was immediately imprisoned on arrival, and in August he was transported to Havana for interrogation. There, he informed his interrogators from the Spanish Inquisition that the colonists endeavoured to trade commodities into Santa Maria, while also using his knowledge of the region to lead them to vulnerable Spanish gold and silver mines. Once they knew their location, he claimed, they would issue privateering commissions to anybody who sought one, precipitating a wave of raids against Spanish towns and shipping.133 De Rada was then released, the evidence he provided further vindicating the belief of his captors that their ultimate intention was to seize control of the flow of bullion. For the Caledonians, the merchant’s capture further hindered their attempts to peacefully establish trade networks on which their entrepôt would depend, increasingly important as their situation deteriorated. Yet, as these networks never materialised, starved of supplies by their European neighbours, the colonists were soon forced to begin abandoning the colony, eventually departing in June 1699. Consideration of the planning and execution of the first expedition to Panama reveals a hasty attempt to follow Paterson’s plan and establish a fully-fledged free port. While they came with goods, the colonists found no buyers, as they pursued established trade networks that had been deliberately closed to them. While they lacked supplies, denial of access to any source of capital also contributed to the project’s failure, as their Tule allies did not produce the gold and silver for

130 ‘Summary of the Content of Certain Depositions Sent by General Don Andrés de Pez, 9 August 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.32, MHS. 131 ‘Mr. Montgomery’s Letter to the Council of Caledonia, 6 February 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.136, NLS. 132 The council claimed that they released him as gesture of good faith to the Spanish authorities rather than as a means to promote trade. 133 ‘Certain depositions sent by General Don Andrés de Pez with his letter of the 9 August 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.32, MHS. 106 which they had initially hoped.134 Especially significant was the fact that other regional interests chose to imagine that the Scottish colonists had altogether more violent intentions. Jamaican planters, striving to undermine the creation of any further entrepôts in the Caribbean, had convinced government figures in England that Darien would facilitate an increase in pirates, weakening their islands against France’s ambitions in the process. In doing so, they had shored up support within a range of public institutions for their vision of the Caribbean’s future. Spanish officials, though aware of the war to come, reacted to the Scottish project as they always had done in the past, by condemning the colonists as pirates. Something would have to change if the project was to ever succeed.

*** As events unfolded in the Caribbean during early 1699, the Company of Scotland’s directors and the Spanish Ambassador in England, Manuel de Coloma y Escolano, fell into a significant dispute over the colony’s legality. Coloma drew directly upon the history of Spanish colonisation in Panama to refute the Scottish Company’s claim. He argued that, as early as 1500, conquistadors had settled the land, subjugated the region’s native inhabitants and installed missionaries among them. Only recently, he asserted, with the encouragement of buccaneers, had the Tule rebelled. Furthermore, even if Spain had not actively colonised the region, it was still theirs by both papal bull and Tordesillas, a position essentially unchanged since the reign of Charles V. Importantly, he added that the English proclamation issued by the Board of Trade established Darien’s illegality, and it would allow them to treat the interlopers as ‘disturbers of mankind’, an allusion to Cicero’s description of pirates.135 The reply compiled by the directors of the Company of Scotland argued that the “Dariens” had always been a sovereign people, Panama had never truly been colonised and, even if it had, the Spanish crown had relinquished its title by deserting the region – a forfeiture that, they added, included the mines there.136 Finally, citing Grotius and his tract Mare liberum, they argued that the Pope had no right to alienate the territory itself, making their settlement legal

134 George Pratt Insh, Papers Relating to the Ships and Voyages of the Company of Scotland (1924), pp.76, 84–85, 95; For their disappointment in this regard, see ‘The Deposition of Benjamin Spencer, 12 August 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.48, MHS. 135 ‘The Spanish Reasons Against the Scotch Invasion of Darien, transferred to his majesty’, Private Correspondence and Papers of James Ellis, 1700–1701, vol.7, Add. MS 28943, fos.223–226, BL. 136 Company of Scotland, A Full and exact collection of all the considerable addresses, memorials, petitions, answers, proclamations, declarations, letters, and other public papers relating to the Company of Scotland trading to Africa and the Indies (1700), pp.41–51. 107 under the law of nations.137 These positions were, of course, as irreconcilable as they had been when the Dutch entered the Caribbean in earnest eighty years earlier. Yet it was the proclamation issued by William III that provided the lynchpin in Coloma’s argument, coming to underpin all later objections to the project in law. The Spanish crown would have not always taken a hard-line stance on a settlement at Panama. In fact, initial military action against Darien had been prevented by the speculation and misinformation that swirled around it. Francesco de Berroteran, a Spanish admiral stationed in the Caribbean, had claimed as early as November 1698 that 12,000 Scots had settled in the Gulf of Darién, intending to recruit sailors from other free ports, such as Curaçao and St Thomas, while others contended that there were 6,000.138 Diego Córdoba Lasso de la Vega, Governor of Cuba, seeking reprisal and understanding the English and Scots to be one people, then began seizing any English vessels encountered in the Caribbean.139 Following the first arrival of the Scottish colonists, the passage of treasure ships from Cartagena and Portobelo were halted, while the Casa de Contratación appealed to Rome for funds to counter Scottish missionaries.140 All of these measures demonstrate the extent to which the response to project followed long established precedents. Yet, in the early months of 1699, the Council of the Indies’ understanding of the situation placed Charles II in a difficult position. If William III had indeed consented to the colony, it violated the 1670 Treaty of Madrid, which conceded the King’s right to all of their current possessions in the Caribbean, but no new settlements. English governments were also obliged to restrain any plunder or illegal trade into Spanish dominions, both activities they had heard that the Scottish newcomers intended.141 However, with the potential war with France looming and persistent French expansion in the Caribbean, Spain could ill afford hostilities with Protestant Europe as well. Clarity came in May 1699, when the Spanish ambassador reported that Darien was

137 Ibid., p.58; Hugo Grotius, ‘Mare Liberum’ in Ralph Van Deman Magoffin (ed.), The Freedom of the Seas or the Right which Belongs to the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade (2001), pp.11–15. 138 ‘Francesco de Berrotaran to Condi de Adanero, 15 November 1698’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.1, MHS. Also see ‘Diego de Córdoba Lasso de la Vega to Crown, 31 January 1699’; ‘Council for the Indies to the Crown, 12 February 1699’, Ibid., fol.6; ‘Deposition of Benjamin Spencer, 12 August 1699’, Ibid., fol.48. 139 ‘Don Diego to Crown, 24 February 1699’, Ibid.; ‘Vernon to Blathwayt, 9 June 1699’, Osborn Manuscripts, MS OSB 2, Box 9 fo.199, YBL. 140 ‘Don Diego to the Crown, 24 February 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.6, MHS; ‘Alexander Stanhope to William Blathwayt, 13 August 1699’ in Osborne Manuscripts, MS OSB 2, Box 8, fo.178, YBL. 141 ‘Treaty Between Great Britain and Spain, concluded at Madrid, July 8/18, 1670’ in Francis Gardiner Davenport (ed.), European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies (1929), pp.193–196. 108 a private enterprise and one that William III had actively disowned by proclamation.142 In light of these facts, the Council of the Indies rendered its verdict, that the Company of Scotland’s ‘actions are without any order from the court of England, as is evidenced by the proclamation sent to the governor of Jamaica’, and so it was certain that ‘they are pirates who have executed this operation’.143 Freed of diplomatic complications, the Council at Seville was able to order more concerted action against the colony. Finding a means to overturn this proclamation thus became crucial to the Company of Scotland’s efforts to reverse the fortunes of its struggling project. Opposition from the Spanish crown in particular stimulated a wave of popular anti-Spanish sentiment in Scotland, imbuing the second expedition with an overtly Calvinist sense of mission. Yet, with the Spanish succession crisis escalating, these emotions would do little to aid the Company, and its directors were not blind to this fact. The task for them and particularly William Paterson was to balance and direct this outpouring of animosity. By repositioning the project as a means to oppose the projected Franco– Spanish alliance, they endeavoured to win support in England to overturn the proclamation. In doing so, they were debating on the same terms as the planters had previously, seeking to demonstrate how their projected entrepôt could also serve to frustrate French ambitions. Deteriorating diplomatic relations with Spain afforded a greater place in the scheme for the Kirk, Scotland’s established Presbyterian church. As early as 1 July 1698, the Edinburgh Presbytery had appointed prayers across the city for the Company’s success, followed by regular services and thanksgivings thereafter.144 Initial forays into print by its ministers used the Calvinist doctrine of providence as a lens to understand the colony’s significance, arguing that the recent famine and economic downturn that had afflicted Scotland was the result of provoking evils – the collective sins of the nation.145 Striking at the heart of the antichrist’s dominion in the Americas, asserted the Cameronian Alexander Shields, would make Darien an ‘Azylum, Sanctuary, and Shelter, for whatever Storms and National Calamitys may threaten and blow upon Sinful and Provoking old Scotland’.146 The initial voyage had taken two ministers (both of whom died on the initial voyage),

142 ‘Alexander Stanhope to Don Antonio, 10 May 1699’, Osborne Manuscripts, OSB MS 2, Box 8, fo.179, YBL. 143 ‘Council for the Indies to the King, 16 May 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.18, MHS. 144 Insh, Darien Shipping Papers, p.62; Joseph McCormick (ed.), State-Papers and Letters Addressed to William Carstares (1774), p.490; Jack Cummins Ramsay, ‘The Darien Scheme and the Church of Scotland’, unpublished PhD dissertation (1949), pp.48–79. 145 Archibald Foyer, A Defence of the Scots Settlement at Darien with an Answer to the Spanish Memorial Against it (1699). 146 Shields, A proper project for Scotland, p.80. 109 but the Company of Scotland had initially refrained from conveying Darien in explicitly religious terms. This growing conception of the project as part of an ongoing conflict between Rome and Reformed Christianity emerged only months following the initial departure and had at least some level of influence over the Company’s directors. While preparing to send their second set of colonists to Central America, they recruited three further Kirk ministers, set down a collection of Mosaic laws to govern behaviour there and instructed the colony’s councillors to ensure missionary work as well as moral reform were carried out there.147 Doubtless, some of them genuinely came to understand the scheme in more confessional terms, while others saw the value in terms of public support in Scotland, the Kirk affording it as a symbol of the nation. When the second expedition departed on the 24 September 1699, therefore, free trade alone was no longer the raison d'être for the colony, as contesting papal dominion, as well as enacting reprisals upon Spanish towns and shipping, became equally important motivations. Despite the Calvinist providentialism that began to infuse the Company of Scotland’s efforts during the early months of 1699, the project’s supporters attempted to channel this sentiment into a practical means to overcome the opposition of planter interests. Across 1699, Bourbon inheritance of the Spanish crown looked increasingly likely, which would precipitate an alliance between France and Spain.148 The prospect of a grand Catholic alliance provided a means for the Company of Scotland to begin framing the scheme as a means to prevent a Franco-Spanish seizure of the entire Caribbean. Their target was the proclamation issued by the English Board of Trade in 1697, which many in the Company blamed for the project’s difficulties. The case of its directors was laid out succinctly by William Seton, a prominent Country Party MP. In a speech to Scottish Parliament, he claimed that the English proclamation represented sovereign disapproval, allowing the Spanish ambassador and other officials to treat the Company of Scotland as pirates. If the proclamation was overturned, he claimed, then the scheme would be able to succeed and see them mount an opposition to the ‘Catholick League for the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion’.149 Many printed accounts at the time replicated this exact argument.150 Thus the public rhetoric which

147 Ramsay, The Darien Scheme, pp.48–68; ‘Ordinances of the Council of Caledonia, 24 April 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fos.172–174, NLS; ‘Directors to Council, 10 February 1700’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fos.83–84, NLS. 148 James Falkner, The War of Spanish Succession, 1701–1714 (2015), pp.2–6. 149 William Seton, A Short Speech Prepared to be Spoken by a Worthy Member in Parliament: Concerning the Present State of the Nation (1700), p.8. 150 Examples are numerous, see Hodges, A Defence, pp.44–46; Foyer, Scotland's present duty, pp.3–27; Anon., Certain propositions relating to the Scots plantation of Caledonia (1700); George Ridpath, An Enquiry into the 110 emerged around the Darien Scheme had a purpose, intended as a response to the arguments Caribbean planters had presented in previous years, shifting from the purely free-trade benefits of the colony to instead play upon contemporary fears of France. Following his return from Panama in October 1699, Paterson joined in this repositioning of the project. He and the rest of Caledonia’s council claimed to have become aware of French plans while in Central America.151 In a report submitted to the Company of Scotland’s directors, he described how he had found letters among the wreckage following a shipwreck, describing ‘the great inclination there is in the Spanish Indies to declare for the Dauphin upon the first news they will have of the Spanish King’s death … and so by consequence not only to get a part but the whole Indies’.152 Publicly, he wrote in similar terms to Seton, contending that repealing the proclamations was the only means to wash away the charge that the colonists were pirates and to secure the Caribbean from a Catholic takeover.153 A succession of petitions from the Company of Scotland to William III culminated in a plea to repeal the proclamation sent to the king in January 1701 by Paterson. In it, he rebalanced his initial proposals, restating the benefits of an entrepôt in the Gulf of Darien, but annexing a large section detailing how it would combat a Franco-Spanish plot.154 These attempts failed, however, as William III held firm in refusing to rescind the proclamation. As a consequence of this failure, in practice little had changed in material terms at Panama. The proclamation remained in effect, and as a consequence trade was formally forbidden into the colony, allowing Spanish governments to continue deeming them pirates. The second expedition saw an escalation of conflict with their Spanish opponents, shaped by the fact that, on their arrival in the Gulf of Darién on 30 November 1700, the new settlers discovered not a thriving colony, but the abandoned ruins of Caledonia. This discovery caused the project to take on a pronounced Calvinist and anti-Spanish dimension, shifting to become more about enacting reparations upon Spain than founding a free trading colony.

causes of the miscarriage of the Scots colony at Darien, or, An answer to a libel entituled, A defence of the Scots abdicating Darien submitted to the consideration of the good people of England (1700), pp.40–46; Andrew Fletcher, A short and impartial view of the manner and occasion of the Scots colony's coming away from Darien in a letter to a person of quality (1699), pp.16–30; Bowie, Scottish Public, pp.27–37. 151 ‘Memorial of the Council of Caledonia to Seafield and Carmichael, 8 April 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.163, NLS; Hart, The Disaster of Darien, p.215. 152 ‘William Paterson to Directors, undated (early 1700)’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.59, NLS. 153 Philo-Caledonian, Scotland's present duty, p.9. 154 ‘Petition of Lord Belhaven to William III, 19 October 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.18, NLS; Anon., Certain propositions, pp.85–103; Bannister, Writings of William Paterson, pp.331–349. 111

Kirk ministers had their role in providing a stricter Calvinist direction to the colony. Shortly after arrival, they were quick to present the previous expedition’s failure as providential. They claimed that such misfortune could only be divine judgement and that rebuilding had to now proceed on a foundation of exemplary piety.155 To emphasise this point, Alexander Shields and the other ministers visited the mainland several times to proselytise amongst the Tule, enforced adherence to the Sabbath and worked hard to reform the morality of the colonists. For Shields in particular, much of the project of Darien was creating a colony godlier than Scotland itself, but his limited success in these endeavours irked him. In particular he despaired over the presence of ‘so many wild Highlanders’, many of whom would have been Catholic.156 Indeed, the general appetite for moral reform seems to have been relatively limited at Darien. This was not to be a settlement colony after Congregationalist New England. Instead, the beliefs of Shields and the other ministers found their expression by encouraging the colony’s leadership to mount attacks on the Spanish Main.157 With his encouragement, counsellors drew up plans to besiege Portobello with aid from their Tule allies in late 1699.158 Yet this plan foundered because one of the colony’s councillors – a Quaker – refused to agree to the raid.159 Thus, despite pressure that something be done to avenge the loss of the first expectation, the new colonists initially failed to showcase either exemplary Calvinist piety or militancy. There was still some glimmer of hope for the commercial development of the project. During 1699, the Boston merchant Daniel Mackay had set about coordinating trade links to support the colony, speaking to the Company’s directors of a network of Scottish merchants, including Robert Livingston in New York and Robert Mascive at Nevis, who believed they could supply the colony with provisions and settlers but not ‘acknowledge publically’, that they had done so.160 Atlantic trade, they stressed, was about networks, and total adherence to all regulations established in

155 Francis Borland, The History of Darien (1779), p.30. 156 ‘Shields to Directors, 2 February 1700’ in Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society, vol.4, no.2 (1902), pp.221–224; Michael Jinkins, ‘Shields, Alexander (1659/60–1700 )’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004), [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25302, accessed 4 Jan 2017]. 157 ‘A Report from the Particular Committee appointed to examine and enquire into the specificities of the several matters represented by James Byres and Thomas Drummond, undated’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.205, NLS. 158 Walter MacLoed (ed.), Journal of the Hon. John Erskine of Carnock, 1683–1687 (1893), pp.243–244. 159 ‘Mr Shields Account of Mr Bryres Remarks, 4 February 1700’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.66–67, NLS. 160 ‘Daniel Mackay Directors, 3 July 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.188, NLS; ‘John Borland to Daniel Mackay, 7 July 1699’, Ibid., fo.192; ‘Jeremiah Basse to the Board of Trade, 9 June 1699’ in Board of Trade: Properties, 1697–1698, vol.5, MS Ra.1, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP). 112

Europe would only impede their efforts. This belief was articulated most directly by a Scottish merchant at New York, who remarked that establishing factors at New York and Jamaica would allow them to be supplied indefinitely.161 This advice underscored two core lessons from the experiences of the first expedition. First, that however effective commercial legislation may appear in Europe, it was deployed with limited success on the other side of the Atlantic. Second, that to achieve the eventual design advocated by Paterson they would have gain access to trade routes through force or subterfuge, as no other European government would allow success to be simply gifted to them. As a result, the colonists placed more importance upon Darien as a generator of bullion in order to draw North American trade south. Shields remarked that they endeavoured to seize the ‘abundance of Gold mines, Nicaragua, and other precious woods etc’, and that, if they had enough men, ‘to subdue the Spaniards or oblige them to be quiet, in a little time the place would provide for itself, and prove the most considerable settlement in the West Indies’.162 Access to gold and silver was seen as essential. As part of the project, the Company of Scotland had dispatched a goldsmith with the second group of colonists, the intention being to establish a mint once the colony secured access to a reliable stream of precious metals.163 Shortly after the settlers’ arrival, they also sent vessels to Boston and New York, endeavouring to begin taking advantage of the networks they had established, while provisions were successfully imported from Jamaica, Barbados, Rhode Island and New York, all despite the English proclamation continuing to be in effect.164 Yet by February 1700 their plans had run into difficulties. The nearby areas they had surveyed for precious metals proved barren, and their Tule allies assured the colony’s Council that the only means to obtain access to gold and silver was by trading through them, or by capturing mines much further up the Gulf of Darién for themselves.165 Similarly, despite the contacts Scots had made, any

161 ‘Adam Cleghorn to Baillie Robert Blackwood, 14 August 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.193, NLS. 162 ‘Shields to John Erskine, 2 February 1700, Walter Mcloed, Journal of the Hon. John Erskine of Carnock, 1683– 1687 (1893), p.241. 163 ‘Directors to Council, 17 August 1700’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.85, NLS. 164 ‘Directors to Council, 16 March 1701’, Ibid., fo.172–175; ‘Proposal to the Directors, February 1700’, Colonel Levan’s Darien Papers, Adv.MS 83/7/3, fos.50–53, NLS; Alexander Shields to Directors, 21 February 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.66, NLS; ‘Agreement between Thomas Drummond and William Fulton, 27 August 1699’, ‘The Narrative of William Fulton and John Peterfield, 27 March 1700’, Board of Trade: New Hampshire Correspondence, 1692–1737, CO 5/931, fos.17–18, TNA. 165 John Hill Burton, The Darien Papers: Being a Selection of Original Letters and Official Documents Relating to the Establishment of a Colony At Darien by the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, 1695–1700 (1849), pp.214–216; Borland, History, pp.16–17. 113 extensive commercial traffic from North America failed to materialise, and they had little to sell to the vessels which did arrive.166 It became increasingly obvious that they could only get a foothold by forcibly capturing a source of bullion from Spain, but again they were blocked from doing so by James Byres, the Quaker Counsellor.167 A shift came on 7 February 1700, when, under the pretence of seeking to prove that they could broker a trade agreement with Jamaica, Byers left the colony, breaking the deadlock in its Council.168 Shortly thereafter, the colonists were warned by one of their Tule allies that a Spanish force was gathering for an assault among the Native American and Maroon communities near Toubacanti. The Council resolved to attack the outpost to pre-empt any imminent invasion and on 13 February sent out a force onto the mainland; almost half of them Tule, they came up against a force ‘of the Spaniards 100…and of malattoes, criollios, negroes and indians about 300 more’. This admittedly small victory did not seem so at Caledonia and later in Edinburgh, both of which saw scenes of celebration in response to the news.169 Buoyed by their victory, the Council then issued privateering commission to their vessels for capturing Spanish shipping, while beginning initial planning into how they might secure control of mines nearby.170 Their triumph was short lived, however, when on 23 February a Spanish fleet commanded by Don Martin de Zavala arrived and blockaded the Scottish colony’s harbour, eventually forcing its surrender at the end of March.171 The project culminated in an attempt launched from a fortified settlement by a Calvinist leadership to seize control of a supply of bullion, justified by the argument that it would strike a blow against Catholic Spain. Caledonia became one further instance of venture Calvinism, rather succeeding in establishing Paterson’s design from the outset. Yet the debate that had raged through this project between advocates of plantation colonies and of entrepôts would not be resolved with this failure in Scotland or England. It was, rather, decided in Seville during the early months of 1700, when several Scottish colonists stood trial in the city for piracy. The incident once again raised the vexed issue of the proclamation, which forced William III to choose very publicly between these two visions of the Caribbean’s future.

166 ‘Shields to William Dunlop, 2 February 1700’, Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society, vol.4, p.223. 167 ‘Marquis de Villa Rocha to the Crown, 24 October 1699’, Francis Hart Papers, MS N-189, fol.57, MHS. 168 ‘Shields to Directors, 21 February 1700’ in Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.66, NLS. 169 ‘Edinburgh Gazette, 17–20 June 1700’, Darien Papers, RY.2.b.8, NLS. 170 ‘Alexander Shields to Directors, 22 February 1701’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fos.67–8, NLS; ‘Robert Turnbull to John Erskin, February 1700’ in Scottish Historical Review, vol.11, no.44 (1914), pp.407–408. 171 ‘Francis Borland to Directors, 31 March 1700’ in Borland, The History of Darien, pp.59–61. 114

In the first months of 1700, with the Scots once again settled in Central America, a symbolically important chance for the Council of the Indies to condemn the colony presented itself. In April Robert Pincarton, a Company of Scotland ship captain, and some of his crew arrived in Cadiz as prisoners to stand trial by the Casa de la Contratación, which also served as the highest court with an American criminal jurisdiction.172 The questioning of the Scottish prisoners by the fiscal (crown prosecutor) showed the extent of concern with the military nature of the colony and the crew’s intentions to establish a trade with Portobelo and Cartagena.173 However, when the case eventually went to trial, the central pieces of evidence used against the accused was the proclamation issued by the English Board of Trade and the fact that William III was purported to have also described the colonists as pirates, both of which, the prosecutor claimed, signified that they lacked sovereign approval for the scheme. Under Spain’s long-established claims to the Americas and their understanding of the crime in Roman law, these facts that made them guilty of piracy.174 A judgement was given out by the Court on 29 May, finding the accused guilty, but it was a conviction that extended beyond Pincarton and his men. The piracy conviction also covered ‘The Duke of Hamilton, the Marquess of Tweedale and the rest of the persons in Scotland who formed the company’.175 The individual sailors were not condemned so much for their actions, as in reprisal for the actions of their Company.176 Pincarton’s only option was to appeal the verdict to the high tribunal at Madrid, and the trial itself presented William III with a stark decision.177 Supporters of the Company of Scotland had previously implored him to overturn the proclamation, but they now intensified their efforts, as it would undermine the central piece of evidence convicting the sailors.178 Yet this request placed the King in a dilemma. Should he overturn the proclamation disowning Darien, he would make the

172 ‘Marquis de Villa Rocha to the Crown, 24 October 1699’, ‘Francisco, Cardinal Judice to Crown, 15 November 1699’, ‘Marquis del Carpio to Crown, 29 December 1699’, in Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fols. 57, 63. MHS; ‘Sentence against the Scotsmen taken at Cartagena’, Private Correspondence and Papers of James Ellis, vol.8, Add. MS 28944, fo.258, BL. 173 ‘Questions to Captain Pincarton by the judges at Seville and his Answers’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.139–140, NLS; The Trial is outlined extensively in Orr, ‘New Caledonia’s Wake’, pp.125–158. 174 ‘Council of the Indies to the King, 9 May 1699’, Francis Hart Transcripts, MS N-189, fol.10, MHS. 175 ‘Reasons given for the sentence against Pincarton and others, undated’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.141, NLS. 176 ‘Sentence given by the Casa de la Contratación des Indes against Captain Pincarton and Others’ in Blathwayt Papers, vol.26, Add. MS 9744, fo.35, BL. 177 ‘Pincarton and Crew to Directors, 19 June 1700’, Correspondence of the Duke of Hamilton, GD 406/1/4541, National Records of Scotland (NRS). 178 ‘Pincarton to the African Company and the King, 28 May 1700’, Seafield Correspondence, GD 248/558/5, NRS; ‘Instructions to Basil Hamilton, undated’, Company of Scotland: Directors Journal, vol.2, BSA. 115 sentence invalid, effectively declaring that the Darien Scheme and, as a consequence, the Company of Scotland’s right to establish a free port to be lawful.179 If he did so, then he would jeopordise relations with Spain, as well as the English planter interests who had lobbied so persistently for the proclamation in the first place. First, William attempted to find a third way, initially by pressuring Martin Westcombe, the Consul at Cadiz, to construct a case for the defence ahead of the case’s appeal and then personally implored Charles II to grant a pardon, but neither measures were successful. In the end Pincarton and his crew were saved by the Governor of Cartagena, Juan Díaz Pimienta y Zaldivar, whose letter detailing Caledonia’s surrender arrived in Madrid in late July 1700. With little to gain from their execution now, the case was not heard until September, when Pincarton and his crew were again declared guilty by the High Tribunal, but were immediately pardoned by Charles II, a month before his death, and released for trial in England.180 This result gave William III what he wanted. It upheld the illegality of the Scottish project but also saved the lives of the sailors, preventing a more substantial escalation of anger among his subjects in Scotland. Yet most of all, it was a victory for the Caribbean planters and their agents in London.

*** This chapter has sought to account for the association of the Darien Scheme with pirates by both Spanish and English contemporaries. It has argued that this connection can be understood by considering Paterson’s project against the long history of colonisation in the Caribbean Sea juxtaposed against the particular circumstances of the 1690s. The tradition of venture Calvinism that developed across the sixteenth century as a means to forcibly acquire bullion fuelled the eventual creation of two separate colonial models. There was the entrepôt, which relied upon a constant throughput of people, and the plantation colony, which relied upon a static labour force replenished by immigration. Across this same period, Spanish jurists also adopted the concepts of piracy and pirate as part of an imperial vocabulary to deter and punish largely Protestant interlopers, concepts later co-opted by English planters as part of their efforts to exclude buccaneers from Jamaica. When the Company of Scotland proposed its colony at Darien, it effectively reignited this dispute between these two visions of the Caribbean’s future. Planter interests rearticulated their

179 ‘William Blathwayt to Martin Westcomb, 19 July 1700’, Seafield Correspondence, GD 248/558/31/5, NRS; ‘William III to Carlos II, 22 July 1700’, Ibid., GD 248/558/31/10, NRS. 180 ‘Pincarton and James Graham Testimony, 4 January 1702’, Darien Papers, vol.2, Adv.MS 83/7/5, fo.136, NLS. 116 argument that entrepôts drained plantation colonies of people and created pirates, yet against the background of a looming war with France they added an additional dimension. To gain the support of public institutions, they claimed that the pirates they created would jeopardise relations with Spain and render Stuart colonies indefensible, just as war with France loomed once again. Their success at securing a royal proclamation disowning the project ensured that the Scottish colonists were received in Panama as buccaneers had been before them, drawing them into a familiar conflict with local Spanish governors and military officials. The Company of Scotland then tried and failed to secure the overturn of the proclamation as a means to render its colony legal and did so by positioning it as a bulwark against Franco-Spanish influence. This lack of success witnessed little change and caused the second expedition to then take on a markedly more anti-Spanish caste and follow after the venture Calvinists who had preceded them. The final trial of Scottish colonists for piracy in Seville, in which the proclamation itself was the evidence for a guilty verdict, forced William III to choose very publicly between the enduring hegemony of English plantation colonies and legitimising a free port. Ultimately, he prevaricated but remained aligned with the former, securing an English Caribbean covered by slave plantations. At times, there were glimpses of a successful project that might have been, but from La Florida to the Western Design and eventually Darien, few meticulously planned colonial schemes succeeded in the Caribbean. Instead, colonialism there was shaped in the first instance by regional and global factors pushing and pulling people to migrate. Venture Calvinists, like others who entered the region, had been relatively free to experiment, and, in the end, it was the interplay between free movements of people and a growing range of interests who sought to control them that produced the Caribbean as it existed by the later seventeenth century. Paterson and his fellow directors would have been as well to take the advice of Matthew Tindal in his tract condemning Irish Catholics serving on French privateers. In it, Tindal reminded his readers that ‘Argiers, Tripoly, Tunis, though at first but Nests of Pirates, and associated for the sake of Spoil and Plunder, yet as soon as each of them had the face of a Republick, they were esteemed as just Enemies.181

181 Tindal, An essay concerning the laws of nations, p.18. 117

III: The Earl of Bellomont, the Madagascar Trade and John Locke’s Atlantis, 1695–1701

During the summer of 1699, the remaining colonists from Caledonia sluggishly made their way northwards following their colony’s initial failure. In late June, the two remaining ships and their starving crews first pitched onto the coast of Nicaragua, their presence causing such alarm that the local militia was assembled to repel them. The two remaining ships then beat a retreat northeast to New Providence in the Bahamas and from there, followed the American coast all the way to the mouth of the Hudson Bay, arriving there on 3 August. Yet there they stayed because on arrival, their vessels were refused entry to New York City by the colony’s governor, Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont. He did so on the grounds that the proclamation previously issued by the English Board of Trade in 1696 forbidding any subject for assisting the Company of Scotland, was still in effect.1 While sympathetic to the colonists, this was a poor time for them to arrive.2 The journey they had taken tracked the final leg followed by many vessels from Madagascar, most of whom pitched into Caribbean entrepôts like New Providence, Curaçao and St Thomas before proceeding north. It was only in the preceding three years that these connections to the Caribbean had become conspicuous. Observers in Britain and Ireland believed that they facilitated a trade in goods stolen by pirates in the Indian Ocean, and Bellomont, as governor of New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire was expected to use his position to prevent this traffic. So the earl made some show of refusing the Scottish colonists entry – he could not be seen to engage in activities which the English Board of Trade viewed as illegal. Despite this public display, however, he surreptitiously supplied them with provisions.3 The governor was willing to bend the rules for his allies, but, of course, did not extend the same latitude to his opponents. For instance, the earl sought out every scrap of evidence that linked one of his critics, the wealthy merchant Frederick Philipse, to stolen goods received from Madagascar. The bundle of documents he eventually delivered up to authorities in England made the merchant’s involvement plain, through with ultimately no criminal

1 ‘From a Scotchman Master of a Ship Bound for Newfoundland, 12 August 1699’, Collections of A. Hill Relating to Trade, 17th-18th Centuries, Sloane MS 2902, fos.231–232, BL. 2 ‘Daniel Mackay to Directors, 3 July 1699’, Darien Papers, vol.1, Adv.MS 83/7/4, fo.188, NLS. 3 ‘Vernon to Blathwayt, 6 October 1699’, Osborn Manuscripts, MS OSB 2, Box 9, fo.200, YBL. 118 consequences.4 This element of performance in service of personal and partisan interest ran through all North American pirate hunts during the later 1690s. As in the case of Ireland or the Darien Scheme, larger colonial and imperial ambitions fueled the creation, arrest and conviction of pirates in North America. Bellomont is especially interesting in this regard. He had a remit to investigate the presence of pirates from the Hudson all the way to the northernmost woodlands of Maine. The question is, what, if anything, did he imagine he could achieve as a consequence of these investigations? The existing literature in which Bellomont features does not provide a satisfactory answer to this question. Some classic political histories of colonial New York have made space for the earl, including him in the detailed narratives of faction in American colonies that were once the norm.5 These scholars hermetically sealed Bellomont into a New York context and locked him into a back- and-forth between the supporters of Jacob Leisler, a German merchant who staged an uprising in the colony during 1691, and anti-Leislerans who were largely former supporters of the Dominion of New England (1686-1689). The fact that he committed so much of his time to hunting pirates barely features in this scholarship. At the same time his long life before he came to America is absent – he was in his early sixties by the time he arrived – as is the fact that he spent a considerable amount of time outside New York. Histories of pirates, in contrast, have chosen not to delve into the partisanship which these histories were at such pains to outline. Instead they have tended to flatten Bellomont into the role of a generic royal official, or, “administrator”, bent on centralisation at the expense of provincial autonomy.6 The beginnings of an alternative perspective on the peer are suggested by two recent studies. Owen Stanwood has demonstrated how Bellomont used antipopery to rally supporters and discredit his opponents, fomenting a belief that Jacobites conspired with native Americans to deliver the northeast to Louis XIV.7 Equally, Simon Middleton’s excellent study of labour politics in New York City considers Bellomont. He has sketched the naval stores project which Bellomont promoted during his time in America, viewing it as evidence of a

4 See Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, 1694–1699, HCA 1/98, passim, TNA. 5 Patricia Bonomi, A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (1977), p.77; Michael G. Kammen, Colonial New York: A History (1975), pp.139–155; Lawrence H. Leder, Robert Livingston and the Politics of Colonial New York, 1654–1728 (1961), pp.129–140. 6 Kevin P. McDonald, Pirates, Merchants, Settlers and Slaves: Colonial America in the Indo-Atlantic World (2015), pp.40–58; Burgess, The Politics of Piracy, passim; Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.258–265; 258–265; Ritchie, Captain Kidd, pp,110–121; John C. Rainbolt, ‘“A Great and Useful Designe”: Bellomont’s Proposal for New York, 1698– 1701’, New York Historical Society Quarterly, vol.53 (1969), pp.333–351. 7 Stanwood, The Empire Reformed, pp.189–195. 119 labour shortage in the colony.8 Both of these considerations provide glimpses, but not the entire picture of what the peer believed he could achieve. This chapter will argue that Bellomont saw northeastern connections to Madagascar pirates as a structural economic problem and one he attempted to resolve through the implementation of Irish colonisation strategies. His appointment came at a particular moment in the mid-1690s. War had exposed the vulnerability of New England and New York to French invasion and members of the newly established Board of Trade sought a means to strengthen the region. The influence of John Locke saw to the earl’s many appointments who, as an Anglo-Irish Protestant, shared much with the philosopher’s particular vision for North America, which he termed Atlantis in his private writings. Through a naval stores project, Bellomont intended to plant Protestant soldiers on lands from the Upper Hudson Valley into New Hampshire and eventually eastwards into southern Maine. The scheme he intended to serve two purposes. The first was to produce commodities that would draw Atlantic flows of people and goods northwards, severing dependency on goods stolen by pirates out of Madagascar in the process. At the same time, he believed his plan would also safeguard colonial borderlands from French influence. In the process, Bellomont imagined creating a society of stout Protestant freeholders, industrious, religiously tolerant and resistant to Catholic influence - a direct transfer of colonisation techniques from Ireland. Those who stood in his way he characterised as part of the problem, secret Jacobites and abettors of pirates, whom he held were responsible for the region’s vulnerability and economic difficulties. Thus Madagascar pirates became the pretext for remaking the American northeast in the image of Protestant Ireland, a plan set in motion by John Locke but one over which the philosopher eventually had little control. The argument in this chapter is advanced in four sections. The first lays out the long-term structural economic causes of connections between Madagascar and the northeast before the 1690s. It begins by outlining how regional competition facilitated port towns and their rural surrounding a role in provisioning the Caribbean rather than any kind of cash-crop production, networks then deepened by subsequent migration. Commercial privileging of the Caribbean owed much to the pursuit of a stable supply of specie for the northeast. This desire saw merchants enter the Madagascar slave trade, which, by the late 1680s had become a means for colonists to funnel gold and silver stolen in the Indian Ocean into North America. These networks were then flushed with people after the outbreak of war in 1689. The second section considers the factors which converged

8 Simon Middleton, From Privileges to Rights: Work and Politics in Colonial New York City (2006), pp.134-139. 120 in Bellomont’s appointment. It begins with his Irish background before considering the political philosophy he shared with John Locke, who was, at that time, seeking to implement his ideas through American political appointments. He ensured the earl was appointed to strengthen the region against France and was then successful at turning the unfolding scandal of the Madagascar trade to his and the earl’s advantage. The third section covers initial efforts by Bellomont to use these investigations against his opponents. It tracks his initial success at discrediting his opponents in New York by tying them to Madagascar pirates, but was then undermined by the revelations that he himself had sponsored William Kidd, an accused pirate. However, he was eventually successful in weathering the scandal. The final section then considers Bellomont’s attempts to implement his naval stores project. It begins by considering how the scheme originated from the Huguenot refugee Gabriel Bernon, as well as its resonance with both the earl and Locke. It then follows the earl developing it into a plan to transfer Irish colonisation techniques to the Americas, before then detailing the programs of land redistribution and missionary work he set in motion to lay the groundwork. The section then concludes by describing the eventual collapse of the scheme and how it failed on account of his earlier attempt to pin the Madagascar trade on his political opponents.

*** One of the first characteristics of New York City which the earl noticed following his arrival was how fantastically rich many merchants there were. Fresh off the boat in May 1698, he wrote to the Board of Trade claiming that their riches came from their sponsoring of Madagascar pirates and that the support they had enjoyed in doing so were an inevitable consequence of his predecessor’s corruption.9 These were aspersions intended to discredit his rivals, but Bellomont had struck on a particular characteristic of the northeastern colonies which did facilitate links with Madagascar: macroeconomic structural inequality. Rather than the consequence of a few covetous merchants and their abettors, trade with Madagascar resulted from the subordinate place the northeast had come to play in the Atlantic economy, caused by specific circumstances of English colonisation. The interplay of processes of migration, economic competition and religious conversion all had a role in ensuring the northeast came to depend upon provisioning plantation colonies rather than

9 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fo.118, TNA. 121 developing commodity-production. This reality left the regional economy starved of specie, and by the later 1680s, people from North America had begun to follow the global trail of money into the Indian Ocean. Bellomont consistently engaged with this problem while in the northeast, so to understand what the earl attempted the structural issues that first motivated North American colonists to venture east have to be considered. If there were particular regions most associated with the Madagascar trade during the 1690s, it was the coast of southern New England and Long Island, as well as those coastal areas stretching southwards to the Delaware Bay. In the first instance, these networks were the product of long- established regional competition between aspiring commercial centres across this littoral space, a dynamic which fostered the dependency which eventually drew colonists to the Indian Ocean. This commercial competition first developed through trade and conflict with Native American peoples, but it was not long before the processes of initial colonisation transferred it onto the ocean. While Boston and New York City are often considered to be the most significant northeastern ports, during the early seventeenth century, they had many competitors. Initially, the south coasts of modern-day Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Long Island were also seen to have enormous potential. Filled with chains of islands and narrow seas and sheltered from Atlantic currents, these coasts appeared ideal for seafaring communities.10 This fact was emphasised by the Ninnimissinuok, a union of Algonquian peoples who by 1600 had inhabited these coastlines for over two thousand years, and whose trade networks stretched as far as Florida and the Caribbean.11 The Algonquian were also hunters and the pelts and furs they traded were coveted as a commodity by Europeans. By the 1620s, this trade had begun to draw Dutch colonists eastwards from Manhattan Island and the English Congregationalists south from Plymouth Plantation.12 Initial

10 John A. Strong, The Montaukett Indians of Eastern Long Island (2001), p.3–4; Kathleen Joan Bragdon, Native Peoples of Southern New England, 1500–1650 (1996), pp.55–59. 11 Faren R. Siminoff, Crossing the Sound: The Rise of Atlantic American Communities in Seventeenth-Century Eastern Long Island (2004), pp.16–17; John Menta, The Quinnipiac: Cultural Conflict in Southern New England (2003), pp.7–10; Ronald J. Wyatt, ‘The Archaic on Long Island’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol.288 (1977), pp.400–408; Bert Salwin, ‘Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period’, Bruce Trigger (ed.), Handbook of the North American Indians: The Northeast, vol.15 (1978), pp.160–161, 166; Strong, Montaukett Indians, pp.6–8; Bragdon, Native Peoples, pp.80–100. 12 John A. Strong, The Unkechaug Indians of Eastern Long Island: A History (2011), pp.26–28; Mark Meuwese, ‘The Dutch Connection: New Netherland, the Pequots, and the Puritans in Southern New England, 1620–1638’, Early American Studies, vol.9, no.2 (2011), pp.308–309; Oliver A. Rink, Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History of Dutch New York (1986), pp.88–89; Nicholaes Van Wassenar, ‘Historisch Verhael’ in J. Franklin Jameson (ed.), Narratives of New Netherland, 1609–1664 (1909), p.86; ‘Letter of Reverend Jonas Michaelius, 1628’ in Ibid., p.130; Siminoff, Crossing the Sound, pp.38–39; William Bradford, ‘Of Plimouth Plantation’ in Bradford’s History of "Plimoth Plantation" (1899), p.282. 122 competition for control of this trade erupted into conflict with the Pequod War in 1636, the experience of which made English Puritans aware of the commercial potential of these coasts for the first time.13 For instance, the militia captain John Underhill took to promoting colonisation of the “vacant” territories they had seen to the south during the war, emphasising the possibility of fertile land for cultivation and expansive harbours for – ports to compete with Boston and New Amsterdam.14 These promoters enjoyed some success. By 1651, the migration of English Congregationalists southwards saw fifteen towns established in Southern New England’s coasts, bringing the region’s population rise to around five thousand, rivalling the fourteen thousand in Massachusetts and four in New Netherland.15 By midcentury, therefore, potential commercial centres had arisen, scattered across the northeast’s coastlines. It was in the emergent trade with the Caribbean and Chesapeake Bay which these towns initially sought to establish themselves. As early as 1632, New Amsterdam’s merchants began to capitalise on Dutch gains from the Portuguese, trading slaves out of factories on the Gold Coast into Brazil and the Leeward Islands, where they purchased sugar and logwood before proceeding north. In New Netherland they would then buy provisions to supply the rapidly expanding plantation economies to the south but also furs to sell in Europe.16 Slower on the uptake were the merchants of Boston. By 1634, traders there began also shifting their attentions southwards, prompting a modest migration from New England to islands such as Barbados and St Kitts and, as a consequence, a modest trade in provisions.17 In the 1640s Newport, perched on the mouth of the

13 Jane Hale Pulsipher, Subjects unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England (2005), pp.119–134; Ronald Dale Karr, ‘“Why Should You Be So Furious?”: The Violence of the Pequot War’, The Journal of American History, vol.85, no.3 (1998), pp.889–900. 14 John Underhill, Nevves from America; or, A new and experimentall discoverie of New England containing, a true relation of their war-like proceedings these two yeares last past (1638), pp.19–22. 15 John Frederick Martin, Profits in the Wilderness: Entrepreneurship and the Founding of New England Towns in the Seventeenth Century (1991), pp.46–58; Bruce C. Daniels, The Connecticut Town: Growth and Development, 1635–1790 (1979), p.181; John J. McCusker, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part 2 (1975), p.1168. 16 Koot, Empire at the Periphery, pp.17–43; Elizabeth Donnan (ed.), Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, vol.3 (1932), pp.410–425. 17 James E. McWilliams, Building the Bay Colony: Local Economy and Culture in Early Massachusetts (2007), pp.39, 43–45; Joseph A. Conforti, Saints and Strangers: New England in British North America (2006), pp.79–82; T.H. Breen, Transgressing the Bounds: Subversive Enterprises amongst the Puritan Elite in Massachusetts, 1630– 1692 (2001), pp.104–114; Richard Archer, Fissures in the Rock: New England in the Seventeenth Century (2001), pp.122–123; Bernard Bailyn, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (1955), pp.83–86; statistic drawn from: James Truslow Adams, The Founding of New England (1921), p.223; J. Franklin Jameson (ed.), Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence 1628–1651 (1910), p.247; Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, vol.3 (1854), pp.255, 309, 344, 390; Massachusetts 123

Narragansett Bay, also stood poised to enter into this trade. The Bay’s first European settlers were New England dissenters, relocating southwards on account of the Antinomian Controversy which erupted during 1636 and which saw half of Boston’s merchants relocate there with the spiritual leader Anne Hutchinson.18 This initial migration was then supplemented by the arrival of the young, landless populations of Massachusetts and Plymouth moving south in search of opportunities.19 In 1638, two vessels were dispatched out of the Narragansett Bay intent on trading into both Virginia and Barbados, yet no long-term commercial links developed.20 The first European settlers at New Haven equally faced problems trying to enter this long-distance trade.21 Instead, by 1660 the region of Southern New England transitioned to an agricultural hinterland, supplying both Boston and New Amsterdam with provisions to then be exported southwards.22 The merchant Samuel Maverick summarised this transition when he wrote that while ‘Boston is full of good shopps well furnished with all kind of Merchandize and many Artificers, and Trad's men of all sorts’, in New Haven ‘ye Harbour proveing not Comodious, the land very barren, the Merchants either dead or come away, the rest gotten to their Farmes’.23 The colonisation of Shelter Island provides a case study in this transformation, but also the aspirations of northeastern merchants as the century progressed. The small island, situated between

Historical Society (ed.), The Winthrop Papers, vol.5 (1947), pp.115, 171–172, 210, 219–220; Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the Slave Trade, pp.4–15. 18 Valeri, Heavenly Merchandize, pp.43–44; Conforti, Saints and Stangers, pp.90–97; Sydney V. James, The Colonial Metamorphoses in Rhode Island: A Study of Institutions in Change (2000), pp.104–109; Breen, Transgressing the Bounds, pp.50–55; Bruce C. Daniels, Dissent and Conformity on Narragansett Bay: The Colonial Rhode Island Town (1982), pp.3–9; Richard L. Greaves, ‘A Colonial Fifth Monarchist?: John Clarke of Rhode Island’, Rhode Island History, vol.40, no.2 (1981) pp.41–47. 19 Daniel K. Richter, Trade, Land, Power The Struggle for Eastern North America (2013), pp.54–60; Francis J. Bremer, Building a New Jerusalem: John Davenport, a Puritan in Three Worlds (2012), p.159; Siminoff, Crossing the Sound, pp.72–80; Menta, The Quinnipiac, pp.102–103; Strong, The Montaukett, pp.19–22; William G. McLoughlin, Rhode Island: A Bicentennial History (1978), pp.4–5; Jackson Turner Main, Society and Economy in Colonial Connecticut (1986), pp.3–12, 15–18, 62–66; Bailyn, New England Merchants, pp.39–41, 61–71, 77–78; Daniels, Connecticut Town, p.11. 20 Margaret Ellen Newell, From Dependency to Independence: Economic Revolution in Colonial New England (1998), p.76; Daniels, Connecticut Town, p.11; ‘John Pynchon to John Crow, 8 May 1663’ in Carl Bridenbaugh (ed.), The Pynchon Papers, vol.1 (1982), pp.41–44. For an example of this dynamic see Howard W. Preston, The Letterbook of Peleg Sanford of Newport, Merchant (Later Governour of Rhode Island), 1666–1668 (1928). 21 ‘A Court Held at Newhaven, 2 August 1643’ in Charles J. Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New- Haven, from 1638 to 1649 (1857), pp.106–108. 22 Kim Todt, ‘Trading between New Netherland and New England, 1624–1664’, Early American Studies, vol.9, no.2, Special Issue: The Worlds of Lion Gardiner, ca. 1599—1663: Crossings and Boundaries (2011), pp.363–374; Carl Brindenbaugh, Fat Mutton and Liberty of Conscience: Society in Rhode Island, 1636–1690 (1974), pp.23–24; Samuel Greene Arnold, The History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, vol.1 (1859), pp.153– 158. 23 Samuel Maverick, ‘A Briefe Description of New England‘ in John Ward Dean (ed.), Maverick’s Description of New England (1885), pp.15, 23; Archer, Fissures in the Rock, pp.144–148. 124

Long Island’s two eastern forks, gained the attention of Nathaniel Sylvester in 1651, an Anglo- Dutch merchant and early convert to Quakerism.24 That year and with three other traders, he bought the right to settle there from the Montaukett Sachem Wyandanch.25 Sylvester made his home on the island but his partners respectively were based between Barbados and London, with the other residing at Southold on Long Island.26 These connections provided them with shipping out of England, a factor in the Caribbean and, they intended, a supply of provisions from New England. In 1652, Sylvester migrated permanently to Shelter Island, purchasing livestock, indentured servants and further land, alongside attempts to cement good relations with the Montaukett.27 Their partnership did not end with provisioning the Caribbean, however, with initial forays into shipping slaves from West Africa both to Barbados and to Shelter Island itself to work on his plantation.28 He sourced provisions from a combination of the tenants on land he purchased, his plantation itself and trade with the Montaukett. However, this venture was not to last. Like other merchants in Southern New England, Sylvester gradually shifted from attempting a direct, long-distance trade, to supplying Boston and New Amsterdam. Undoubtedly, the rapid drop in sugar prices during the 1660s made it difficult for him to compete with more established merchants, but also in 1673, though a negotiation with the government in New Netherland, he was forced to buy out his partners’ shares in Shelter Island, severing his connections to Barbados.29 By the time of Sylvester’s death in 1680, his experimental provisioning plantation had instead become absorbed into New York’s emergent manorial system and became a satellite of New York City itself. Sylvester’s attempt to

24 Stephen A. Mrozowski, ‘Creole Materialities: Archaeological Explorations of Hybridized Realities on a North American Plantation’, Journal of Historical Sociology, vol.23, no.1 (2010), pp.20–21; Ralph G. Duvall, The History of Shelter Island, from its Settlement in 1652 to the Present Time (1932), pp.25–30; John Taylor, An Account of Some of the Labours, Exercises, Travels and Perils, by Sea and Land, of John Taylor (1710), pp.5, 8. 25 Henry Parsons (ed.), Records of the Town of East Hampton, Long Island (1887), pp.97–99. 26 Katherine Lee Priddy, ‘From Youghco to Black John: Ethnohistory of Sylvester Manor, ca.1600–1735’, Northeast Historical Archaeology, vol.36 (2007), pp.20–21. 27 ‘Proceedings in a Suit about the Title of Horses Neck, L.I., 28 December 1665’ in E.B. O’Callaghan, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, vol.14 (1883), pp.570–573; ‘Lycence given to Nathaniel Silvester to Purchase some Necks of Land on Long Island, 8 July 1672’, Ibid., p.671; Parsons, Records of East Hampton, p.427; ‘Deed to Horses Neck, 1667’ in Dorothy C. Barck (ed.), Papers of the Lloyd family of the manor of Queens Village, Lloyd’s Neck, Long Island, New York, 1654–1826, vol.1 (1927), pp.40–41; ‘Nathaniel Sylvester to John Winthrop Jr., 15 March 1654’, ‘Sylvester to Winthrop Jr., 10 August 1654’, ‘Sylvester to Winthrop Jr., 6 August 1655’, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol.4 (1887–9), pp.271–274. 28 Katherine Howlett Hayes, Slavery Before Race: Europeans, Africans, and Indians at Long Island's Sylvester Manor Plantation, 1651–1884 (2013), p.47; Henry P. Hedges, W.M.S. Pelletreau and Edward H. Foster (eds.), Records of the Town of Southampton, Long Island, vol.2 (1877), pp.14, 20. 29 ‘Agreement Drafted at New Netherland Council of War Meeting, 29 August 1673’ in O’Callaghan, Documents, vol.2, p.590. 125 move from provisioning into conducting the emerging slave trade can be considered typical of the shift which these port towns underwent after the 1650s. For Boston and New York City, an increasing number of migrants arrived during the 1660s, many of whom were merchants. For the former, new non-Puritan groups included hundreds of Presbyterians from Scotland and Ireland, as well as a growing number of Huguenot refugees and English Anglicans.30 Connections to the Caribbean and Chesapeake were essential in drawing these people. Scottish merchants John Borland and Thomas Dewer migrated sometime before 1680 and came with established connections to Barbados, as did the Huguenot André Faneuil.31 Anglican merchants were similar, with traders including John Brown and George Corwin arriving with trade networks to the sugar colony, but also to Virginia and Maryland.32 Aided by this influx, Boston grew in prominence, coming to dominate the inter-plantation provisioning trade by 1677.33 At the same time, New York City expanded in its size and demographic diversity.34 Established Dutch families such as the Van Cortlandts remained important, while the Rotterdam based trader Andrew Russell ensured a number of Scottish traders settled in the colony.35 In particular, Huguenot merchants who arrived there enjoyed considerable success, with many, but not all of them following the example of the trader and later politician Nicholas Bayard in converting to Anglicanism.36 Again, the Caribbean and Chesapeake accounted for much of this migration, while

30 Marsha L. Hamilton, Social and Economic Networks in Early Massachusetts: Atlantic Connections (2009), pp.1– 13; J.F. Bocher, ‘Huguenot Merchants and the Protestant International in the Seventeenth Century’, WMQ, vol.52, no.1 (1995), pp.77–102; Butler, Huguenots in America, pp.72–78; David A. Wilson, Ulster Presbyterians in the Atlantic World: Religion, Politics and Identity (2006). 31 Susanne Lachenicht, ‘The Huguenots’ Maritime Networks sixteenth-eighteenth centuries’ in Idem and Dagmar Freist (eds.), Connecting Worlds and People: Early Modern Diasporas (2017), pp.38–39; Marsha L. Hamilton, ‘Commerce around the Edges: Atlantic Trade Networks among Boston’s Scottish Merchants’, International Journal of Maritime History, vol.23, no.2 (2011), pp.310–314. 32 Hamilton, Social and Economic Networks, pp.81–83; Olson, Making the Empire Work, p.46; ‘Minutes of the Council for Foreign Plantations, 30 April 1661’ in CSP Col, vol.5, p.27; ‘Narrative and Deposition of Thomas Breedon’ in O’Callaghan, Documents, vol.3, p.39. 33 Stephen Innes, Creating the Commonwealth: The Economic Culture of Puritan New England (1995), pp.277–81, 295–301; Bailyn, New England Merchants, pp.112–119, 128–129. 34 Joyce Goodfriend, Before the Melting Pot: Society and Culture in Colonial New York City, 1664–1730 (1992), pp.62, 67; Noah L. Gelfand, ‘A Transatlantic Approach to Understanding the Formation of a Jewish Community in New Netherland and New York’, New York History, vol.89, no.4 (2008), pp.375–395. 35 Koot, Empire at the Periphery, pp.117–150; Esther Mijers, ‘Between Empires and Cultures; Scots in New Netherland and New York’, Journal of Scottish Historical Studies, vol.33, no.2 (2013), pp.184–189; Lawrence H. Leder, Robert Livingston and the Politics of Colonial New York, 1654–1728 (1961), pp.10–15. 36 Paula Wheeler Carlo, ‘Huguenot Congregations in Colonial New York and Massachusetts: Reassessing the Paradigm of Anglican Conformity’ in Mentzer and Van Ruymbeke, Companion to the Huguenots, pp.371–393; Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, ‘From Ethnicity to Assimilation: Huguenots and the American Immigration History Paradigm’ in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant 126 the low startup costs of the coastal trade itself allowed them to expand their initial enterprises with minimal risk.37 Connections with plantation colonies, therefore, were further deepened through this exchange of people. By the later 1660s, Newport’s status as a haven of radical religious dissent also fostered a nascent plantation trade.38 Its emergence owed to the success of Quaker missionaries in Newport, who were able to convince former Hutchinsonians to join the sect.39 Parallel conversions in Barbados, but also to a lesser extent in Jamaica provided small-time Quaker merchants in Newport, such as Peleg Sanford and Walter Newbury, with factors, allowing networks to form which transported both goods and missionaries between the two regions.40 This conversion ultimately allowed Newport to benefit from the greater interconnectedness which characterised Atlantic Quakerism following George Fox’s missionary tour during the early 1670s.41 The missionary William Edmundson, for instance, records how in 1675, he took passage from Cork to Barbados with a Quaker captain and after some months, from there to Newport in a vessel captained by one of his coreligionists.42 Quaker conversion and migration remained the most significant to Newport in this period, but were

Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (2001), pp.332–341; Ritchie, The Duke’s Province, pp.116–117. 37 Matson, Merchants and Empire, p.77; William H. Whitmore and William S. Appleton (eds.), Boston Town Records, 1660–1701 (1881), pp.55, 77, 96, 109, 121, 123, 162; ‘The Diaries of John Hull, Mint-Master and Treasurer of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay’, Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society, vol.3 (1857), p.159; Nathaniel Bradstreet Shurtleff (ed.), Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, vol.1 (1853), pp.129, 309–310, 355; Ibid., vol.5, pp.523, The Essex Institute, Town Records of Salem, vol.1 (1868), p.140; Massachusetts Historical Society (ed.), Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1674– 1729, vol.1 (1878), pp.71, 82, 94, 97, 241; Peter R. and Florence A. Christoph (eds.), The Andros Papers 1674–1676, trans. Charles Gehring, vol.1 (1989), pp.185, 189, 225–226, 260, 311, 338–339, 351–352; Ibid., vol.2 (1990), pp.23, 57, 108–113. 38 Daniels, The Connecticut Town, pp.183–184; Brindenbaugh (ed.), Pynchon Papers, vol.1, pp.73–183; Martin, Profits in the Wilderness, pp.58–78. 39 Thomas D. Hamm, The Quakers in America (2003), pp.23–24; Raymond D. Irwin, ‘Cast out from the “City upon a Hill”: Antinomian Exiles in Rhode Island, 1638–1650’ in Rhode Island History, vol.52, no.1 (1994), pp.14–15; Sheila L. Skemp, ‘Freedom of Religion in Rhode Island: Aquidneck’s Reluctant Revolutionaries, 1638–1660’, Ibid., vol.44, no.1 (1975), pp.15–17; Hugh Barbour and J. William Frost, The Quakers (1988), pp.53–54; Arthur J. Worrall, Quakers in the Colonial Northeast (1980), pp.18, 35–38. 40 Kristen Block, ‘Cultivating Inner and Outer Plantations: Property, Industry, and Slavery in Early Quaker Migration to the New World’, Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol.8, no.3 (2010), pp.515–548; Larry Dale Gragg, The Quaker Community on Barbados: Challenging the Culture of the Planter Class (2009). pp.62–63; Bruce M. Bigelow, ‘The Walter Newbury Shipping Book’, Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, vol.24, no.2 (1921), pp.76–91. 41 Jordan Landes, London Quakers in the Trans-Atlantic World: The Creation of an Early Modern Community (2015), passim. 42 Harris Sacks, The Widening Gate, pp.326–329; The Widening Gate William Edmonson, A journal of the life, travels, sufferings, and labour of love in the work of the ministry, of that worthy elder, and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, William Edmundson (1715), pp.72–82; ‘A Register of all the Public Friends who have visited New England since 1656’, New England Yearly Meeting Records: Registers of Visitors, vol.1, RIHS. 127 accompanied by a small, but significant number of Huguenots and Jews.43 By 1690, Newport came to rival New York City and Boston, supported by often endogenous Quaker economic and religious networks. Part of the appeal of trade with the Caribbean stemmed from the persistent and chronic shortage of coinage in North America. In particular, the need to import large amounts of manufactured goods from Europe made it difficult to retain specie, making wampum beads as well as barter the means by which most everyday transactions were conducted.44 Before the 1650s, some Spanish coins made their way to the northeast, either through trade into Bilbao and Cadiz but also from the Caribbean, where it was either stolen or the product of trade with the Spanish Main.45 From 1655 in particular this southwards trade began to assume a greater importance. The Navigation Act of 1655 prevented Boston and New York City from trading with Spain legally and with the recent capture of Jamaica, the profits of buccaneering began to serve as a replacement.46 Not only could plantation goods be re-exported, but now increasing amounts of stolen gold and silver could be layered into the shipments from plantation colonies.47 For instance, in 1666, one merchant reported he was awaiting a shipment of ‘150 negroes, and 7000 peeces of eight’ into New York from Jamaica.48 Boston’s merchants and government also coveted this supply of bullion. A mint was established there in 1661 to manufacture their own specie from unminted precious metals and Spanish coins.49 Newport also began to taste the benefits of this trade. By the final decade of the seventeenth century, the town was estimated to be importing at least £20,000 worth of specie from the Caribbean annually.50

43 James, Colonial Metamorphoses, pp.109–111. 44 Flynn, ‘Silver in a Global Context, pp.226–237; Alvin Rabushka, Taxation in Colonial America (2014), pp.150– 157; James Kendell Hosmer (ed.), Winthrop’s Journal, “History of New England”, 1630–1649, vol.2 (1908), pp.6, 19, 82, 228. 45 Mark Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.96–99; Kenneth Scott, Counterfeiting in Colonial America (1953), pp.13–17; ‘Letter of Governor Searle of Barbados, 4 November 1653’ in J. Franklin Jameson (ed.), Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period, Illustrative Documents (1923), pp.21–23; Hosmer, Winthrop's Journal, vol.1, p.310; Ibid., vol.2, p.273. 46 Zahedieh, ‘The Merchants of Port Royal’, pp.570–93; Idem, ‘Trade, Plunder, and Economic Development’, pp.205–22. 47 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.144–145,180–184; ‘An Account Taken from Mr. Harris of New England, 29 April 1675’ CSP Col, vol.9, no.543. 48 ‘Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop Jr., 29 August 1666’, Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol.7, 4th Series (1865), p.313. Koot, Empire at the Periphery, p.207. 49 ‘Diaries of John Hull’, pp.286–287, 296. 50 Newell, From Dependency to Independence, p.76. 128

With the fur trade in perpetual decline by the later seventeenth century, these three towns and their hinterlands had been drawn, like the majority of the Atlantic’s shipping, into the orbit of the ‘hub of empire’ in the Caribbean.51 This trade caused wealth to largely concentrate amongst the select few in these port towns, leaving the majority beyond them relatively poor, a fact which did little to encourage migration. Nevertheless, as Sylvester had, traders in these towns were not satisfied simply being partners of wealthier merchants in Cork or London. They sought to use their capital to gain a role in growing trade in slaves out of West Africa. Yet, as the English slave trade grew in scale from the 1660s barriers began to grow up preventing merchants from the northeast entering it. In 1672, the Royal African Company (RAC) was granted a monopoly on the transatlantic slave trade, which, unlike their predecessors, they actually worked to enforce.52 Nevertheless, merchants in North America began to seek an alternative and found one beyond the Cape of Good Hope. As early as 1663, English merchants had purchased slaves from Madagascar, trading them to Barbados. By 1677, the island became a regular destination for traders from Boston and New York City, activities condemned by the RAC and the EIC, but there was little either company could do, these activities being in a grey area between their charters.53 Effectively, Madagascar provided an equivalent trade to the Guinea Coast or Angola, allowing European traders to buy the gold, ivory and slaves which had been traded out of the Swahili Coast for centuries.54 They used Malagasy elites on the eastern coast of Madagascar as a proxy to access networks into ports such as Mombasa and Mozambique.55 While initially few in number and challenging to track

51 Beckles, ‘Hub of Empire’, pp.237–239. 52 Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery, pp.254–255. 53 McDonald, Pirates, Merchants, Settlers, and Slaves, p.118; Richard B. Allen, ‘Satisfying the “Want for Labouring People”: European Slave Trading in the Indian Ocean, 1500–1850’, JWH, vol.21, no.1 (2010), pp.53–61; R.J. Barandse, The Arabian Seas: The Indian Ocean World of the Seventeenth Century (2002), pp.269–275; CSP Col, vol.10, no.1017; Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the Slave Trade, vol.3, pp.14–15, 405–407; James C. Armstrong, ‘Madagascar and the Slave Trade in the Seventeenth Century’, Omaly Sy Anio, vol.17 (1983–4), pp.217–222; Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the Slave Trade, vol.1, pp.91–95, 202, 274; Idem, vol.3, pp.436–438; CSP Col, vol.9, no.812; CSP Col, vol.11, no.136; Robin Law (ed.), The English in West Africa: The Local Correspondence of the Royal African Company of England, 1681–1699, vol.1 (1997), no.640. 54 Thomas Verner, ‘East African Travelers and Traders in the Indian Ocean: Swahili Ships, Swahili Mobilities, ca.1500–1800’ in Michael Pearson (ed.), Trade, Circulation and Flow in the Indian Ocean World (2015), pp.175– 176; Michael Pearson, ‘Islamic Trade, Shipping, Port-States and Merchant Communities in the Indian Ocean, Seventh to Sixteenth Centuries’ in David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (eds.), The New Cambridge History of Islam, vol.3 (2010), pp.321, 334–338. Alison Games, The Web of Empire: Cosmopolitans in an Age of Expansion 1560– 1660 (2008), pp.181–218; Michael Pearson, The Indian Ocean (2003), pp.151–152. 55 Jane Hooper, ‘Pirates and Kings: Power on the Shores of Early Modern Madagascar and the Indian Ocean’, JWH, vol.22, no.2 (2011), pp.220–225; Arne Bialuschewski, ‘Pirates, Slavers, and the Indigenous Population in Madagascar, c.1690–1715’, The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol.38, no.3 (2005), pp.401– 425. 129 through the historical record, Madagascar allowed American traders to circumvent legal restrictions, expanding their participation in the plantation trade and providing a modest source of specie in the process. The potential of trade with Madagascar only grew across the 1680s. As early as 1685, Caribbean buccaneers began to follow merchant ships beyond the Cape of Good Hope to the island.56 From there, they began launching raids upon Indian Ocean shipping, stealing gold and silver, but also fabrics and spices, the purview of the EIC but carried to an island over which they held no authority.57 This trade grew enormously with the eruption of war between the English and French colonies in 1689. Privateering commissions issued in New York City, but also in Newport and Boston served as cover for crews to sail eastwards without fear of prosecution by the RAC or the EIC.58 These vessels then made their way to Madagascar, before continuing to the Arabian and Red Seas. There they could pillage treasure shipments before returning to Madagascar where the goods were supplemented with slaves and ivory before being funneled westwards to the Caribbean or directly to port towns in the northeast.59 As in the case of the Caribbean previously, stolen goods were layered into a legal trade, providing merchants not just with an unprecedented source of coinage, but a supply of cheap east India goods normally reserved for the EIC. In effect, they part- redirected the global trade imbalance which drained bullion from the Americas. The immense profits to be made in trade with Madagascar are illustrated by the New York based merchant Stephen DeLancey. Born in Caen to a Protestant family during 1663, DeLancey left France in 1681 before travelling to Amsterdam and briefly to London. He had arrived in New York

56 Sebastian R. Prange, ‘A Trade of No Dishonor: Piracy, Commerce, and Community in the Western Indian Ocean, Twelfth to Sixteenth Century’, AHR, vol.116, no.5 (2011), pp.1269–1293; Hooper, ‘Pirates and Kings’, p.218; Lane, Pillaging the Empire, pp.174–175; Philip J. Stern, The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India (2011), pp.134–135; Pearson, Indian Ocean, pp.105–106; Ritchie, Captain Kidd, p.83. 57 Charter granted by Queen Elizabeth to the East India Company (1600), clause 15; Lincoln, British Pirates and Society, pp.101–102; Games, Web of Empire, pp.185–193. 58 ‘Fletcher to BOT, 22 May 1697’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.60–63, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, Ibid., fos.116–117; ‘The Examination of John Eldridge, 28 May 1700’ BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fo.127–128, TNA; ‘Deposition of Joseph Wheeler, 19 December 1699’, Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, HCA 1/98, fo.263, TNA; ‘The Examination of John Green, 21 September 1699’, Massachusetts State Archives Collection: Colonial Period, 1622–1788, vol.2, pp.86–86a, Massachusetts State Archive (MSA). 59 ‘John Taylor to EIC Directors, 27 October 1691’, EIC Correspondence, IOR/E/3/49, fo.39, BL; ‘Elisha Yale to EIC Directors, 20 November 1691’, Ibid., fos.44, 48; ‘Samuel Whetcome to EIC Directors, 28 January 1692’, Ibid., pp.63–64; ‘The examination of Humphrey Perkins of New York, 6 September 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fo.305–306, TNA; ‘The Examination of Samuel Wood, Master of the sloop Antonio, 21 July 1699’, F.L. Gay Transcripts; Kidd Papers, vol.1, fos.117–120, MHS. 130 by 1686, allegedly with £300 he had amassed by selling family heirlooms.60 Endenizened in June of that same year, granting him the right to trade, he partnered with the wealthy Philipse family, initially trading provisions for tobacco in Virginia as well as sugar and slaves at Barbados.61 Although it is unclear exactly when he entered the slave trade with Madagascar, his factor Giles Shelly was installed there as early as 1689, the same year his partner Frederick Philipse began dispatching ships to the island.62 DeLancey began importing not just slaves, but also calico fabrics, manufactured goods and specie.63 By 1695, he had made enough in this line of work to afford a house valued at £350 in New York City, putting him in the top 1% of the city for property wealth, along with large tracts of land in Orange, Ulster and Westchester Counties, and further properties in New York City itself.64 These profits brought more than mere material benefits. Signaling his transition into the city’s merchant elite of this period, at some point DeLancey converted to Anglicanism, eventually becoming a vestryman at Trinity Church.65 These connections were soon strengthened by marriage, when he wedded Anna Van Cortlandt in 1700, daughter of an established patroon.66 This position he gradually attained for himself undoubtedly influenced his politics, leading him to oppose Jacob Leisler’s uprising in 1689 and to call for the rebel leader’s arrest.67 Through his efforts, he founded one of New York’s most enduring and successful dynasties that secured substantial preferment in the following decades.68 DeLancey well captures merchant

60 Mary Lou Lustig, Privilege and Prerogative: New York's Provincial Elite, 1710–1776 (1995), p.37; William Durrant Cooper (ed.), Lists of Foreign Protestants and Aliens Resident in England, 1618–1688 (1862), p.41; ‘The Burghers of New Amsterdam and Freemen of New York 1675–1886’ in Collections of the New York Historical Society, vol.18 (1885), p.53. 61 Matson, Merchants and Empire, p.76; Patricia Bonomi, A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (1971), pp.63–64; Peter R. and Florence A. Christoph (eds.), Book of General Entries of the Colony of New York 1674–1688 (1982), p.381; The earliest recorded trading voyage by DeLancey is in 1688, though he was probably active earlier, see E.B. O’Callaghan (ed.), Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State (1866), vol.2, p.172. 62 ‘Hillegout Shelley to Giles Shelley, 27 June 1689’, Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, HCA 1/98, fo.51, TNA; ‘Deposition of Samuel Burgess and Crew, 20 December 1699’, in Ibid., fos.44–47. 63 ‘Stephen Delancey to Shelley, 28 June 1698’, Ibid., fo.167, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 July 1699’, Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fos.252–254, TNA. 64 He was one of only 12 homeowners out of a total 940 to have property valued about £300: ‘Tax Lists for the City of New York, 1695–1699’ in Collections of the New York Historical Society, vol.43 (1910), pp.1–34; O’Callaghan, Calendar of Manuscripts, pp.249, 271; McDonald, Pirates, Merchants, Settlers and Slaves, pp.51–52; Ruth Lapham Butler, A Checklist of Manuscripts in the Edward E. Ayer Collection (1937), p.49; J. Thomas Scharff, The History of Westchester County, New York (1886), p.133. 65 ‘Meeting Minutes, 1 May 1711’, The Vestry Book of Trinity Church, vol.1, p.84, also see 125, 155, 147, 186, Trinity Church Archive (TCA), New York City. 66 Samuel S. Purple, Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam and New York (1890), p.92. 67 Fernow, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of New York, vol.3 (1853), pp.748–749. 68 Lustig, Privilege and Prerogative, pp.34–80. 131 beneficiaries of the Madagascar trade. Initially traders of middling means who migrated to the northeast during the 1670s and 1680s, they found themselves able to use an initial investment in the Caribbean and Chesapeake to move into the costlier, long-distance trade into the Indian Ocean. While of dubious legality, it secured for him a supply of ready money which was denied to many others in the region. From these initial profits, marriage, conformity to the Anglican Church and political preferment cemented DeLancey’s ascendancy into the growing merchant elite, his gains ploughed into land and investments, in part to conceal their origins. There was, however, a separate stratum of society in the northeast who benefitted from the Madagascar trade, as the landless and those without the capital to fund a voyage themselves found work on ships. One pioneer in this line of work was Josiah Rayner from Southampton, Long Island. Raised a Congregationalist, Josiah was the fourth son of the farmer Joseph Rayner, who had migrated to the town stepwise via both Boston and Watertown, Connecticut in the later 1640s.69 Across his lifetime, Joseph became a landowner of some status, accumulating assets worth £938 both in, and around Southampton, predominantly through land purchased from the Montaukett, and trading his produce into New York City and Boston.70 By 1688, both Joseph and his wife Mary had died, leaving their landholdings to their three eldest sons.71 Josiah, like many younger sons across New England, found himself without prospects and made his way to the Caribbean sometime after the outbreak of war. By 1691, he was in Jamaica, where he became captain of the Bachelor’s Delight, a vessel owned by merchants in Charlestown, South Carolina but formerly by the buccaneers Edward Davis and Lionel Wafer.72 Sometime during the summer they sailed for Madagascar and from there into the Indian Ocean. In October, Rayner and his crew returned with a haul of stolen coins and east India goods to the provisioning plantation established by the New York’s merchants on the Island of St Maries, situated in Saint Augustine Bay.73 There, they traded rum, weapons and wampum beads for provisions and Rayner chose to leave the crew with his share of the loot.74 In the following years he moved between the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean,

69 Charles William Manwaring (ed.), A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records (1904), vol.1, pp.26, 84. 70 Hedges et al., Records of the town of Southampton, vol.1, pp.17, 134–136, 157, Ibid., vol.2 (1887), p.37; Thomas W. Cooper (ed.), The Records of the Court of Sessions of Suffolk County in the Province of New York, 1670–1688 (1993), pp.123–4. 71 Cooper, Suffolk Court of Sessions Records, p.308. 72 Mark P. Donnelly and Daniel Diehl, Pirates of Virginia: Plunder and High Adventure on the Old Dominion Coastline (2012), pp.33–42. 73 ‘Account of Adam Baldridge, 5 May 1699’, Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, HCA 1/98, fo.212, TNA. 74 ‘Bellomont to John Winthrop, 28 June 1698’, Winthrop Family Papers, 1537–1990: John Winthrop Papers (microfilm), P-350, Reel 14, MHS. 132 supplying and serving on the vessels which arrived at Madagascar with stolen goods.75 When he finally arrived back on Long Island in April 1696, he brought with him spoils of at least £1000 – more than has father had been able accumulate in assets during his lifetime.76 This money he used to buy a house and land in Lyme, Connecticut, followed by landholdings in Westchester County and eventually, across the eastern end of Long Island too.77 In 1698, he was pursued by Bellomont on suspicion of being a pirate and fencing stolen goods, informed upon by an ally of DeLancey.78 Yet he avoided legal action and appears to have continued in his landholdings until his death in 1743. Rayner exemplifies the particular role which rural areas came to play in the Madagascar trade. With limited opportunities compared to Boston or New York City the northeast's young and landless became a ready source of labour. While many never returned from these voyages or gained little, the Madagascar trade offered to some a level of social mobility unachievable otherwise. Rayner also emphasises the broader point that, by the 1690s, not just plutocratic merchants but also those from rural areas had also become involved in trade with Madagascar and used the profits from it to join the middling section of colonial society. Madagascar pirates, therefore, were the result of economic relationships many years in the making. They were the product of local commercial competition, the northeast’s dependency on trade with the Caribbean as a region and, above all, were a response to an unfavourable balance of global flows of gold and silver. Initial links to growing plantation economies stimulated the parallel expansion of agriculture in the northeast rather than any kind of stable commodity-production. Trade then promoted further migration, which served to deepen the region’s role in provisioning, providing a small influx of Spanish bullion. Ambitious merchants were then able to overcome commercial restrictions imposed during the 1670s to move into the transatlantic slave trade with Madagascar, contravening the monopoly of the RAC. The integrating of stolen goods from the Indian Ocean into this trade from the mid-1680s drew an increasing number of traders to participate and, after the outbreak of war in 1689, others of lesser means as a labour force. By the time of Bellomont’s arrival the Madagascar trade had played its part in enriching merchants who now also

75 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fo.126, TNA. 76 ‘Deposition of John Wick, 2 June 1698’, Photostat Collection, no.835, Jacob Leisler Institute (JLI), Hudson, New York. 77 ‘Bellomont to John Winthrop, 28 June 1698’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 14, MHS; Charles J. Hoadly (ed.), The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol.5 (1870), pp.483–484. 78 Deposition of James Emmott, undated’ Bayard Family Collection, 1673–1899, MS 2958.612, fo.35, NYHS; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fo.126, TNA; Samuel Willis, Caleb Stanley and John Haynes to Winthrop, 19 July 1698’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 14, MHS. 133 wielded political power in these expanding port towns, yet some from humbler backgrounds had also come to harness the benefits of this trade. Those sailors who became known as pirates by the middle part of this decade were an integral part of the northeast’s economy.

*** A number of different factors combined in Bellomont’s appointment as governor of New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but suppressing trade with Madagascar was a responsibility he received as an afterthought. The official reason he was considered for these positions was that his military background in Ireland made him well qualified to secure the northeast from advancing French influence. Yet he was no impartial crown agent. An Anglo-Irish Protestant with immaculate Williamite credentials, his appointment resulted from John Locke’s influence during the earliest years of the Board of Trade’s existence. During this period, Locke sought to put his particular vision of empire into practice, and to do so through the candidates he was able to have appointed to positions in North America. His preference for Bellomont owed to considerable ideological synergy between the two and the naval stores project the earl later proposed accorded closely with the philosopher’s plans. The demand which surfaced during 1696 that governors investigate the presence of pirates in the northeast had to then be integrated into these existing schemes. Bellomont’s background provides some initial clues as to why he was appointed, as well as the particular ideology which motivated his actions in America. He was born Richard Coote in County Roscommon in 1636 into a family which had first enjoyed preferment as clients in the early 1620s of the royal favourite George Villiers. The Cootes benefited through both lands and titles during the midcentury upheavals, as they were invariably soldiers, virulently anti-Catholic and consistently bent to align themselves with those who most ardently defended the interests of Irish Protestants.79 These characteristics were captured by the Presbyterian minister Francis Makemie when he described Bellomont’s father as ‘a zealous supporter of parliament and terror to the Irish’.80 During the Cromwellian Confiscations, it was the Cootes who were part-responsible for

79 Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English, passim but esp., pp.258–260, 305–308, 322, 375–6; Kevin Forkan, ‘Ulster Scots and the Engagement’, Irish Historical Studies, vol.35, no.140 (2007), pp.455–476; Pádraig Lenihan, ‘Coote, Sir Charles, first baronet (d. 1642)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn., http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6239, accessed 10 Feb 2018]; Retrieved 10 Feb. 2018; Patrick Little, ‘Coote, Charles, first earl of Mountrath (c. 1610–1661)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6240, accessed 10 Feb 2018]. 80 ‘Francis Makemie, 17 January 1698’, Photostat Collection, nos.61, MHS; Patrick Little, ‘The First Unionists? Irish Protestant Attitudes to Union with England, 1653–9’, Irish Historical Studies, vol.32, no.125 (2000), p.54. 134 the resettlement of thousands of uprooted Irish Catholics in County Roscommon and for maintaining Protestant military garrisons amongst them.81 The title of Earl of Bellomont itself is a demonstration of Coote’s unerring commitment to this same cause. He was appointed to the peerage by William III in recognition of his service during and after the Revolution, having supported the Prince of Orange’s claims as early as 1687.82 During the Jacobite War, Bellomont served in the Williamite army, before being tasked with suppressing rapparee networks in central Ireland after the Treaty of Limerick – a record which led to further lands being awarded to him during the Williamite Confiscations.83 Around this time, he also began to develop a profile on the other side of the Irish Sea. His marriage to the English heiress Catherine Nanfan allowed him to secure a seat in English Parliament as well as an initial alliance with the Whig Junto through the Earl of Shrewsbury. Equally, he came to hold the position of Lord Justice of Ireland and a position as treasurer for Mary II; all positions he nevertheless sacrificed in 1694 as a result of his unrelenting criticism of corruption in the Irish Privy Council.84 Effectively an upwardly mobile Protestant landowner, Bellomont was in perpetual financial difficulty and it was the salary of a North American governorship that initially appealed to him. As early as 1692, he was made aware of the £1,000 salary which Benjamin Fletcher was awarded as governor of New York.85 It is safe to say, therefore, that Bellomont initially had no particular interests in the Americas, but initially saw a position there as a means of both political redemption and financial stability. His political convictions were those common to Anglo-Irish Protestants, many of which were common to English country Whigs.86 He emphasised the importance of government which adhered

81 John Cunningham, Conquest and Land in Ireland The Transplantation to Connacht, 1649–1680 (2011), pp.100– 118; O’Callaghan, To Hell or Barbados, pp.41–54. 82 David W. Hayton, Eveline Cruickshanks and Sean Handley (eds.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1690–1715, vol.3 (2002), pp.708–710. 83 ‘Richard Coote to Wyche, 20 July 1693’, Wyche Papers: Correspondence, Series 1, Box 1, fo.89, NAI; ‘Coote to Clark, 13 November 1690’, Clark Correspondence, MS 749, vol.3, TCD; ‘Coote to Clark, 1 August 1691’, Ibid., vol.10, ‘Coote to Clark, 27 September 1691’, Ibid., vol.12, ‘Lords Justices to Governors, 17 December 1692’, Miscellaneous Collection, MS 1178, no.69, TCD; Ohlmeyer, Making Ireland English, pp.52–53, 298; J.G. Simms, The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland, 1690–1703 (1956), pp.91–92, 137–138; ‘Lords Justices to Trenchard, 20 February 1694’, Lords Justices Letters, Carte MS 170, fo.79, BLO. 84 ‘Bellomont to Clark, 7 September 1690’, Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont Collection, 1690–1700, MS 2958.734, NYHS; ‘George Tollet to King, 24 June 1693’, King-Lyon Papers, MS 1995/284, TCD; ‘Petition of the Earl of Bellomont, 22 June 1693’, Petitions Collection, MS 13657, no.169, NLI; ‘Lords Justices to Trenchard, 20 February 1694’, Lords Justices Letters, Carte MS 170, fo.79, BLO. 85 ‘Robert Southwell to King, 6 February 1692’, King-Lyon Papers, MS 1995/209, TCD. 86 David W. Hayton, ‘Anglo-Irish Attitudes: Shifting Perceptions of National Identity’ in Idem, The Anglo-Irish Experience, 1680–1730: Religion, Identity and Patriotism (2012), p.29; Jim Smyth, ‘“Like amphibious animals”: Irish protestants, ancient Britons, 1691–1707’, The Historical Journal, vol.36, no.4 (1993), pp.785–797. 135 to the common law and the importance of secure private property rights 87 The earl was an Anglican, but committed to international Protestantism and sympathetic to the plight of the Huguenot (arranging for his son to be educated by a French refugee), yet had a more limited tolerance for radical dissenters.88 From his time spent pacifying Catholic uprisings in Ireland, he acquired a strong antipapal streak and a resolute opposition to Jacobitism which he believed continued to exert a sinister influence across the anglophone world. 89 Bellomont always deemed himself English, rather than Irish, believing that devotion to the Williamite regime marked him out as more English than any Jacobite aristocrat of ancient lineage. His political convictions are most clearly set out most clearly in a speech he gave to the Boston assembly in June 1699, in which he proclaimed:

There is something God-like in what the king (William III) has done for us. The work of redemption and preservation comes next to that of creation … ever since the year 1602 England has had a succession of kings that have been aliens; in this respect I mean, that they have not fought our battles, nor been in our interests, but have been in an unnatural manner plotting and contriving to undermine and subvert our religion, laws and liberties, till God was pleased by his almighty power, and infinite mercy and goodness to give us a true English king in the person of his present majesty.90

Economically, Bellomont followed after Petty, advocating the efficient application of labour to land and manufacturing, to encourage overseas commerce. Before he eventually left for North America, he put these ideas into practice through a number of projects which employed poor or migrant workers.91 Indeed, his opponents in New York would later lampoon the earl’s

87 ‘The Earl of Bellomont’s Speech to ye Representatives of his Majesties Province of New York, 15 May 1699’, New York Assembly Journal, p.65, NYHS. 88 See ‘A Journal of His Excellency the Earle of Bellomont’s Journey from Boston to Rhode Island’, Massachusetts Archives: Colonial Period, vol.2, fos.100–109, MSA; ‘Francis Makemie Letter, 17 January 1698’, Photostat Collection, no.61, MHS; ‘Gabriel Bernon to Bellomont, 23 November 1698’, Bernon Papers, MS 294, Scrapbook, pp.10–11, RIHS; Also note, Bellomont’s son was educated by a Huguenot refugee, ‘Bellomont to John Locke, 29 May 1697’ in E.S. De Beer (ed.), The Correspondence of John Locke, vol.6 (1981), p.135. 89 ‘Bellomont to Vincent Bigot, 19 October 1699’, Bellomont Papers, NYHS; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 26 July 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fo.371, TNA. 90 His Excellency the Earl of Bellomont’s Speech to the Council and House of Representatives, Convened in Generall Assembly, at Boston, 2nd June 1699 (1699), p.3. 91 ‘Bellomont to Palmer, 12 December 1696’, State Papers: Ireland, 1696, SP 63/358, fo.183, TNA; before departing he bought a copy of: Simon Clement, A Discourse of the General Notions of Money, Trade, and Exchanges (1695); ‘Bellomont to Blathwayt, 27 October 1698’, William Blathwayt Papers, 1631–1742, vol.8, Film A 707, fo.6, LLH; outlined most extensively in ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fos.24–29, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1700’, New York Papers, CO 5.1044, fo.204, TNA. 136 preoccupation with such schemes.92 The cornerstones of Bellomont’s ideology, therefore, should be regarded as an emphasis on balanced government, adherence to a tolerant and international Protestantism, virulent antipopery, Englishness defined by loyalty to the Revolution and an emphasis on economic improvement centred upon the importance of labour. All of these broad principles he shared with Locke, who had already attempted to apply them in a North American setting in previous decades. The philosopher’s involvement had begun during his role in the drafting of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina in 1672, when he developed some interest in attempting to create an ideal society in the Americas. This aspiration was manifest in his frequent writing about a hypothetical utopian colony he named Atlantis, possibly an invocation of the similarly named New Atlantis, by Francis Bacon, published in 1627 and James Harrington’s Oceana of 1655.93 Locke’s brand of colonialism accorded especially strongly with Harrington but their overlap with Bellomont’s own ideas are most decisively shown in the philosopher’s involvement with colonial projects after 1688.94 Persistently, he fused support for international Protestant interest with settlement projects focused on the importance of labour. During the early 1690s Locke showed a revived interest in the Carolinas, where he lent his assistance in efforts to recruit Huguenot refugees for the colony.95 Similarly, his hand can be detected in early efforts by the Board of Trade to support the establishment of workhouses in Ireland in parallel with the planting of Huguenot settlements there, being a scheme intended to reform the poor and repopulate the island.96 The two, therefore, had common ideological preoccupations, but also a commitment to putting them into practice through colonial schemes and projects. The first instance of Locke using the Board as a foil for his ideas came in 1696 with the governorship of Virginia. The colony was then governed by Edmund Andros, the former president

92 ‘The Humble Petition of the freeholders, planters and other subjects of the kingdom of England in the colony and plantation of New York in America’, Bayard Family Collection, 1673–1899, MS 2958.612, fo.7, NYHS. 93 L.H. Roper, Conceiving Carolina: Proprietors, Planters and Plots, 1662–1729 (2004), p.167; David Armitage, ‘John Locke, Carolina and the Two Treatises of Government’, Political Theory, vol.32 no.5 (2004), pp.602–627; Barbara Arneil, John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism (1996), pp.118–131; see ‘Atlantis’ in Mark Goldie (ed.), Locke: Political Essays (1997), pp.252–259. 94 See: ‘Trade’ and ‘Adversaria C’, Ibid., pp.221, 288; ‘John Carey to Locke, 9 May 1696’, ‘John Cary to Locke, 24 October 1696’, ‘James Hodges to Locke, 8 February 1697’ in De Beer, Locke Correspondence, vol.5 (1979), pp.633–635, 710, 776–781. 95 Van Ruymbeke, From New Babylon to Eden, p.167. 96 ‘Petition of the Inhabitants of Dublin, 10 March 1697’, Board of Trade Records: Ireland A, CO 388/85, TNA; ‘Sylvester Brounower to Locke, 26 November 1696’ in De Beer, Locke Correspondence, vol.5, p.721; ‘An Essay in the Poor Law’ in Goldie, Locke, pp.182–198. 137 of the Dominion of New England and a staunch Tory.97 In an attempt to secure the dismissal of Andros, Locke drafted his ‘Essay on Virginia’ during mid-1696, possibly with the assistance of the Anglican clergyman James Blair.98 In the paper, Locke criticised Andros’s wielding of excessive executive power but also went further to include a programme of reform intended to remedy the colony’s ills. First of all, he advocated the breaking up of exorbitant land grants to ensure that property could redistributed to the landless poor and foreign Protestants, lured through the promise of easy naturalisation and religious toleration. Second, he suggested concentrating the population into towns resembling New England, claiming that such a proposal would facilitate manufacturing and encourage tradesmen. Finally, he proposed limiting executive powers in order to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legislature, along with a purge of corrupt officeholders.99 All of these proposals were included, in some form, in the instructions for Andros’s successor Francis Nicholson, who only partially worked to secure their implementation while in Virginia.100 These suggestions read like a rough blueprint for what Bellomont would later attempt at different points in the northeast. His naval stores project would focus upon land confiscation and redistribution as well as the commercialisation of the economy for English benefit. Bellomont’s appointment, therefore, has to be understood in the context of this larger attempt by Locke to refashion England’s North American colonies in accordance with his political ideas. These plans, of course, went largely unspoken in the political maneuvering behind Bellomont’s appointment. Instead, Locke and sympathetic interests from North America presented his candidacy as an opportunity to reinforce the northeast against the influence of France. Since the outbreak of war in North America in 1689, many people had complained that provisions for the region’s defence were inadequate and the influence of the French ran deep. In New York, the supporters of Jacob Leisler persistently justified their actions as driving Catholics and crypto- papists from government to secure the colony from invasion.101 The sacks of the frontier towns of Schenectady on the Hudson and Pemaquid in Maine during the initial years of the war only served

97 See Mary Lou Lustig, The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714 (2002). 98 Michael Kammen, ‘Virginia at the Close of the Seventeenth Century: An Appraisal by James Blair and John Locke’, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol.74, no.2 (1966), pp.146–151. 99 The essay is printed as an appendix in Kammen, ‘Virginia at the Close of the Seventeenth Century’, pp.153–169. 100 ‘Instructions to Francis Nicholson’, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol.4, no.1 (1896), pp.49– 54. 101 ‘A Declaration of the Inhabitants and Souldjers Belonging under the Several Companies of train band of New York, 31 May 1689’, ‘The Humble Address of the Millitia and Other Inhabitants of the City of New York in America’, Leisler Papers, pp.1–7, NYHS. 138 to underscore this point.102 In the ensuing years, governors of New England and New York persistently complained that they lacked the means to defend their charges effectively and that Jesuit priests worked to turn their Native American allies against them.103 There was a desire for an individual or a plan capable of securing these colonies. Locke had known Bellomont since 1690, when he was seeking supporters for campaign to secure appointment as one of the lords justices of Ireland.104 Bellomont was first suggested for governor of Massachusetts by the Earl of Shrewsbury, primarily to block the appointment of the former Dominion of New England councilor Joseph Dudley to the post.105 The influence of the Mathers of Massachusetts were important here, who had stressed the need for someone who could bolster their defences seeing his appointment was confirmed in June 1695.106 At the same time, financial trouble continued to shape his ambitions, as he sought further commissions in North America to ease the debts his Irish estates were beginning to accrue.107 By August, he and his allies had in their sights the governorship of New York, held by Benjamin Fletcher. Using information supplied by Jacob Leisler Jr. and the New York-based merchant Robert Livingston, they argued that Fletcher’s corruption had caused the decay of the frontiers, which had threatened to hand the region to France.108 Yet the accusations had a delayed effect, falling in the period of limbo before the dissolution of the Lords of Trade and the formation of the new Board of Trade. As a result,

102 Rossiter Johnson, A History of the French War Ending in the Conquest of Canada with a Preliminary Account of the Early Attempts at Colonization and Struggles for the Possession of the Continent (1882), pp.116–118; Thomas E. Burke Jr., ‘Leisler’s Rebellion at Schenectady, New York, 1689–1710’, New York History, vol.70, no.4 (1989), pp.405–430. 103 ‘Benjamin Fletcher to Connecticut Council, 16 March 1692’, ‘Declaration of Connecticut Council, 3 March 1693’, Documents Relating to the New York Connecticut Border, unpaginated, NYHS. 104 ‘Bellomont to Clark, 23 August 1690’, ‘Bellomont to Clark, 30 August 1690’, ‘Bellomont to Clark, 7 September 1690’, Bellomont Papers, NYHS. 105 ‘Sylvester Brounower to Locke, 26 November 1696’ in De Beer, Locke Correspondence, vol.5, p.721; Robert C. Winthrop (ed.), Letters of John, Lord Cutts to Colonel Joseph Dudley: then Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Wight, Afterwards Governor of Massachusetts (1886), p.11; Richard L. Bushman, King and People in Provincial Massachusetts (1985), pp.63–67. 106 John C. Rainbolt, ‘The Creation of a Governor and Captain General for the Northern Colonies: The Process of Colonial Policy Formation at the End of the Seventeenth Century’, New York Historical Society Quarterly, vol.57, no.2 (1973), pp.101–108; CSP Col, vol.14, no.893; ‘Memorial of Sir Henry Ashurst, undated’, Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Ser.6, vol.5 (1892), p.92. 107 Ritchie, Captain Kidd, pp.50–52; ‘Coote to Locke, 12 May 1699’, De Beer, Letters of John Locke, vol.6 (1981), pp.622–623. 108 ‘Blathwayt to Irish Lords Justices, 8 August 1695’, Blathwayt Letterbook, Add. MS 37992, BL; ‘Pierre du Simitiére Notes re: Jacob Leisler Jr., 1769’, Photostat Collection, JLI; Leder, Robert Livingston, pp.101–102. 139 considerations for New York were postponed until July 1696 when the latter came into being.109 The timing proved auspicious for Bellomont, however, as Locke, the most prominent Whig on the Board, was given a relatively free reign during the earliest meetings, owing to the fact that the Tory politician William Blathwayt was frequently away in Flanders. By the time Locke and his allies were done, their arguments in favour of stronger defence had seen Bellomont appointed not just to New York and Massachusetts, but New Hampshire as well, and augmented by his being granted the position of Captain General of all colonies north of Maryland.110 On his return, Blathwayt attempted to stem the growing number of accolades awarded to Bellomont, but to no avail.111 By February 1697, therefore, the peer’s appointments had grown from a means to supplement his income into a broader scheme, intent on ‘uniting of New York, Massachusetts and the adjacent Colonies under one head’.112 Unfortunately for Locke, his initial efforts to steer the direction of the Board of Trade became eclipsed by the reports of Henry Avery’s activities in the Red Sea. This fact was of no particular relevance for the earl until July 1696, when Avery’s crew and other like them were openly living in Ireland and North America.113 The initial manhunt for Avery and his crew grew into a broader effort to trace the origins of the Madagascar trade to North America, coming to dominate the Board’s earliest operations.114 Locke did not allow his agenda to be completely buried, however, instead repositioning to reconcile pirates to his established colonial designs. To explain the existence of piracy he attempted to draw upon his discussions of the crime in his Two Treatise of Government, conveying pirates as unlawful oppressors who impoverished societies and themselves a consequence of the lawlessness tyrants promoted through their actions.115 Here, Locke configured the crime of piracy as tyranny, an understanding of the crime with historical precedent, but initially intended to illustrate the right of subjects to resist arbitrary rule. This earlier writing had some

109 ‘Memorandum on Foreign Trade, 1695’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.46, Add. MS 9764, BL; CSP Col, vol.15, no.88; Kenneth Morgan, ‘Mercantilism and the British Empire, 1688–1815’ in Donald Winch, Patrick Karl O'Brien (eds.), The Political Economy of British Historical Experience, 1688–1914 (2002), p.170. 110 ‘Memorial of Jacob Leisler Jr. and Abraham Governor, 25 September 1696’, Photostat Collection, JLI; ‘Deposition of Martines Lambris of New York, received 31 December 1696’, Ibid. 111 ‘Bellomont to Palmer, 12 December 1696’, State Papers: Ireland, 1696, SP 63/358, fo.183, TNA; ‘Bellomont to Locke, 5 May 1697’, De Beer, Letters of John Locke, vol.6, p.131. 112 CSP Col, vol.15, no.667. 113 By the Lords Justices, a proclamation whereas we formerly received information that one Henry Every, commander of this ship called the Phansie ... committed several acts of piracy (1696); CSP Col, vol.15, no.101. 114 Board of Trade Records: Journal 1697, CO 391/91, p.111, TNA. 115 Mark Goldie (ed.), Two Treatises of Government (1993), pp.59–60, 205–206. 140 influence over a document he presented to the Board in late July 1697. In it, Locke argued that the problem of piracy as one of corrupt government in the Americas, that governors were compromised and ruled arbitrarily, so could not be trusted to enforce laws against pirates.116 Given that it was the Tory Benjamin Fletcher in New York who stood most strongly indicted for encouraging pirates by this point and Locke had just seen to the appointment two new governors, this solution benefited, rather than hindered his colonial ambitions.117 The end result was that the title of Vice-Admiral of all colonies north of the Jersies was also awarded to Bellomont before his departure for New York in early 1698.118 Over the course of two years, an increasing number of titles were heaped upon the earl. What began as a living for a disgraced and financially precarious Protestant landowner grew into a plan to install an ally sympathetic to Locke’s particular political philosophy. This initial growth in titles was achieved by inflating the danger posed by Catholic France, arguing that all northeastern colonies had to be united on the grounds of common defence. The growing awareness of northeastern links to Madagascar and the flow of stolen goods across the Atlantic only came to present one further opportunity to discredit former Tory governors and saw the earl’s jurisdiction extended from land onto the sea. From the English government’s perspective, he departed with a mandate as considerable as was once held by Edmund Andros as Governor of the Dominion of New England. As will be addressed below, the earl had conceived his naval stores project before his departure, though it was not yet clear how effective a conduit he would be in putting Locke’s ideas into practice.

*** Calls for scrutiny of the Madagascar trade presented a clear path for the earl upon his arrival in New York City during April 1698. In New York, implicating the supporters of his predecessor supported Locke’s initial analysis of Madagascar pirates and their origins, as well as allowing him to dispense with any who might oppose him. He had less to worry about in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, where he could count on the approval of Congregationalists, so he initially dedicated a great deal of his attention to New York. Yet his own involvement in trade with Madagascar

116 Sarah Pemberton, Locke's Political Thought and the Oceans: Pirates, Slaves, and Sailors (2017), pp.52–56. 117 ‘BOT to Lords Justices of England, 19 October 1698’, Photostat Collection, JLI. 118 ‘BOT to Bellomont, 21 March 1698’, O’Callaghan, Documents, vol.4 (1854), pp.266–273, 299–300. 141 through William Kidd quickly came to derail his initial plan, leaving him scrambling to keep his position. In the end, however, he weathered the unfolding scandal, but not without severely damaging the prospects of his naval stores scheme, which he attempted to put into practice after the Kidd issue subsided. Bellomont’s earliest position was that cooperation with pirates was a necessary problem of arbitrary government, specifically in New York. Even though his predecessor, Benjamin Fletcher, had been recalled on corruption charges, supporters remained on the colony’s Council. They included Nicholas Bayard, William Pinhorn and Frederick Philipse, notable as the wealthiest landowners and merchants in New York and all substantial beneficiaries of trade with Madagascar. He now had to provide evidence of this involvement to get the government in England to agree to their dismissal. His efforts began in April, when Bellomont was notified of a vessel named the Fortune recently arrived on the northern coast of Long Island carrying an unnamed quantity of contraband.119 Owned by at least three members of New York’s Council, the ship had left the colony in November 1696 for Madagascar under the cover of purchasing slaves there, yet once at St Maries, they bought a fortune in stolen east India goods.120 First, Bellomont followed the unloaded goods to the warehouse of Ouzeel Van Swieten, a merchant and ally of Fletcher’s councilors, but his officials found only a fraction of the goods there.121 Nevertheless, he had them seized and flooded the Board of Trade with firsthand testimonies of the event.122 Throughout the summer he made several similar seizures, all of which he connected to Fletcher’s councilors.123 His persistent argument became that ‘unlawful trade and Arabian gold brought in by pyrat ships from the red sea are the things they thirst after … a demonstration of the wickednesse of our English

119 Ibid., fol.117; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 21 September 1698’, Photostat Collection, JLI. 120 ‘Vernon to Blathwayt, 13 September 1698’, Osborn Manuscripts, MS OSB 2, Box 9, fo.198, YBL; ‘Account of Adam Baldridge, 5 May 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fo.214, TNA. 121 ‘Memorandum as to Chidley Brooke’s proceedings concerning the ship Fortune, undated’, Photostat Collection, JLI; ‘An Account of the Proceedings of Chidley Brookes, 1 July 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.211–212, TNA; ‘John Cruger to Ouzeel Van Swieten and Johannes Abeel, 6 April 1699’, Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, HCA 1/98, fo.169, TNA; Americana, American Historical magazine, vol.18 (1924), p.97. 122 ‘The Deposition of Robert Cornwell, 15 June 1698’, ‘The Petition of Ouzeel Van Swieten, undated’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.233–234, TNA; ‘Meeting Minutes, April 1698’, Transcripts of Council Minutes, 1674–1742, MS A4406, New York State Archive (NYSA). 123 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.116–117, TNA; ‘Council Meeting, 7 June 1698’, Ibid.; ‘Deposition of John Pantree, 8 June 1698’, ‘Bellomont to BOT, 21 October 1698’, ‘Memorial from several merchants trading to New York to the council of trade and plantations, 21 February 1699’, Photostat Collection, JLI; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.126–127, TNA. 142 merchants here’.124 At the same time, a separate body of evidence was gathering in Hamburg. Testimonies supplied by Bellomont had suggested one of the councilors intended to sell stolen goods there and, during June, the English resident Paul Rycaut was notified that the ship was in port.125 Ordering the vessel seized, Rycaut collected detailed accounts of both the stolen goods aboard the ship and its connections to New York City’s merchants.126 A firm Williamite, it is unlikely to be a coincidence that Rycaut chose to pursue this seizure with such vigour and regard for detail.127 With both men drip-feeding information to the Board, they effectively seized control of the Madagascar issue, laying the blame squarely at the feet of an allegedly arbitrary government in New York. The earl was able to secure further evidence through his alliance with New York City’s Dutch population. His solidarity with them was most clearly expressed in late September 1698, when he allowed a crowd of hundreds to exhume to bodies of Jacob Leisler and Jacob Milburne, march them through the streets of the city and rebury them in the Dutch Reformed Church.128 Both were martyrs to the Dutch in New York and a the exhumation symbolic slight to Fletcher’s remaining councilors, most of whom had sat on the jury which condemned and executed the two rebels.129 As part of their alliance, they provided Bellomont with ample evidence of the counsellors receiving stolen goods, but also rumours of the merchants’ containing loyalty to James II.130 In gathering this evidence, the earl spoke to several important factors that had been raised in his appointment. He connected participation in the Madagascar trade with the Jacobitism which he claimed left the region vulnerable to French influence, giving credence to Locke’s notion that pirates were a

124 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 27 October 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fo.258, TNA. 125 ‘Paul Rycaut to James Vernon, 5 July 1698’, Rycaut Letters, vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153, fo.67, BL; ‘The examination of Humphrey Perkins of New York, 6 September 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.305–306, TNA; ‘Frederick Philipse to Adam Baldridge, 24 December 1695’, ‘Frederick Philipse to Burgess, 28 July 1697’, Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, 1694–1699, HCA 1/98, fos.66, 79, TNA. 126 For examples see, ‘Rycaut to Blathwayt, 28 June 1698’, ‘Rycaut to Blathwayt, 19 July 1698’, ‘Rycaut to Vernon, 5 August 1698’, ‘Rycaut to Venon, 26 August 1698’, Rycaut Letters, vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153, BL. 127 Anderson, ‘Rycaut, Sir Paul’. 128 Hugh Hastings (ed.), Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York, vol.2 (1901), pp.1242–1262; ‘Proofs of the heads of complaint relating to Coll Fletcher’s conduct in the government of New York’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fo.5, TNA. 129 ‘Petition of the Assembly to Bellomont, 15 May 1699’, Photostat Collection, JLI. 130 Summarised in ‘Bellomont to BOT, 21 October 1698’, Photostat Collection, JLI; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, ‘The Deposition of Leonard Leis, Alderman of the City of New York, 6 May 1696’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.118, 126–127, 137, TNA; Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.452–466; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 May 1698’, ‘The Deposition of Edward Earl, 23 May 1698’, ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.116–117, 169, 184, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 July 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.7, fo.3, LLH; ‘Council Minutes 23 November 1698’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA. 143 consequence of arbitrary government. This was point stressed powerfully in a petition signed by over a thousand of the city’s Dutch residents.131 Evidence arriving throughout 1698 in London from Hamburg and New York had the desired effect. In late October, the Whig members of the Board of Trade compiled a summary of extant evidence from both Hamburg and New York that Fletcher’s councilors had fostered trade with Madagascar, itself said to be evidence of their corruption.132 They recommended the immediate dismissal of the accused from New York’s Council and, in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence, there was little Tories on the Board could do to oppose the measure.133 On 25 October, the Privy Council assented to the dismissals and instructed Bellomont to delve further into pirates and illegal trade in the northeast, as well as government malfeasance.134 In a transatlantic effort, therefore, Locke, Bellomont, Rycaut and the Dutch in New York City had been able to engineer the scandal of the Madagascar trade to bring down Fletcher’s supporters. Already enjoying the support of Congregationalists across the northeast, by the end of 1698, Bellomont had removed any who might oppose him from positions of political influence. Yet despite this initial success, the issue of the Madagascar trade would backfire spectacularly for the earl in the following months. As was to be expected, the deposed councilors rallied around the former governor, emphasising that he was the victim of a smear campaign by his substantially more arbitrary replacement.135 Part of their response was to argue that the Madagascar trade went far beyond Fletcher, accusing Jacob Leisler himself of complicity and naming New York City’s less established Dutch merchants.136 Bellomont’s credibility was soon spectacularly shredded. During later 1698, details of the attacks on Mughal shipping by the captain William Kidd began to emerge, a venture he and a number of prominent Whigs had sponsored.137 The response of

131 ‘The humble address of severall merchants, freeholders & other of his majesties dutifull and peaceable subjects inhabiting New York’, Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1698, CO 5/1041, fos.346–356, TNA; also see New York Assembly Journal, pp.62–64, NYHS. 132 ‘BOT to Lords Justices of England, 19 October 1698’, Photostat Collection, JLI. 133 ‘Vernon to Blathwayt, 25 October 1698’, Osborn Manuscripts, MS OSB 2, Box 9 fo.198, YBL. 134 ‘Orders from the Privy Council to New York Council, 25 October 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1698, CO 5/1041, fo.254, TNA. 135 ‘Fletcher to BOT, 22 May 1697’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.60–63, TNA; ‘The answer of Nicholas Bayard to the Charges of the Earl of Bellomont, 13 October 1698’ Nicholas Bayard Papers: Trial Documents, 1698–1708, NYHS; ‘James Graham to Blathwayt, 3 July 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.10, fo.7, LLH. 136 ‘Fletcher to BOT, 22 May 1697’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fo.60, TNA. 137 ‘Robert Livingston to the Earl of Romney, 20 September 1696’, The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry (1903), vol.2, Part 2, pp.405–406. 144

Bellomont’s allies was outlined by George Somers in December 1698. He advocated that the investors should own up to their involvement, but emphasise that Kidd had acted in violation of their instructions, whilst at the same time, redoubling their efforts against the Madagascar trade in both England and the Americas.138 Throughout this unfolding controversy, an ailing Locke successfully fought to keep Bellomont in position, but the argument that support for the Madagascar trade was emanated from the political culture Fletcher and his circle introduced, had unraveled.139 It was evident, therefore, that the scope of Bellomont’s investigations would have to be substantially widened if he was to keep his position. The governor’s only option now was to now double down and continue to take a firm stance against trade with Madagascar. His Dutch contacts in New York City supported this conclusion, claiming that to do otherwise would confirm his earlier efforts as venal and self-serving.140 Throughout 1699 ships from Madagascar continued to recruit and unload their stolen cargoes across southern New England, where a now established network of brokers laundered the contraband for investors in New York City and Boston.141 Yet having to confront the reality of the Madagascar trade and how embedded it was in the northeast’s economy, was problematic for Bellomont. He had, of course, known for some time that goods made their way from the Indian Ocean into southern New England, he had just chosen to downplay and ignore its significance to keep attention focused on Fletcher’s councilors.142 But when two of Kidd’s men, James Kelly and Joseph Bradish, disappeared into the port towns of Connecticut, he was compelled to ask the governor, Fitz-John Winthrop, to act.143 The Winthrops viewed the earl as a valuable ally, one who

138 ‘George Somers to the Duke of Shrewsbury, 15 December 1698’, Private and Original Correspondence of Charles Talbot Duke of Shrewsbury (1821), pp.569–572. 139 ‘Coote to Locke, 12 May 1699’, ‘Coote to Locke, 7 September 1699’, De Beer, Locke Correspondence, vol.6, pp.622–623, 675–678. 140 ‘Staats to De Peyster, 3 July 1699’, De Peyster Papers: Dutch Translations, pp.58–60, NYHS. 141 ‘Council Minutes, 16 February 1699’, ‘Council Minutes, 20 July 1699’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 July 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.7, fo.3, LLH; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 25 August 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fos.29–31, MHS; ‘Brandt Schuyler and Rip Van Dam to John Rensselaer, 28 June 1698’, ‘Orders for Samuel Burgess, 9 June 1698’, Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, HCA 1/98, fos.140–141, 168, TNA; ‘Staat to De Peyster, 10 July 1699’, De Peyster Papers: Dutch Translations, pp.64–66, NYHS; ‘The Information of Pieter Smit, 27 June 1699’, ‘R. Cortlandt to BOT, 10 July 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.1, fos.36, 97, MHS; ‘The Examination of James Brown, 28 May 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fo.126, TNA. 142 ‘Winthrop to Bellomont, 13 July 1698’, ‘Nicholas Webb to Winthrop, 31 August 1698’, ‘John Winthrop to BOT, 1 July 1698’, ‘John Winthrop to Bellomont, 1 July 1698’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 14, MHS; ‘William Stoughton to Bellomont, 13 December 1698’, Massachusetts Archives: Colonial Period, vol.3, p.61, MSA. 143 See Chapter 5, below. ‘Council Minutes, 16 February 1699’, ‘Council Minutes, 8 April 1699’, ‘Council Minutes, 19 April 1699’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA. 145 could help them defend their charter rights, as well as wrestle control of a tract of land known as Narragansett County from Rhode Island’s Quakers.144 As a result, when Bellomont sought permission to capture members of Kidd’s crew in the colony along with other reputed pirates, they allowed him to do so.145 At the same time, they were keen to pass on accountability for the Madagascar trade, directing attention towards the fact that many of the pirates they set out to catch fled to Newport, where the majority had been given privateering commissions.146 Neither Bellomont nor the Winthrops had any love for the colony’s Quaker leaders, so, during June 1699, the focus of investigations shifted, with the earl coming to emphasise that Rhode Island was responsible for harbouring and encouraging pirates.147 This change in strategy possibly explains why Bellomont decided in June to lure Kidd to the colony for capture the following month.148 All that remained was to once again, appear to get the heart of the Madagascar issue, but this time in Newport rather than New York City. Compared with the lengths to which the earl went in implicating New York’s councilors in sponsoring pirates, Bellomont placed Rhode Island’s Quakers under very little scrutiny. Before his arrival, they begged him to be lenient so that they would not lose their charter, but his earliest line of investigation during mid-September was dictated by the Board.149 He was to question the colony’s former governors, their deputies and admiralty judges about their providing of privateering commissions to vessels which then proceeded to Madagascar.150 Quaker merchants had been as keen as anybody to profit from this trade, while at the same time, the commissioning

144 ‘Josiah Chauncy to Winthrop, 6 September 1698’, ‘Samuel Cranston to Winthrop, 10 September 1698’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 14, MHS; ‘Session Minutes, 14 February 1699’, Proceedings of the General Assembly, 1649–1723, vol.1, pp.90–94, Rhode Island State Archives (RISA); Hoadly, Connecticut Public Records, vol.4, p.238. 145 ‘Council Minutes, 8 April 1699’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 20 October 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fos.62–64, MHS; Hoadly, Connecticut Public Records, vol.4, p.300. 146 ‘Wait Winthrop to John Winthrop, 10 April 1699’, ‘Wait Winthrop to John Winthrop, 17 April 1699’, ‘Wait Winthrop to John Winthrop, 24 April 1699’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 14, MHS. 147 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 July 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fos.252–254, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 20 October 1699, Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fos.5–8, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 8 July 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.7 fo.3, LLH; ‘The true account of Nathaniel Coddington, 22 September 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fo.126, MHS. 148 ‘Meeting Minutes, 19 June 1699’, Massachusetts Archives: Colonial Period, vol.81, MSA; ‘Bellomont to Kidd, 8 June 1699, Samuel Burgess Papers, fo.128, TNA. 149 ‘Samuel Cranston to Council, 27 August 1699’, Massachusetts Archives: Colonial Period, vol.2, pp.80–81, MSA; ‘Wait Winthrop to John Winthrop, 3 June 1700’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 15, MHS; ‘Walter Clark to Bellomont, 17 November 1699’, ‘Samuel Cranston to Bellomont, 22 December 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fos.85, 86, TNA. 150 ‘A Journal of His Excellency the Earle of Bellomont’s Journey from Boston to Rhode Island’, Massachusetts Archives: Colonial Period, vol.2, pp.100–102, MSA. 146 privateers for defence in a time of war had been especially important for a colony occupied in majority by pacifists.151 They had reconciled their aversion to violence by appointing the Gortonian John Green as deputy governor in 1690 and tasked him with overseeing the colony’s military operations. Despite this dubious arrangement, Rhode Island’s Quaker leaders emerged from the investigations relatively unscathed. Bellomont was able to quite correctly trace most of the issued commissions to Green, and from there, the issue of directly commissioning pirates was kept at arm's length from the Quakers, which instead became an issue of Green’s antinomianism.152 At the same time, he presented the broader failure to capture and convict known pirates as a problem of the colony’s laws, rather than evidence of Quaker complicity.153 Assured that they would see their charter overturned otherwise, the governor grudgingly allowed the earl to amend their laws to align more closely with England’s.154 In effect, Bellomont successfully absolved the colony’s Quakers of responsibility but followed his commission to the letter. With Kidd on a ship bound for England by this point and the earl having clung on to his positions, it appeared that he had survived the scandal. These investigations into the Madagascar trade had begun at the same time as Bellomont was attempting to follow Locke in presenting pirates as a product of arbitrary government. Yet while his initial efforts had shown promise, the Kidd scandal undermined the narrative he had worked with his Dutch allies and Rycaut to create. In turn, it forced him to concede the more widespread participation in the Madagascar trade across the northeast. While it jeopardised his position, Bellomont eventually managed to limit the damage of these revelations to himself and his allies. Congregationalist New England was largely kept out of the spotlight, something which changed when a Tory later succeeded Bellomont to the governorship of Massachusetts.155 Being forced to present the reality of widespread connections to Madagascar, however, was not necessarily a problem for Bellomont. Admitting that it was embedded within the northeast’s economy actually placed him in a stronger position to argue for the naval stores project he had been refining since

151 ‘The Testimony of Andrew White’, 26 September 1699, Ibid., p.97. 152 ‘The Examination of John Green, 21 September 1699’, Ibid., pp.86–86a, MSA; ‘The Examination of John Easton, 21 September 1699’, Ibid. p.87; ‘Testimonies against John Green, 25 September 1699’, Ibid., p.91; ‘The Examination of Robert Gardiner, 26 September 1699’, Ibid. pp.93–95; ‘A Journal of His Excellency the Earle of Bellomont’s Journey from Boston to Rhode Island’, Ibid., pp.100–109. 153 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 5 January 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fo.78, TNA; ‘Remarks upon the transcript of the acts & laws of the colony of Rhode Island’, Ibid., fo.88. 154 ‘Samuel Cranston to Bellomont, 5 October 1699’, ‘Samuel Cranston to Bellomont, 22 December 1699’, ‘Bellomont to BOT, 5 January 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fos.78, 84, 86, TNA. 155 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.303–308. 147 before he came to North America. Even if trade with pirates could not be presented as a consequence of Tory corruption, it could become an economic problem for his scheme to resolve.

*** During the evening of 16 August 1699, a ship named the Fortune was sold by inch of candle in New York City’s dock to Abraham De Peyster, a Dutch merchant of middling means and status.156 The vessel was the first ship which Bellomont had seized after his arrival more than a year previously, its crew having returned from Madagascar with east India goods and specie. In the days which followed, the Fortune was loaded with masts and naval stores intended for London, yet neither De Peyster’s purchase of the Fortune or this cargo were a coincidence.157 The merchant, whom Bellomont had appointed to New York’s Council in 1698, was playing a small but significant role in the ambitious scheme devised by his patron. In parallel to and especially after Bellomont’s trek across the northeast in pursuit of pirates, the earl’s greatest preoccupation remained promoting naval stores production, specifically the manufacturing of tar, pitch, turpentine and masts. He coveted the profits such a venture might realise, especially after his own financial situation deteriorated following the confiscation of his Irish estates during 1699.158 Yet this was far more than a simple commercial venture. The Fortune’s sale speaks of the belief the earl had in his scheme’s transformative character: it being repurposed from trading stolen goods out of the Indian Ocean to manufactured products intended, he claimed, for England’s benefit. This project also has substantial implications on land, becoming a means to transfer Irish colonisation strategies across the Atlantic, creating a society of redoubtable Protestant freeholders whose labour would draw Atlantic flows of people and goods northwards into Boston and New York City, while at the same time securing the colonial borderlands from French influence. Behind his initial attempt to pin the Madagascar trade on his rivals, the earl understood it was in fact a problem of the northeast’s economy, traceable to a lack of specie and people. Over the years, he wrote to many correspondents that these shortages made the region vulnerable to French

156 ‘Council Minutes 15 August 1699’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA. 157 ‘Bellomont to Abraham De Peyster, 9 January 1699’, De Peyster Papers, 1665–1887: Abraham De Peyster English Letters, NYHS; ‘Sephanus Van Cortlandt to Bellomont, 18 August 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fos.41–42, MHS. 158 Leder, Robert Livingston, p.153. 148 influence and could only be resolved through the manufacture and sale of valuable commodities.159 He noted in particular that none of the northeast’s trades went in majority to England: provisions went south to the Caribbean without discrimination as to where they were sold, the Newfoundland fishing industry continued to depart in large part for Spain, remaining furs from New York went to Curaçao and Amsterdam, while the masts and lumber of New Hampshire supplied Porto and Lisbon.160 Each of these activities, he observed, drained people and specie from North America, all the while enriching foreign powers. The Madagascar trade he placed alongside all of these other forms of commerce, that although it injected coin in the regional economy it encouraged landless colonists to emigrate.161 As he viewed it, his challenge was to attract and effectively employ enough labour in some kind of commodity-production to facilitate a viable commercial alternative to all of the above trades. At the same time, any solution had to shore up his position in North America, first and foremost by protecting the frontiers with France, but without upsetting any of the American interest groups who favoured him. By the time of his arrival, he already had a solution in mind. The initial idea for a naval stores project did not come from Bellomont but the Huguenot merchant and refugee, Gabriel Bernon. Of a long-established La Rochelle merchant family, Bernon made his fortune in the 1670s trading to Guadeloupe and Martinique as well as to New France.162 In 1682 he left France for Quebec, before fleeing after 1685 to Amsterdam and then London, where he became naturalised.163 He secured his return to North America with many other refugees as part of two separate ventures to transplant several hundred of his coreligionists to Massachusetts and to

159 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fo.24, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 20 October 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fo.60, MHS; ‘Bellomont to De Peyster 24 November 1699’, De Peyster Papers: English Letters, NYHS. 160 John Usher to Blathwayt, 8 November 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.6, fo.2, LLH; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 26 July 1699’, Ibid., vol.7, fo.3; ‘Bellomont to De Peyster 24 November 1699’, De Peyster Papers: English Letters, NYHS; ‘Humphrey Perkins Testimony, 6 October 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1698, CO 5/1041, fo.204, TNA; Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.643–646, 790–797. 161 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fo.26, TNA; Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.315, 668–77. 162 J.F. Bosher, ‘Huguenot Merchants, pp.96–97; Charles Washington Baird, History of the Huguenot Migration to America (1885), pp.232–234. 163 J.F. Bosher, ‘Success and Failure in Trade to New France, 1660–1760’, French Historical Studies, vol.15, no.3 (1988), p.458; Allan Forbes and Paul F. Cadman, Boston and Some Noted Emigrés (1938), p.49; Catharine Randall, From a Far Country: Camisards and Huguenots in the Atlantic World (2009), pp.70–72; ‘Letter of Naturalisation granted to Bernon, 27 April, 1687’, Bernon Papers, MS 294, Box 1, RIHS. 149

Rhode Island.164 In 1688, Bernon migrated to Boston and oversaw the settlement of around fifty of his fellow émigrés onto a tract of land he had purchased in southern Massachusetts – they named it Oxford.165 In the following years he remained in Boston, where he recruited further refugees and experimented with numerous commercial projects for the settlement, which included the planting of vineyards for wine making, as well as the production of raw silk and naval stores.166 The latter quickly came to appear the most promising as he understood that the English Admiralty Board bought their stores from Scandinavia at considerable cost and the French capture of Pemaquid in 1689 had cut off much of the meagre North American production that existed.167 In the years which followed, he gradually established Oxford as a centre for the manufacture of turpentine and pitch, selling both to the Admiralty Board amid the protests of the Eastland merchants (those who traded with Scandinavia and the Baltic).168 Disaster struck in 1696, however, when tensions between the Huguenots at Oxford and their Narragansett neighbours boiled over and the town was raided, causing its inhabitants to fleeing to Boston and south to Narragansett County in Rhode Island.169 Discouraged but determined, Bernon sailed for England again, arriving there in February 1696, seeking support to re-establish his scheme. While there, he was able to make an impact on Bellomont and his supporters. The two met at some point in early 1696, being put in touch through Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, a Huguenot noble who, like Bellomont, had been rewarded with a title in Ireland for his efforts during the Jacobite War.170 A basic document outlining the potential of a naval stores scheme in the northeast was submitted to the Board in July by Edward Randolph, rather than Bernon, which stressed the potential of New Hampshire and New York to produce them.171 The merchant’s proposals for making wine, silk and naval stores made their way into Locke’s writings during 1696

164 George F. Daniels, The Huguenots in the Nipmuck Country or Oxford Prior to 1713 (1880), pp.66–67; Elisha R. Potter, Memoir Concerning the French Settlements and French Settlers in the Colony of Rhode Island (1879), pp.23– 24. 165 Mary DeWitt Freeland, The Records of Oxford, Mass.; Including Chapters of Nipmuck, Huguenot and English History from the Earliest Date, 1630 (1894), pp.180–189. 166 Randall, From a Far Country, p.72; discussed in Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.781–797. 167 ‘Bernon to Bellomont, undated’, Gabriel Bernon Papers, 1652–1946, MS 294, Box 1, RIHS. 168 ‘Contract between Bernon and Peter Canton for manufacture of rosin’, 9 May, 1692’, Bernon Papers, MS 294, Box 1, RIHS; ‘Contract for sale of rosin between Bernon and John Taylor, 21 May, 1694’, Ibid.; ‘Petition of Bernon to Lords of Trade, 1693’, Ibid.; CSP Col, vol.14, nos.890, 959–962, 982. 169 ‘John Usher to Blathwayt, 23 October 1696’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.6, fo.1, LLH; Daniels, The Huguenot in the Nipmuck County, p.185. 170 ‘Bellomont to Bernon, 23 November 1698’, Bernon Papers, MS 294, Box 1, RIHS. 171 ‘A Discourse to Render the Plantations more Beneficiall & Advantageous to think Kingdom, 24 July 1696’, BOT General Correspondence A, CO 323/2, pp.18–19, TNA. 150 and the philosopher suggested the production of all three in his proposals for Virginia.172 While Bernon left London without the formal support of the Board, he evidently had been able to exert an influence. On his return to North America in late 1696, he relocated to Newport, redirecting his efforts towards the Huguenot settlement of North Kingston in Narragansett County and to the rebuilding of Oxford, re-establishing his small-scale naval stores production in both towns.173 It was Bellomont, however, who was most taken by Bernon’s proposals. On a number of occasions he praised the merchant’s various commercial projects to the Board, understanding how each could provide commodities currently bought by England from foreign ports.174 The earl similarly found the naval stores scheme to show the most promise, but agreed that their problem was a labour shortage.175 It was in November 1698, at the height of his investigations into the Madagascar trade in New York City, that he first wrote to the Board of Trade asserting that Bernon’s ideas, if properly executed, would be a long-term solution to the problem. He claimed that naval stores production would make the region’s connection to Madagascar unnecessary, as they provided a commercial alternative which would render the northeast as profitable to England as was Ireland.176 The earl’s invocation of Ireland here is telling and suggests the particular approach to the project he would come to propose. He presided over a deteriorating geopolitical position in which New France continued to make substantial gains. Nine years of war had put pressure upon English relations with their native American neighbours: the Haudenosaunee were concerned with the resurgence of the Huron out of the Great Lakes region, while the Abenaki had not been privy to, nor had they signed, the Treaty of Ryswick. These confederacies together spanned most of the territory between New England and New France and both had factions within them during the later

172 John Locke, Further considerations concerning raising the value of money wherein Mr. Lowndes’s arguments for it in his late Report concerning an essay for the amendment of the silver coins, are particularly examined (1695), p.51; Brewster, Essays, pp.85–109; William Lowndes, A report containing an essay for the amendment of the silver coins (1695), pp.72–77; Simon Clement, A Dialogue between a countrey gentleman and a merchant concerning the falling of guinea's (1696) pp.7–8; John Pollexfen, Discourse of trade, coyn, and paper credit, and of ways and means to gain, and retain riches (1697), pp.84–97; Idem, England and East-India inconsistent in their manufactures being an answer to a treatise intituled, An essay on the East-India trade by the author of, The essay of wayes and means. (1697), pp.6–14; Kammen, ‘Virginia’, p.154. 173 ‘Henry Ashurst to Winthrop, 25 August 1697’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 14, MHS; CSP Col, vol.15, nos.514–515, 533, 620. 174 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 17 April 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fos.108–111, TNA; summarised in Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.781–797 and passim. 175 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 20 October 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fo.64, MHS. 176 Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.377–382. 151

1690s advocating closer ties with the French.177 Bellomont credited their growing dissatisfaction to the presence of Jesuit priests within each confederacy and persistently reminded the Board of Trade that he believed alliances were forming between English Jacobites, Native American leaders and New France. By 1699, he believed that an invasion was imminent.178 It was against this context, as well as his understanding of the Madagascar trade, that he conceived the details of his project. Drawing upon his experiences in Ireland, he transposed Native Americans in place of Irish Catholics and suggested the transferring of Protestant English soldiers currently stationed in Ireland. He sought to settle them on land surrounding Albany in New York (closest to the Haudennosaunee) and across New Hampshire (near the Abenaki). These soldiers, he offered, would manufacture naval stores and receive basic pay, but after seven years receive a tract of land and the basic means to establish themselves as farmers.179 It was by these very techniques of plantation that the Cootes themselves had first gained lands in Ireland and where the tried and tested methods by which successive governments had worked to expand English rule following land confiscations.180 To achieve such a large settlement programme, however, the groundwork had to be prepared. Most controversial would be the need to break up the enormous land grants which had been allocated to particular magnates in both New York and New Hampshire, almost all of which sat uncultivated as a result of failure to attract tenants.181 The earl later made it clear what he thought of these grants and their implications for the attraction of migrants: ‘what man will be such a fool as to become a base tenant (in New York)…when for crossing the Hudson’s River that man can for a song purchase a freehold in the Jersies?’.182 The scheme he proposed and that fact that it overlapped with what Locke had proposed for Virginia some years earlier throws up continuity

177 Stanwood, The Empire Reformed, pp.68–73; Richter, The Ordeal of the Longhouse, pp.175–213; Kenneth M. Morrison, The Embattled Northeast: The Elusive Ideal of Alliance in Abenaki-Euramerican Relations (1984), p.142. 178 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 1 July 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.247–248, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 28 February 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fos.117–119, TNA; New York Assembly Journal, p.73, NYHS. 179 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 20 October 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fos.60–70, MHS; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 24 August 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fos.286–290, TNA; Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.501–507, 544–549. 180 Cunningham, Conquest and Land in Ireland, pp.11–30; Canny, Making Ireland British; Ohlmeyer, ‘‘Civilizinge those rude partes’, pp.124–147; Michael MacCarthy-Morrogh, The Munster Plantation: English Migration to Southern Ireland 1583–1641 (1986). 181 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fo.24, TNA; ‘John Usher to Blathwayt, 15 January 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.12, fo.3, LLH; Sung Bok Kim, Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: Manorial Society, 1664–1775 (1978). 182 Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, p.791. 152 with earlier political thinkers. He advocated breaking up any land grant over a thousand acres, pulling apart New York’s emergent manorial system to create a society of autonomous freeholders.183 The genealogy of such an idea can be traced back to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina and, ultimately, James Harrington’s writings during the Interregnum.184 What Bellomont suggested was not just to settle soldiers as a guard against Catholic France but to create a society of industrious, landholding Protestant yeomen, collectively a barrier against the popery which threatened to consume English dominions in North America.185 Laid out in full, his scheme began with the commercial experiments of Huguenot refugees but was then modified. The earl proposed using organised landholding as well as commodity production as a means draw Atlantic trade flows north, securing the northeast from the French threat and providing an alternative to the Madagascar trade in the process. In doing so he transferred his own experiences from Ireland but at the same time created the society of autonomous Protestant freeholders of the kind which Whig political philosophy valued. The earl’s task was to persuade the Board of Trade to assent to his scheme while he made these territories ready for settlement through land redistributions and countermeasures against French influence. As early as May 1698, Bellomont began to set in motion his land confiscations in New York. At this stage, pursuing the project was mutually supportive with his efforts to pin the Madagascar trade on Fletcher’s councilors, most of whom had been allocated enormous tracts of land by the former governor.186 With Locke’s continuing influence over the Board of Trade during 1698, his idea had a favourable audience and reception in England. In October, the very same letter which urged Bellomont to dismiss Fletcher’s councilors for their funding of pirates also instructed him to proceed in the process of breaking up their land grants.187 Such a measure had to be pushed through New York's Assembly, however, and elections scheduled for April 1699 provided the best

183 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 17 April 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fos.108–111, TNA. 184 Armitage, ‘Carolina and the Two Treatises of Government’, pp.609, 618–619; Paul Corcoran, ‘John Locke on the Possession of Land: Native Title vs. the “Principle” of Vacuum Domicilium’, Proceedings, Australasian Political Studies Association Annual Conference (2007), pp.1–21; Blair Worden, ‘James Harrington and the Commonwealth of Oceana, 1656’ in David Wootton (ed.), Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society, 1649–1776 (1994), pp.87–89; J.G.A. Pocock (ed.), James Harrington: ‘The Commonwealth of Oceana’ and ‘A System of Politics’ (1992), pp.19–20; The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, no.4. 185 Laslett, Locke: Two Treatise, pp.285–302. 186 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.184–186, TNA; I.N Phelps, The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498–1909 (1967), pp.74–75; E.B. O’Callaghan, The Documentary History of New York, vol.3 (1850), p.368. 187 ‘Orders from the Privy Council to New York Council, 25 October 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1698, CO 5/1041, fo.254, TNA. 153 opportunity to introduce his supporters into the legislature. He specifically sought the land surrounding Albany, but in recent years, patroons like the Van Rensselaers and Van Cortlandts had deliberately obstructed colonists from settling there to preserve Albany’s monopoly on the fur trade.188 While Albany’s Dutch residents in large part came out against Bellomont he secured a majority of supporters and obtained the passage of his act on 13 May.189 The Act still had to be sent for confirmation by the Board of Trade in London, however, so it would be some time before he could begin to set his plan in motion. Yet, nevertheless, in the summer of 1699 he appealed to England for a thousand soldiers to settle on these lands. While confident of his ability to eventually secure the territory he needed, the earl feared placing settlers on land which was still subject to Jesuit influence. He kept up an adversarial correspondence with Jesuits who operated in the region, who taunted him with stories of their successes near to Albany, which were often corroborated by reports from the town.190 Securing Protestant missionaries, he believed, was essential in maintaining their alliance with the Haudennosaunee but also to safeguard any settlers he introduced from being converted to Catholicism.191 Of course, combatting the influence of Catholic priests was also a preoccupation of Irish Protestants, particularly during the 1690s. In his attempts to recruit missionaries he was essentially non-dogmatic, as he was an Anglican but also a latitudinarian. He had no qualms about being a member of the Congregationalist Company for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, from whom he requested missionaries to preach around Albany, clergy he was only permitted on the condition that they were Harvard graduates.192 In January 1699 and several times

188 O’Callaghan, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.362–366, 487–490, 500–501; Jaap Jacobs, New Netherland, A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America (2005), pp.42–52, 70–74. 189 ‘Reasons exhibited by the Earl of Bellomont for the suspension of Nicholas Bayard’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1698, CO 5/1041, fos.231–234, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 27 April 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fos.117–118, TNA; ‘Bayard to Blathwayt, 23 June 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.7 fo.3, LLH; New York Assembly Journal, pp.59–61, NYHS; ‘The Humble Petition of the freeholders, planters and other subjects of the kingdom of England in the colony and plantation of New York in America’, Nicholas Bayard Papers: Trial Documents, fos.7–10, NYHS. 190 ‘Bellomont to Captain Hill, 19 October 1699’, Miscellaneous Colonial Letters, RIHS; Vincent Bigot of the Society of Jesus to the most friendly person George Turfrey’, 24 September 1699’, Massachusetts State Archives Collection, Colonial and Post Colonial Period, 1626–1806, vol.288, pp.94–99, MSA; ‘Bellomont to Vincent Bigot, 19 October 1699’, Bellomont Papers, NYHS. 191 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 1 July 1698’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040, fos.247–248, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 13 April 1699’, New York Papers, 1699, CO 5/1042, fo.84, TNA; New York Assembly Journal, p.67, NYHS 192 ‘Council Meeting, 7 June 1698’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA; Stanwood, The Empire Reformed, p.194; Randall, From a Far Country, p.72; William Kellaway, The New England Company, 1649–1776 (1961), pp.260–266. 154 thereafter, Locke and the other Whigs on the Board encouraged Bellomont to make sure that these missionaries were recruited, instructions which he followed up while in Boston during May 1699.193 There, he negotiated a deal with Harvard’s fellows for the missionaries, which he was promised in exchange for his help securing a new charter for the College.194 At the same time, he also appealed to Henry Compton, the Bishop of London for five Anglican missionaries to be sent permanently amongst the Mohawk, to be provided by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG) shortly after its projected formation.195 Although his settlement of soldiers was in itself intended as a barrier to French influence, Bellomont’s fear of creeping Catholic influence meant that he believed holding the region depended upon more than just soldiers. Protestant missionaries drawn from any source available thus became an integral part of his project. The last piece in Bellomont’s plan lay in New Hampshire, where he imagined he would extend his naval stores project and, while in regular correspondence with colonists there, he did not arrive in New Hampshire until July 1699. His intentions were to vastly expand the production of lumber and masts there to be exported to England via New York City. A substantial amount of the existing production went to Lisbon and was limited by the fact that almost all of the land was owned by the London-based merchant Samuel Allen, who used only a fraction of it.196 Yet by the time of his arrival, the colony was in the throes of an unusual constitutional crisis. The entire grant was disputed by Robert Mason, a relative of the former proprietor and both claimants had appointed their own governments in the colony.197 The first was run by William Partridge a Congregationalist appointed by Mason and favoured by Massachusetts, while the other by Samuel Usher, an Anglican who acted as an advocate for Allen.198 During his brief stay in there, the earl disentangled the legal

193 Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.544–549. 194 His Excellency the Earl of Bellomonts Speech to the Council and House of Representatives, Convened in Generall Assembly, at Boston (1699); Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society: Diary of Cotton Mather, vol.7 (1911), p.356; ‘Bellomont to Stoughton, undated’, Photostat Collection, MHS; ‘The Fellows of Harvard to Governor and Council to Bellomont, 11 June 1698’, Massachusetts Archive: Colonial Period, vol.58, MSA; ‘Resolve of 1700’, Charters and legislative acts relating to the governance of Harvard, 1650–1814, UAI 15.100, Box 3, fo.10, Harvard University Archives (HUA). 195 See Chapter 4, below. Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.766–767. 196 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 23 April 1700’, BOT New Hampshire Correspondence, 1692–1737, CO 5/931, fos.1–2, TNA. Jere R. Daniell, Colonial New Hampshire: A History (1981), pp.101–102; Albert Stillman Batchellor (ed.), Documents Relating to the Masonian Patent (1896), pp.148–152. 197 ‘Usher to Blathwayt, 20 June 1698’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.6, fo.2, LLH; ‘New Hampshire Council Meeting Minutes, 8 February 1697’, ‘New Hampshire Council Meeting Minutes, 9 February 1697’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.12, fo.3, LLH. 198 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 25 August 1699’, Kidd Papers, vol.2, fos.24–26, MHS; ‘John Usher to Blathwayt, 23 October 1696’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.6, fo.1, LLH. 155 problems the colony and mediated an amalgamation of the two governments. Yet after his departure, he accumulated evidence intended to undermine the two claims as well as information about their trade with Portugal, which he claimed was illegal.199 He instructed the Board of Trade to do all that they could to see that both claims were annulled, so that the lands could go to the crown. He believed that this measure would enable production to be expanded, while soldiers could be sent to the region to assist in producing the naval stores, all the while securing the colony from the French.200 With his plans proceeding and having overcome his implication in the Madagascar trade, the earl outlined his naval stores project in full to the Board on 22 June 1700.201 The formal proposal looked like a document Petty could have produced, filled with precise calculations of numbers of sailors it would employ, colonists to be settled and quantities of specie drawn into Stuart dominions. The net effect, he reiterated, would be to reorient Atlantic commerce into Boston and New York City and ensured the northeast’s frontiers were well guarded.202 In August he met with William Penn, then Governor of Pennsylvania, and Francis Nicholson, Governor of Virginia and together they drew up supplementary measures to encourage this transformation of North America. They suggested establishing a mint in New York City for a reliable source of specie, alongside the passage of an act of naturalisation to encourage aliens in migrating to the Americas as well as bounties to any who turned in Madagascar pirates.203 At the end of this summer, the earl evidently believed the time was right to bring his labours to fruition. Yet despite his high expectations, these hopes were dashed when, on 23 October, a vessel arrived into New York City’s harbour with his soldiers from Ireland. Out stepped around a hundred men, ten percent of what he had requested for the lands surrounding Albany.204 To make matters worse, he complained of being sent ‘the vilest fellows ever to wear the king’s livery, the very scum of the army in Ireland and several Irish

199 ‘Bellomont to De Peyster, 30 October 1699’ De Peyster Papers: English Letters, NYHS; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 23rd April 1700’ ‘Sampson Sheafe to Bellomont, 3rd April 1700’, ‘Bellomont to Partridge, 22nd April 1700’, ‘Partridge to Bellomont, 17th April 1700’ BOT New Hampshire Correspondence, 1692–1737, CO 5/931, fos.1–5, 11, 14, TNA. 200 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 23rd April 1700’, Ibid., fos.1–5; Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.501– 507; CSP Col, vol.17, no.267. 201 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 28 February 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fos.117–119, TNA; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044, fos.24–32, TNA. 202 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 June 1700’, Ibid. 203 Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, p.757. 204 ‘Bellomont to Blathwayt, 29 November 1700’, Bellomont Papers, NYHS. 156 papists’. He was told he had to pay them out of any profits he made from the naval stores scheme.205 When he attempted to force them to work for no initial pay, they mutinied and the earl had several of them hanged before dispatching them to Albany where they became part of the Garrison, rather than settlers.206 It was evident that he would not be receiving the labour force he had anticipated. Bellomont believed that the blame for this outcome lay with William Blathwayt, the Tory who had come to dominate the Board of Trade since Locke’s decline in influence and eventual retirement in 1700.207 It was certainly true that Blathwayt did not value the scheme, he had effectively seen to it that all of the risk for the scheme be placed onto the earl by allocating no money, when he knew full well that the earl was in perpetual financial difficulty.208 He had also been in no rush to push the New York land confiscations through and as an ally of Usher from New Hampshire, he did was not exactly taken with Bellomont’s suggestion of annulling his land grants.209 Yet it was not just Blathwayt who had worked to undermine the earl’s proposals. Compton, the Bishop of London had been angered by the earl’s lack of support for his own church and had actively sought his dismissal, as had the Classis of Amsterdam, the governing body which oversaw the Dutch Reformed Church in New York. This latter enemy he developed as part of a dispute with one of their ministers who had substantial landholdings around Albany.210 Fletcher’s allies in New York City had been equally unrelenting in their criticism of Bellomont and had continued to blanket the Board with their complaints.211 In an ill-tempered letter aimed at Blathwayt of 28 November 1700, Bellomont complained of the hypocrisy in the Tories pressing for the confiscation of his own estates in Ireland, what at the same time blocking the vacation of similar grants in North America.212 Restating the innumerable benefits of his own scheme he made

205 Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, p.770. 206 ‘Council Minutes, 16 January 1701’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA. 207 Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, p.815. 208 Ibid., pp.699–700. 209 Batchellor, Documents Relating to the Masonian Patent, 162–163; CSP Col, vol.17, nos.167, 267, 375, 467, 726, 740. 210 ‘Bellomont to BOT, 6 December 1699’, Photostat Collection, JLI; ‘Samuel Staats to De Peyster, 5 June 1699’, ‘Johannes De Peyster to Abraham De Peyster, 26 June 1699’, De Peyster Papers: Dutch Letter Translations, pp.12– 13, 22–24, NYHS; ‘Bellomont to De Peyster, 28 August 1699’, De Peyster Papers: English Letters, NYHS; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 13 April 1699’, ‘Bellomont to BOT, 22 July 1699’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042, fos.84, 252–254, TNA. 211 ‘Bayard to Blathwayt, 23 June 1699’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.7, fo.3, LLH; ‘Petition of the Merchants of London, 14 February 1700’, ‘Petition of the Merchants of New York, undated’, ‘Complaints against the Earl of Bellomont, undated’, ‘Petition of the London Merchants Trading to New York, 12 May 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fos.106, 111, 148–149, 194, TNA. 212 Brodhead, Documents Relative to New York, vol.4, pp.781–797. 157 one last attempt to insist upon more soldiers, citing the economic credentials of his scheme, claiming it was endorsed by writers ranging from Francis Bacon to Charles Davenant, as well as his allies Penn and Nicholson.213 His bluster achieved little: the Board responded coolly and offered no further encouragement.214 This point proved the high water mark of Bellomont’s plan – he died some months later on 5 March 1701, having suffered from severe gout throughout his time in North America. He was briefly succeeded by his son-in-law John Nanfan, who attempted to continue the project before being told to abandon it entirely in April 1702.215

*** For all the effort it had entailed, this was a project which was not realised within his lifetime. As a plan to settle soldiers on a frontier, Bellomont had perhaps over-inflated ambitions for what it could achieve. He sold the scheme as at once an answer to the northeast’s subordinate place in the Atlantic economy, itself the cause of the Madagascar trade, and as a means to halt the advance of French influence. In many ways, the project was how one might expect an Anglo-Irish Protestant to react to the particular challenges of being governor of most of the northeastern colonies; that he would seek to create a society of productive Protestant freeholders pushing forwards the frontier against a Catholic adversary. In developing his naval stores scheme, the earl had doubtless advanced far beyond what Locke had in mind when he had secured Bellomont’s appointment or initially drafted Nicholson’s instructions. Yet it endured as an idea in Whig thought, being implemented by the later Governor of New York, Robert Hunter. In 1709 he settled thousands of German refugees on the frontier, having them produce naval stores while he settled SPG missionaries amongst them.216 In the end, his initial attempt to turn the Madagascar trade against his rivals, his subsequent implication in it and the enemies he made attempting to lay the groundwork for his project undermined him. Yet so did changing circumstances in England, as whatever Locke had intended four years earlier was no longer feasible when circumstances changed. The case of the Earl of Bellomont demonstrates one further attempt to use the existence of pirates to further a particular vision of empire. Fear of Catholic France had outlined a problem but not necessarily a solution, creating a vacuum into which Locke and Bellomont were happy to step.

213 Ibid. 214 ‘BOT to Bellomont, 11 February 1701’, Massachusetts Archive: Colonial Period, vol.20, pp.38–42, MSA. 215 Council Minutes, 14 April 1702’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA. 216 Philip Otterness, Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York (2006), pp.37–59. 1 58

Pirates, understood as the enemy of empire, were first turned against those who opposed Locke’s Atlantis before then becoming a source of labour and specie for the earl’s colonisation project. This scheme itself constituted an attempt to bridge land and sea, to vanquish the enemies in both domains and to do so in a manner that transferred an Irish model of colonisation across the Atlantic. Yet rather than unifying the northeast as had initially been the plan with Bellomont’s appointments, following his death the earl left it more divided than ever and with war on the horizon once again. Antipopery had not proved enough by itself to draw the northeast together and the guise of suppressing trade with Madagascar had presented a means to drive through a particular vision of how the northeast should come to do so. He had to implement a plan of some kind, but with so many private interests to consider and unintended consequences returning to haunt him, it is difficult to imagine how such a task would have ever been possible.

159

IV: Missionary Anglicanism, Quaker Outcasts and Pirates in Pennsylvania, 1691–1702

On the evening of 20 February 1702, the Anglican priest Richard Willis, Dean of Lincoln, delivered a sermon at the Church of St Mary-le-Bow in London. He spoke exclusively about the Americas, the shortcomings of his church there and the imperatives that he believed commanded his fellow clergy to pay them greater attention. Willis believed that the trade and riches that colonisation had brought to England were a sure sign of divine favour, but that these gains were precarious, as all American colonies were beset by enemies: religious dissenters and the agents of hostile Catholic powers.1 He warned that, if the assembled clergy failed to instil due reverence to Anglican worship, then these enemies, as one, would overwhelm them, destroying trade and prosperity. This eventuality could only be understood as righteous divine retribution, he continued, for which they would have themselves to blame.2 This was the first annual sermon delivered for SPG, a missionary organisation formally incorporated the previous year. Beneath the detail was a subtext that other clergymen delivering this sermon also wrestled with: how to embed Anglicanism within processes of overseas expansion. These annual addresses were thus an exercise in positioning, seeing preachers identify the enemies their missionary work would overcome and, persistently, the means by which their faith could be made to accord with profit.3 While these debates ran through the sermons, they were not addressing new questions. The need for Protestant missionary societies to operate alongside overseas expansion had been stressed in England since the 1660s.4 For

1 Richard Willis, A sermon preach’d before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1702), pp.17–18. 2 Ibid., pp.20–24. 3 Consideration of enemies: John Hough, A sermon preach’d before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1705), pp.18–19; William Beveridge, Of the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts: A Sermon Preach’d at St Mary-le-Bow (1707), p.18; William Dawes, A sermon preach'd before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1709), p.14; White Kennett, The lets and impediments in planting and propagating the gospel of Christ. A sermon Preach'd before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1712), p.31; George Stanhope, The early conversion of islanders, a wise Expedient for propagating Christianity. A sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (1714), pp.2, 14–15, 18; Phillip Bisse, A sermon preach’d before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1718), p.11; and how to accord with commerce: Gilbert Burnet, Of the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. A sermon preach’d at St Mary-le-Bow (1704) p.27; Dawes, A Sermon Preach’d, p.14; Charles Trimnell, A Sermon Preach’d Before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in in Foreign Parts (1710), p.23; William Fleetwood, A Sermon Preach’d Before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1711), p.14, 18; White Kennett, The lets and impediments, p.16; Bisse, A Sermon Preach’d, p.17. 4 Gabriel Glickman, ‘Protestantism, Colonisation, and the New England Company in Restoration Politics’, The Historical Journal, vol.59, no.2 (2016), pp.365–391. 160

Anglicans, this question became especially pressing after 1680, exemplified by the writings of Morgan Godwyn, who had spent many years in Virginia. While, on paper, a staunchly Anglican colony, he complained that people there ‘know no other God but Money, nor Religion but Profit’ and, foreshadowing Willis, he retorted that ‘if they do not promote the Christian religion, then it [wealth] will be taken from them just as quickly’.5 In the years between these publications, Anglicans in both England and the Americas began to collaborate in constructing arguments as well as institutional forms to answer this problem. In doing so they sought not simply to combat “irreligion” but to render their faith an intrinsic characteristic of the wider anglophone world. The creation of this missionary society in 1701 represented the most significant consequence of this impulse, but it was a project many years in the making, and one in which pirates came to play a significant role. It was in Pennsylvania, riven by confessional strife after 1691, that a select group of Anglicans saw their greatest opportunity. Robert Snead was an architect and carpenter by trade who relocated from London to Jamaica sometime during the 1680s, before then moving to the Quaker colony in 1695.6 A public disgrace suffered by Snead in 1691 possibly explained his move, but he evidently retained some status, as he was appointed a magistrate.7 Like many who identified with planter interests, Snead was an Anglican and he held an enduring antipathy towards the Society of Friends. In two narratives he produced in 1698, the magistrate wrote extensively of his attempts during previous years to apprehend pirates arriving from Madagascar into Philadelphia, a town he claimed to be flushed with stolen money and goods from the Indian Ocean. Yet Snead was not, as he claimed, simply a loyal crown servant and impartial observer of recent events. The remainder of his two accounts, sent to the prominent Tory William Blathwayt and to Henry Compton, Bishop of London, consisted of claims that Quaker pacifism not only encouraged pirates, but also disguised secret Jacobite sympathies and crypto-popery. His purpose was to convey that a dangerous society had arisen on the Delaware, and to emphasise this point he connected support for pirates to Islam,

5 Morgan Godwyn, Trade preferr’d before Religion and Christ made to give way to Mammon (1685), p.26; Idem, The Negro’s & Indians Advocate, Suing for their Admission to the Church, or, A persuasive to the instructing and baptizing of the Negro's and Indians in our plantations shewing that as the compliance therewith can prejudice no mans just interest, so the wilful neglecting and opposing of it, is no less than a manifest apostacy from the Christian faith (1680), preface. 6 Michael Pawson and David Buisseret, Port Royal, Jamaica (1974), p.120. 7 CSP Col, vol.13, nos.714, 729, 769. 161 claiming he ‘had better live in Turky there is better morality amongst them’.8 Francis Nicholson, then governor of Maryland and a committed Anglican, agreed. After an earlier visit to Pennsylvania in March 1696, Nicholson claimed that ‘I fancied myself to have almost been in Barbary again, for I see little or no worship amongst them’.9 Continuity of association is revealing here. Some twenty years previously, when planters had begun ousting the buccaneers from Jamaica, one of their number claimed to be transforming the ‘Christian Algiers’ into an orderly ‘plantation’.10 Pirates and piracy created an opportunity to transpose variants of this same argument northwards and into entirely new contexts. In this instance, a self-appointed campaign to drive pirates from Pennsylvania resonated with Anglican clergy in England, who sensed the opportunity to build their presence in the Americas and associate radical dissent with immoral trade. This chapter will argue that the ensuing scandal of Quaker trade with pirates in Pennsylvania was created specifically to advance this Anglican missionary project. By the 1690s, Church of England clergy became increasingly aware of how successful the Society of Friends had become in the Americas, growth that was allowing them to exert influence in England. This fact emphasised to Anglicans the need for action against the Quakers, but existing ecclesiastical structures did not provide a means to effectively do so. Three initially separate contexts would interweave to provide a solution. They were attempts to extend the Anglican Church into Maryland, a religious Schism triggered in Pennsylvania and the subsequent investigation into the colony’s sponsoring of pirates. Together, they suggested not just the need to create a missionary society to move against American Quakerism, but how to win the wider support necessary for this project to succeed. Through the coming together of these three contexts, Anglicans were able to construct the Society of Friends as enemies in league with both Catholics and pirates, aligning the advancement of their religion with a defence of commerce and through it the process of overseas expansion more broadly. Across this decade and into the eighteenth century, these strands began to converge on both sides of the Atlantic, seeing this missionary project grow in ambition, before eventually becoming integrated into larger plan to establish the Church of England across the North American Continent, creating an empire built upon common Anglicanism.

8 ‘The Account of Robert Snead, 28 September 1698’, Fulham Papers: Papers of the Bishop of London; Colonial, 1626–1822, vol.7, fo.19, Lambeth Palace Library (LPL); ‘The Narrative of Capt. Robert Snead, 1698’, Blathwayt Papers, vol.7, fol.3, microform copy in Lamont Library Harvard (LLH). 9 ‘Nicholson to Thomas Tenison, 18 March 1696’ in Fulham Papers, vol.2, fos.51–52. 10 Quoted in Dunn, Sugar and Slaves, p.158. 162

In making this argument, the following chapter also synthesises the existing literature on early modern pirates, missionary Anglicanism and Atlantic Quakerism. At the time of writing, Gary Nash’s study of early Pennsylvania politics remains the blueprint for how the presence of pirates in the colony is more widely understood. While a thorough analysis, it remains confined almost entirely to Pennsylvania and centres upon the Quaker struggle to actually act against pirates, with only a cursory examination of any wider context.11 Histories of early modern pirates largely follow after Nash, though in recent years they have added valuable further details about participation in the Madagascar trade in the colony.12 To these works, this chapter adds the contexts of both a larger Anglican design for the Americas and the transatlantic dimension in detail, situating the presence of pirates there in local, regional and oceanic contexts. Studies of particular religious confessions persistently emphasise the significance of the 1690s in creating transatlantic faiths, but remain largely separate from one another and retain their own particular emphases. When accounting for the creation of missionary Anglicanism, scholars neither touch upon the role played by Madagascar pirates, nor dedicate a great deal of space to Pennsylvania. In fact, they tend to be interested predominantly in the English contexts of the formation of the SPG, rather than allocating an especially important role for the Americas.13 Equally, studies of the Quakers as an Atlantic denomination have traditionally remained self-contained. They have tended to present an image of a closed sect, rather than one engaged with the wider world, a tendency that has begun to be challenged in recent years. 14 The chapter that follows presents a history of both denominations as

11 Gary Nash, Quakers and Politics: Pennsylvania, 1681–1726, 2nd ed. (1993). 12 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.3–5, 232–247; Burgess, Politics of Piracy, pp.115–142. 13 For the English context for the Church of England see: David L. Wykes, ‘So bitterly Censur’d and Revil’d: Religious Dissent and Relations with the Church of England after the Toleration Act’ in Richard Bonney, D.J.B. Trim (eds.), Persecution and Pluralism: Calvinists and Religious Minorities in Early Modern Europe 1550–1700 (2006), pp.295–314; Tim Harris, ‘Incompatible Revolutions?’, pp.204–225; Travis Glasson, Mastering Christianity, pp.16–39; Craig Rose, ‘The Origins and Ideals of the SPCK 1699–1716’ in John Walsh, Colin Haydon and Stephen Taylor (eds.), The Church of England c.1689–c.1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (1993), pp.172–190, esp. p.179; the literature on the formation of the SPG includes: James B. Bell, The Imperial Origins of the King’s Church in Early America, 1607–1783 (2004), pp.26–40; Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven, pp.41–61; Daniel O’Connor, Three Centuries of Mission: the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 1701–2000 (2000), pp.5–11; J.C.D. Clark, The Language of Liberty 1660–1832: Political Discourse and Social Dynamics in the Anglo-American World (1994), pp.167–178; Butler, Awash in a Sea of Faith, pp.127–128; Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities and Politics (1962); Ruth M. Winton, ‘Governor Francis Nicholson’s Relations with the SPG, 1701–1727’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, vol.17 no.3 (1948), pp.274–286. 14 Geoffrey Plank, ‘Forum: Quakers as Political Players in Early America’, WMQ, vol.74, no.1 (2017), pp.35–42; ‘“Fix’d almost amongst Strangers”: Charleston's Quaker Merchants and the Limits of Cosmopolitanism’, Ibid., pp.77–108, esp.106–107; Block, ‘Cultivating Inner and Outer Plantations’, pp.515–548; Gragg, The Quaker Community on Barbados; John Smolenski, Friends and Strangers: The Making of a Creole Culture in Colonial 163 far more entangled than is often conveyed, the issue of Quaker trade with Madagascar itself coming to demonstrate how much the two faiths exerted an influence on one another. The chapter is structured in four sections. The first considers how shifting trans-Atlantic migration patterns during the seventeenth century served to concentrate Anglicanism in English plantation colonies, but how at the same they precipitated the rise of Quakerism as a transatlantic confession. The latter fact was something that English Anglicans first became aware of when they two began to spill over into Maryland, where the clergyman Thomas Bray began to conceive of the need for a missionary society and to conflate the threats presented by Quakers and Catholics. It then tracks the Schism triggered in Pennsylvania by George Keith during the early part of the decade, in response to a fear of creeping worldliness within the Society of Friends. His own arguments about how they should deal with pirates eventually saw him cast out of the Society of Friends, a position from which he was able to stress the dangers posed by the Quakers and win favour within the Anglican Church. The third section follows the initial investigation into pirates in the colony, tracing how Anglicans attempted to make it an issue of Quaker pacifism and veiled crypto-popery. The fourth and final part demonstrates how the Quakers began to respond to this growing threat from an emergent missionary Anglicanism. It considers how William Penn first began to dismantle the allegation that Quakers alone sponsored pirates and his subsequent efforts to scupper a larger plan to rescind all non-royal colonial charters that Anglican efforts had fuelled.

*** The contest that emerged in Pennsylvania between Quakers and Anglicans did not exist in isolation from the rest of North America. In fact, it was the product of long-term trends in Atlantic migration and religious conversion, which began to converge from the 1680s. It was within the context of Maryland, initially a haven for Catholics, that these two American confessions met and, as a consequence, initial plans for an Anglican missionary project were conceived. There, the background of war with France informed how advocates of this future society argued for its necessity, presenting it as an endeavour confronting the entwined threats of Catholicism and radical dissent, the case eventually made in parallel in both Pennsylvania and England.

Pennsylvania (2010), pp.1–12; Matthew Zimmerman, ‘Married to Faith: the Colonial American Quakers and the Trans-Atlantic Community’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2006); Jean R. Soderlund, Quakers & Slavery: A Divided Spirit (1985); Landes, London Quakers; Rebecca Larson, Daughters of Light: Quaker Women Preaching and Prophesying in the Colonies and Abroad, 1700–1775 (1999). 164

The colonisation of the Americas by migrants from England has often been portrayed as a dissenting phenomenon, but the majority of those who made the crossing before the 1680s had not separated from the Anglican Church. In the years before the founding of Pennsylvania in 1681, up to 400,000 people migrated westwards into these dominions, around 200,000 of who travelled to the Caribbean and 120,000 to the Chesapeake Bay. New England, the only region with an established dissenting majority, received around 20,000 white immigrants around the Great Migration of the 1630s, while continuing small levels of migration and a natural increase thereafter saw its white population rise to around 60,000 by 1680.15 The majority of both whites and blacks initially migrated to plantation economies far to the south of New England. With the notable exception of Maryland, earliest settlement saw loose forms of religious toleration predominate, followed by some favourable status allocated for Anglicans.16 The nominal or assumed privilege granted to the Anglican Church in most of the plantation colonies primarily stemmed from the social and national backgrounds of migrants. Three quarters of those who emigrated were of the lowest socioeconomic status and did so under the terms of indenture; the majority were English but with a substantial minority of Irish Catholics.17 In these early plantation economies, the majority of both whites and blacks were “unchurched”, being ecclesiologically non-dogmatic but with a broad allegiance to Protestantism amongst the English colonists.18 Forms of religious diversity existed, but not necessarily along strict denominational lines, a state of being that appeared to most clergymen as a lack of religion. There was, however, a minority who actively supported the importation of formal Anglicanism into their societies. Wealthier planters increasingly saw the Church of England as a cultural anchor, an important source of authority in increasingly non-white and, largely as a consequence, non-Christian societies.19 Their influence

15 William O’Reilly, ‘Movements in the Atlantic World, 1450–1850’ in Canny and Morgan, Oxford Handbook of the Atlantic World, p.316; John J. McCusker, ‘Colonial Statistics’ in Susan B. Carter et al. (eds.), Historical Statistics of the United States, Volume 5; Governance and International Relations (2006), p.652. 16 Measures ranged from formal establishment to the appointment of sympathetic governors: Jeremy Gregory, ‘“Establishment” and “Dissent” in British North America’ in Stephen Forster (ed.), British North America in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (2013), pp.147–148; S. Charles Bolton, Southern Anglicanism: The Church of England in Colonial South Carolina (1982), pp.16–36; ‘Instructions for Thomas Windsor, 21 March 1662’, Fulham Papers, vol.17, fos.93–94, LPL; ‘Act for the support of the Ministry on the Island of Nevis, 14 June 1681’, Ibid., vol.19, fo.1, LPL. 17 O’Reilly, ‘Movements of People’, p.316; Block and Shaw, ‘Subjects Without an Empire’, pp.33–60; ‘Hilary Beckles, ‘A “riotous and unruly lot”’, pp.504–522. 18 Carla Gardina Pestana, Protestant Empire: Religion and the Marking of the Atlantic World (2009), pp.73–84; Butler, Awash in a Sea of Faith, pp.37–66. 19 Sarah Barber, ‘“Let him be an Englishman”: Irish and Scottish Clergy in the Caribbean Church of England 1610– 1720’ in Allan I. MacInnes and Douglas Hamilton (eds.), Jacobitism, Enlightenment and Empire, 1680–1820 (2014), 165 ensured that, before 1681, a small but steadily growing number of clergy were sent to both the Caribbean and the Chesapeake, in many instances at the behest of wealthier plantation owners.20 When they did think about the Americas, the Anglican episcopate initially positioned itself against the “unchurched” nature of these plantation societies, bringers of order and stability to unnatural, immoral places. As Morgan Godwin remarked in 1680, the clergy faced a ‘dangerous Conspiracy, even against Christianity’ and their church had to ‘defend and preserve which, against the Hellish contrivances of our Anti-Religionists’.21 In the thirty years following the Restoration, shifts in migration demographics produced a conspicuous growth of organised, churched dissent in the Americas. This was a change that occurred across North America and West Indies, including in plantation colonies. For instance, in the earliest years of the colony of Carolina, chartered in 1663, despite some attempts to allocate provisions for an Anglican minister there, the colony quickly became a haven for dissent.22 Two of the proprietors, the Quaker John Archdale and the latitudinarian Earl of Craven, actively recruited dissenters from Britain and France, with the result that more than half of the colony’s 4000 white settlers were non-Anglicans by 1700.23 What the case of Carolina illustrates here is the tailing off of indentured migration, replaced by an expanding quantity of both dissenting and non- English immigrants after 1660. Most notable was the rapid expansion of Quakerism, whose adherents were initially scattered around the northeastern Atlantic seaboard and the Caribbean. They secured initial converts through missionary tours by their ‘public friends’, as in the example of the radical Quaker John Perrot, who journeyed through Barbados, Jamaica and Maryland after 1662, with his preaching winning a sizeable number of converts in each colony.24 These efforts

pp.75–92; Trevor Burnard, Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite 1691–1776 (2002), pp.10–12; Louis P. Nelson, ‘The Diversity of Countries: Anglican Churches in Virginia, South Carolina and Jamaica’ in David S. Shields (ed.), Material Culture in Anglo-America: Regional Identity and Urbanity in the Tidewater, Lowcountry and Caribbean (2009), pp.74–101. During this period in the Chesapeake and further south, White and Christian became interchangeable, whilst being a “heathen” became entangled with being non-white. 20 Bell, Imperial Origins, pp.3–25. 21 Morgan Godwyn, The Negro's & Indians advocate, unpaginated introduction. 22 The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1699), nos.96, 100. 23 William O’Reilly, ‘Working for the Crown: German Migrants and Britain’s Commercial Success in the Early Eighteenth-Century American Colonies’, Journal of Modern European History, vol.15, no.1 (2017), pp.132–141; Van Ruymbeke, From New Babylon to Eden, pp.35–49; Roper, Conceiving Carolina, pp.51–52; Bolton, Southern Anglicanism, pp.17–19. 24 Adrian Chastain Weimer, Martyrs’ Mirror: Persecution and Holiness in Early New England (2011), pp.98–117; Gragg, The Quaker Community on Barbados, pp.38–57; April Lee Hatfield, Atlantic Virginia: Intercolonial Networks in the Seventeenth Century (2007), pp.133–134; Richard Cullen Rath, How Early America Sounded (2003), pp.120–144. At least 50 public friends had visited New England before 1672, ‘A Register of all the Public 166 had commenced even earlier to the north in New England through figures such as Elizabeth Hooton and Mary Fisher, ensuring that by 1670 Quaker meetings existed from Barbados to Rhode Island and southern Massachusetts, from Oyster Bay on Long Island to the eastern shores of Maryland and Virginia.25 The visit of the Quaker leader George Fox after 1671 began to draw these dispersed converts together by organising them into a formalised meeting structure. However, the largest growth of Quakerism was still to follow, occurring through their emigration into the ‘Middle Colonies’, the region of North America spanning roughly from the southern shores of the Hudson River to the mouth of the Delaware Bay.26 Dissenters and non-English colonists flowed into this region, seeing the white population there swell from 4300 in 1660 to 32,000 by 1690.27 Quaker migration to the colonies of Pennsylvania and West Jersey made up a high proportion of these numbers, at least 10,000 by 1685 and with substantial growth thereafter.28 Meanwhile, white migration to plantation colonies did not keep pace; their population south of New Jersey fell from roughly 65% of the total number of North American whites in 1660 to fewer than 50% by 1690.29 Only as migration demographics and destinations shifted following the Restoration did the balance in the Americas began to tip towards religious dissenters, and the Quakers represented this era’s greatest success story. At the same time that dissenters came to flourish in the Americas, they began to enjoy commercial success, in turn prompting the formation of transatlantic interest groups. The intensification of Atlantic exchange was the most fundamental factor in this shift, with the ocean coming to account for almost 20% of England’s overseas commerce by 1700.30 Towns such as

Friends who have Visited New England Since the Year 1656’, New England Yearly Meeting Records: Registers of Visitors, vol.1, RIHS. 25 Adrian Chastain Weimer, ‘Elizabeth Hooton and the lived Politics of Toleration in Massachusetts Bay’, WMQ, vol.74, no.1 (2017), pp.43–76; Hatfield, Atlantic Virginia, pp.129–134; William G. McLoughlin, New England Dissent 1630–1833: Volume 1, The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State (1971), p.166; Kenneth L. Carroll, ‘Maryland Quakers in the Seventeenth Century’, Maryland Historical Magazine, vol.47 (1952), pp.297–313. 26 Edwin B. Bronner, ‘Quaker Discipline and Order, 1680–1720: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and London Yearly Meeting’ in Richard S. Dunn and Mary Maples Dunn (eds.), The World of William Penn (1986), pp.323–324; Norman Penny (ed.), The Journal of George Fox (1924), pp.271–315. 27 McCusker, ‘Colonial Statistics’, p.652. 28 Ned C. Landsman, ‘The Middle Colonies: New Opportunities for Settlement 1660–1700’ in Canny, Oxford History of the British Empire, vol.1, pp.355–363. 29 McCusker, ‘Colonial Statistics’, p.652; Beckles, ‘Hub of Empire’, p.223. This decline continued into the eighteenth century as white indentured servants were replaced by African and to a lesser extent, Native American slaves. 30 Zahedieh, The Capital and the Colonies, p.31. This trend continued into the eighteenth century, by 1797, the Americas had come to account for 39% of imports and 57% of exports for Britain, Kenneth Morgan, Slavery, Atlantic Trade and the British Economy, 1660–1800 (2001), p.18. 167

London and Bristol began to reorient themselves towards Atlantic exchange, as urban populations swelled and their people began finding employment in overseas trade.31 One result was that, as organised religious dissent in the Americas grew, the change was mirrored by English merchants. In 1660, commerce was generally conducted without preference as to region or religious denomination, but by 1690 these merchants had specialised regionally, with groups such as the Jews, Baptists and Quakers forming commercial associations.32 The common cause of entwined commercial and confessional interest also produced campaigns of political lobbying, as planters and merchants began to intervene in government on both sides of the ocean.33 The Quakers became the most effective and unified trans-Atlantic lobbying group, utilising their regular Meeting for Sufferings in London to offer financial support and political pressure in support of other Friends. The earliest recorded instance of their trans-Atlantic influence was an appeal for changes to the Barbados charter in 1677, one of a handful of their interventions before 1680.34 Over the following decade they consolidated these lobbying operations, first organising out of a coffee house near to Parliament in London, and then establishing regular contact between the yearly meetings in the Americas and London after 1687.35 The parallel regularisation of Atlantic commerce and growth of North American religious dissent saw trade effectively balkanise and the Society of Friends emerge as an assertive, institutionalised pressure group. In other words, while the Quakers remained a minority in England, who struggled under the Anglican hegemony that characterised the Restoration, their presence in the Americas increasingly served to give them a political voice on the other side of the Atlantic. For Anglicans, both the expansion of Quakerism in the Americas and the influence they were able to exert in England only came into focus over the latter’s attempts to expand their influence into Maryland. Henry Compton was pivotal in seeking to promote the Anglican Church’s presence in the colony, but he soon encountered an unexpectedly well-organised Quaker opposition. The bishop’s interest in the region came both from his position as one of the Lords of Trade and the jurisdiction of his see over the church beyond Britain and Ireland.36 Like many other Anglican

31 Zahedieh, Capital and the Colonies, pp.17–54; Sacks, The Widening Gate, p.12. 32 Rosalind J. Beiler, ‘Dissenting Religious Communication Networks and European Migration, 1660–1710’ in Bailyn and Denault, Soundings in Atlantic History, p.39. 33 Ibid.; Olson, Making the Empire Work, pp.51–75. 34 Landes, London Quakers, pp.65–70. 35 Ibid., p.68; formal yearly exchanges between the meetings began with ‘Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Epistle, 1687’, London Yearly Meeting: Epistles Recieved, vol.1, p.22, FHL. 36 ‘Journal of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 21 January 1676’, CSP Col, vol.9, no.789. 168 clergymen, his initial interest in the Americas was occasional and predominantly concerned with the “irreligion” of plantation colonies rather than dissent further north.37 Compton’s first interventions in Maryland are characteristic of initial Anglican attempts to secure a stronger position in the Americas, being conducted through favourable colonial legislation. In July 1677, the first such effort came when he attempted to secure salaries for Anglican ministers there paid out of the common purse. Maryland, at this stage, was a proprietary colony and promised full liberty of conscience, and on these grounds he was denied this measure.38 However, this basic fact changed in 1692, when, following the overthrow of the colony’s Catholic government in 1689 by John Coode’s “Protestant Associators”, Maryland was converted to a royal colony. The persecution endured by some Anglican clergy during this predominantly Puritan rebellion likely led to the orders given to the first royal governor, Lionel Copley, to ensure that the Church of England was protected there.39 Yet by this point Maryland had a substantial Quaker population, for whom this string of events quickly became unpalatable. In particular, the imposition of compulsory oaths of allegiance for official positions effectively excluded both themselves and Catholics from the colony’s representative assembly.40 This left an Anglican-dominated legislature free to pass an act providing salaries for Church of England ministers, and Quaker leaders believed their only recourse was to launch a campaign to repeal the act in England.41 Coordinated by the London Meeting for Sufferings, they pressured influential figures in London, culminating in their sending an address to William III in January 1696. They did not argue that the measures contravened religious toleration, but that they were invalid, as they asserted that the Magna Carta extended to North America.42 Compton and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Tenison, lobbied hard to resist their efforts, but the Quakers’ arguments won through, and the act was declared void following their petition.43

37 ‘Order of the King in Council, 8 June 1677’, Ibid., vol.10, no.291; ‘Journal of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 17 July 1677’, Ibid., no.339; ‘Sir Thomas Lynch to the Bishop of London, 23 October 1682’, Ibid., vol.11, no.757; ‘The Bishop of London to Mr. Mearn, 24 October 1684’, Ibid., no.1329. 38 ‘John Yeo to William Sancroft, 25 May 1676’, William Hand Brown (ed.), Archives of Maryland, vol.5 (1887), p.130; ‘Minutes of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 19 July 1677’, CSP Col, vol.10, no.348. 39 ‘Thomas Smithson to Compton, 1690’, Ibid., vol.14, no.975; ‘Address of the Inhabitants of Calvert County, 1689’, William Hand Brown (ed.), Archives of Maryland, vol.8 (1890), pp.129–131. 40 ‘Council and Burgesses of Maryland to Thomas Tenison, 18 October 1694’, Miscellaneous Documents, 1595– 1715, MS 953, no.24, LPL; David W. Jordan, ‘“Gods Candle” Within Government: Quakers and Politics in Early Maryland’, WMQ, vol.39, no.4 (1982), pp.647–649. 41 ‘Maryland Yearly Meeting Epistle, 15d 3mo 1695’, LYM Epistles Received, vol.1, pp.277–278, FHL; ‘Yearly Meeting Minutes, 1d 4mo, 1696’, London Yearly Meeting: Minutes, vol.2, p.130, FHL. 42 ‘Order from the Court at Kensington, 4 January 1696’, Fulham Papers, vol.2, fos.48–49, LPL. 43 ‘A memorial representing the rise progress and issue of Dr. Bray's Activities in Maryland, 1705’, Thomas Bray Papers, 1697–1705, MS 79–1, Series 1, Box 29, fol.1, University of Maryland Special Collections (MSC). 169

Not deterred in their efforts, Maryland’s Anglicans continued their attempts to secure a form of establishment in the colony, stressing the danger presented by the pact between the Quakers and the Catholics that had emerged. Following the failure of the first act, Compton instructed the newly appointed governor of Maryland, Francis Nicholson, to pass a new version immediately.44 In June 1696, Nicholson warned the Archbishop of Canterbury that Catholics and Quakers would oppose it and that the latter group was already setting out to secure its annulment in England.45 The measures Nicholson had introduced included annual salaries for Anglican ministers, as well as provisions for schools in the colony, with the objective of ‘putting a stop to Papists and Quakers and bringing them over to the reformed religion’.46 As anticipated, Maryland’s Quakers resisted, dispatching four of their number to England in 1697.47 Reports from the Maryland clergy to Compton stressed the importance of the acts for their future in the colony, claiming that the Quakers increased their numbers through conversion and Catholics through Irish immigration; if the acts did not pass soon, they warned, the colony would be ‘overrun with enthusiasm, idolatry & atheism’.48 Yet this alliance became central to the case being made by Maryland’s Anglicans in favour of the legislation. Their position was that an alliance of Quakers and Catholics threatened to replicate the situation in the northeast, where the French used Jesuits to destabilise the region.49 Yet, amid another Quaker lobbying campaign, the new acts followed their predecessor and were eventually declared void in November 1699.50 Twice thwarted by their opponents, Compton and Maryland’s Anglican clergy were surprised by both the number and spread of Quakerism in North America and how they were able to translate it into political influence in England. Even though what Anglicans attempted in Maryland was a continuation of what they had applied further south in previous years, it quickly became evident that, in the face of Quaker and Catholic opposition, new strategies were required. Acting upon the comments of Godwyn and others from

44 Ibid. 45 ‘Francis Nicholson to Thomas Tenison, 12 June 1696’, Fulham Papers, vol.2, fos.53–54, LPL. 46 ‘Nicholson to Board of Trade, 27 March 1697’, CSP Col, vol.15, no.862. 47 ‘Maryland Yearly Meeting Epistle, 1697’, LYM Epistles Received, vol.1, pp.283–285, FHL. 48 ‘The Clergy of Maryland to Compton, 14 May 1698, Fulham Papers, vol.2, fos.100–3, LPL; Michael J. Graham, ‘Meetinghouse and Chapel: Religion and Community in Seventeenth-Century Maryland’ in Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B. Russo (eds.), Colonial Chesapeake Society (1988), p.247; McCusker, ‘Colonial Statistics’, p.652; Rufus M. Jones, The Quakers in the American Colonies (1911), p.xvi. 49 ‘Clergy of Maryland to Compton, undated’, ‘A Memorial Representing the present case of the Church in Maryland, 1698’, Fulham Papers, vol.2, fos.139–140, 183–187, LPL. 50 The new governor Nathaniel Blackiston put this failure down to Quaker lobbying efforts: ‘Nathaniel Blackiston to Tenison, 10 April 1700, Ibid., fos.137–8. 170

Virginia, during 1689 Compton appointed the Scottish priest James Blair as commissary in Virginia, a position intended to provide a clearer organisation for Anglican clergy there.51 In Maryland, he did the same in 1695, appointing the priest Thomas Bray as commissary.52 Even before departing, Bray believed that success in Maryland would be difficult to achieve through existing ecclesiastical structures. A parish system was unsuitable where the majority were not Anglicans, and they could not match the money, resources or influence that the Quaker meeting structure provided.53 To resolve this problem, Bray came up with a number of different projects. His first was a scheme to settle a series of libraries in Maryland and eventually elsewhere, although these would be funded by voluntary contributions rather than directly by the Church of England.54 A supplementary scheme was the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), intended to provide books and cheap print to aid in promoting Anglican worship more generally.55 Significantly, sometime after the failure of the first act, Bray and Compton then drew up more formal plans for what was effectively an extension of Bray’s voluntary contributions for parochial libraries into a means to fund ministers’ salaries. This endeavour they eventually called their Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, an Anglican missionary society, which referenced the Catholic missionary organisation of the same name established by Pope Gregory XV in 1622.56 Bray and Compton looked to projects beyond the Anglican Church as it existed at the time and, as this initial proposal suggests, felt the need to position it as a rival to Catholic influence globally. Conflating the threat posed by Quakerism in the Americas with Catholicism was especially important, as only a society to combat the latter could command unequivocal support from public authorities in England. In 1699 Bray journeyed to Maryland, where he founded libraries, preached across the colony and attempted to rally support for the new acts. All the while, he worked to stress that Quakers and Catholics had begun to blur together.57 This sentiment was expressed most

51 James B. Bell, Empire, Religion and Revolution in Early Virginia, 1607–1786 (2013), pp.119–123. 52 Commissaries were appointed by the Bishop of London as deputies in individual colonies to oversee the clergy and protect the church’s interest in the colony. 53 ‘Thomas Bray to William Dent, 10 March 1703’, Series 1, Box 26, fol.1, Bray Papers, MSC. 54 ‘Proposals for the Encouragement and Promoting of Religion and Learning in the Foreign Plantations, 1697’, Ibid., Series 1, Box 1, fol.1, MSC; Thomas Bray, Proposals for the Encouragement and promoting of Religion and Learning in the Foreign Plantations (1695); Thomas Bray, Proposals for the encouragement and promoting of religion and learning in the foreign plantations (1697). 55 Sirota, Christian Monitors, pp.102–108. 56 ‘A True Narrative’, Bray Papers, Series 1, Box 30, fol.63, MSC; ‘Proposals for a Protestant Congregatio de Propaganda Fide’, Fulham Papers, vol.10, fo.10, LPL. 57 ‘Thomas Bray to Tenison, 11 April 1700’, Fulham Papers, vol.2, fos.139–140, LPL. 171 succinctly in his letter to Compton in 1700, in which he stressed the continuing urgency of a missionary society, as they risked allowing ‘ye papists as well as ye Quakers to be one’.58 Despite the clergy’s persistent warnings, the SPG was founded the following year through a charter proclaiming that its principle purpose was to combat the influence of Catholicism in the Americas, not work against radical dissent.59 Nevertheless, during its earliest years, the SPG dedicated much of its attention to converting Quakers, far more than to working against Catholic influence. There was, therefore, a gulf between what Anglicans intended and the motivations that public institutions would actually support. Bray and Compton signalled their intention to close this gap when they initially spoke of their project as the Protestant Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, an attempt to render the advance of Anglicanism synonymous with that of Protestantism in the Americas. Making the case that Quakerism was indistinguishable from Catholicism was thus part of this larger design to draw together an empire unified through common Anglicanism. Events in Pennsylvania during the early part of the 1690s would come to substantially aid this effort.

*** The greatest ally whom Anglicans in England and Maryland were able to enlist actually came from the ranks of Pennsylvania’s Quakers. That person was George Keith, who triggered a schism in the colony during late 1691. This division not only furnished Bray’s project with a pool of potential converts, but also allowed Anglicans in England to argue for the danger posed by Pennsylvania, or ‘new Rome’, as one writer called the colony. In its earliest days, the Keithian Schism grew out of Quaker attempts to deal with very similar challenges to those faced by Anglicans. By the 1690s, the considerable commercial successes of Friends in Pennsylvania, aided by the influx of goods from Madagascar, raised questions about how to ensure religious principles were retained when overseas expansion was increasingly focused on personal gain. In January 1691, their founder George Fox expressed this anxiety when he wrote to the colony’s leaders that ‘you are not as you were in the beginning [and] if God give increase, lett not your heart be sett upon it, for outward things are uncertain’.60 In Quaker theology, this preoccupation with ‘outward things’ was known

58 ‘A Memorial Representing the State of the Church in Maryland, 1700’, Ibid., fo.184. 59 Charter of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (1701), p.1. 60 ‘About Friends Trading and Dealing for the Honour of Truth some have not Minded & Brought an Ill Savour’, A Collection of Episles from George Fox and Others, 1662–1699, MS C5.1, p.30, Haverford College Quaker Collection (HCQC). 172 as worldliness, a vice that extended to the pursuit of status as much as material wealth. It was Keith’s initial concern about this form of declension that would first spark this controversy among his coreligionists. Originally from Aberdeenshire, Keith was a respected figure within Scotland’s early Quaker movement.61 After spending almost two decades in and out of gaol during the Restoration, by 1685 Keith had opted, like hundreds of other Quakers from Scotland, to relocate to the Jersies.62 Following his arrival, Keith became concerned with the need to steer his coreligionists between what William Penn defined as those who ‘go beyond’ into heresy and ‘stay behind’ in worldliness.63 Initially, he detected problems of both varieties. Writing to the London Yearly Meeting in 1688, he began voicing his concerns about the practices of Quakers in America, complaining that Ranterism was still common amongst them.64 This heterodoxy was undoubtedly a result of the diverse origins of Friends in Pennsylvania and the Jersies, containing members from across England, Scotland and Ireland as well as the Low Countries and Germany.65 Equally and as he subsequently made clear, Keith had misgivings about the fact that Quakers both occupied positions of government and tended to also be Public Friends – elders who functioned as spiritual leaders for the denomination.66 The occupying of political office had in the past been shunned by many Quakers, particularly where it required the endorsement of violence or the ‘carnal sword’ as they termed it.67 Keith believed it was his duty to act against both of these trends, but he ultimately placed blame for the growth of heresy with the Pennsylvania’s Public Friends. Believing that the provisions

61 Ethyn Williams Kirby, George Keith (1638–1716) (1942), pp.1–34 and Kenneth Andrew Shelton, ‘The way cast up: The Keithian Schism in an English Enlightenment Context’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2009), pp.31–133. 62 Kirby, George Keith, pp.19–46. 63 ‘Minutes of Ministering Friends, 14d 7mo 1700’, Phildelphia Yearly Meeting: Meeting of Ministers and Elders, vol.1, pp.59–60, HCQC. 64 The Ranters were a loose spiritualist and largely antinomian movement which initially rivaled the Quakers during the English Interregnum, with many of their number being later absorbed into the Society of Friends. See: Jerome Friedman, Blasphemy, Immorality and Anarchy: The ranters and he English Revolution (1987), ‘Keith to George Fox and George Whitehead, 22d 3m 1688’ in George Whitehead, The Power of Christ Vindicated Against the Magick of Apostacy: in Answer to George Keith’s Book (1708). 65 Barry Levy, Quakers and the American Family: British Settlement in the Delaware Valley (1988), pp.279–280; William Isaac Hull, William Penn and the Dutch Quaker Migration to Pennsylvania (1935), pp.178–188; Clare J.L. Martin, ‘Controversy and Division in Post-Restoration Quakerism: the Hat, Wilkinson-Story and Keithian Controversies and Comparisons with the Internal Divisions of Other Seventeenth-Century Non-Conformist Groups’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2003), p.228. 66 Smolenski, Friends and Strangers, pp.65–70. 67 Douglas Gwyn, ‘Quakers, Eschatology and Time’ in Stephen W. Angell and Ben Pink Dandelion (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies (2013), pp.204–206. 173 offered by the meeting structure were inadequate to deal with these problems, during early 1691 Keith first published a catechism and then produced a series of proposals entitled Gospel Order Improved, which he presented to a meeting of Philadelphia’s religious leaders.68 It proposed measures like the establishment of charity schools, but also complained about heresy among America’s Quakers, as well as those who ‘have taken up the outward profession not from a true inward convincement…but some worldly interest or advantage’.69 Some of the Public Friends perhaps interpreted its allusions to worldliness as a criticism, and their hostility became evident when two of their number accused him of heresy later that year.70 Keith interpreted this as an attempt to silence him and responded by making his criticism more explicit, responding that they ‘cloak heresies & errors’ and that one of their members had remarked ‘when we are Kings we are not to begg and pray to God’.71 Many of the colony’s Quakers supported the criticisms that Keith made and began attending the separate meetings he established in December 1691; thereafter, his adherents became popularly known as Keithians.72 Throughout the controversies that followed, Keithian criticisms remained consistent, arguing that the colony’s leaders cared little for doctrinal orthodoxy and occupied their positions purely for worldly gain. It was amid these attacks on the worldliness of Pennsylvania’s leaders that pirates first surfaced as a problem for the colony’s Quaker leaders. The question of how they should respond to the presence of pirates had already emerged during early 1691, when a sailor named Babbitt and his crew were reported to have attacked shipping on the Delaware. Quaker pacifism made this a difficult issue to resolve, however. In the end, the Public Friends opted to send unarmed men to apprehend the crew, who, upon seeing what they must have believed to be an armed militia, fled.73 Though quickly resolved, Keith would make a great deal of capital out of this episode. He was

68 George Keith, A plain short catechism for children & youth (1690), unpaginated introduction; ‘Minutes of Ministering Friends, 1d 1mo 1690’ in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting: Ministers and Elders, vol.1, pp.8–9, HCQC. 69 ‘Gospel Order Improved, 1690’, Documents Relating to the Keithian Schism, Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College (SCQC). Keith based his proposals on Robert Barclay, The Anarchy of the Ranters and other Libertines (1676), pp.47–65. Jon Butler in particular flags this document as fundamental in prompting the schism as it undermined ministerial authority, Jon Butler, ‘“Gospel Order Improved”: The Keithian Schism and the Exercise of Quaker Ministerial Authority in Pennsylvania’, WMQ, vol.31, no.3 (1974), pp.436–440. A commentary, written by one of the public friends is in Robert Proud Collection, 1681–1811, MS 529, HSP. 70 George Keith, Some Reasons and Causes of the Late Separation Here at Philadelphia (1692), pp.8–10. 71 ‘Meeting of Ministering Friends, 4d 4mo 1692’, PYM Ministers and Elders, vol.1, p.15; ‘Some Propositions in Order to Heale the Breach Amongst us, 18d, 2mo 1692’, Keithian Schism Documents, SCQC. 72 ‘Epistle from Chester Quarterly Meeting to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, Early Quaker Collection, Etting Papers, HSP. 73 George Keith, Some brief remarks upon a late book, entituled, George Keith once more brought to the test (1704), p.5. 174 aided by the fact that the sheriff who apprehended Babbitt and the colony’s only printer took his side during the Schism. Their defection made him both aware of this episode and able to distribute his arguments in print widely as a consequence. His most incendiary tract was the Appeal from the Twenty Eight Judges, which criticised the colony’s leaders for endorsing violence, citing their response to Babbitt.74 The Public Friends deemed that this attack went beyond a matter of conscience to become sedition and issued a warrant for the arrest of Keith and two of his supporters. In the warrant, they cited that Keith had ‘Traduced and vilely misrepresented…some Magistrates and others here, in their late proceedings against the Privateers, [viz.] Babitt and his Crew’, with the Appeal in general having ‘a tendency to Sedition, and Disturbance of the Peace, as also to the Subversion of the Present Government’.75 Keith and a number of his followers were then arrested sometime in late June 1692. The Public Friends may not have realised it at the time, but the biggest mistake they made during the Schism was to have Keith prosecuted. The prosecuting lawyer cited the Appeal’s criticism of their response to Babbitt, as well as other personal insults from Keithians that they felt represented both contempt of magisterial authority and a threat to Quaker unity.76 The Keithian’s defence, however, began with the insistence that any insults they offered were to ‘private persons’ in religious meetings, and they supported this with a lengthy condemnation of the Public Friends for betraying their commitment to nonviolence.77 The salient point, Keith argued, was that ‘as Magistrates they were obliged to do what they did and it was commendable in them who did so commissionate and hire Men to fight’, but ‘the great Question is, Whether they did not transgress as they professed to be Ministers and Quakers?’78 Despite Keith’s attempt to make the trial about the Public Friends, it concluded in favour of the prosecution; he and one of his followers were fined

74 ‘Epistle to all Friends, 20d 4mo 1692’ in PYM George Fox Epistles, MS C5.1, HCQC, pp.18–20; George Keith et al., An Appeal from the twenty eight judges to the spirit of truth & true judgment in all faithful Friends (1692), p.7; George Keith, The plea of the innocent against the false judgment of the guilty being a vindication of George Keith and his friends (1692); ‘Address to George Keith from the Yearly Meeting at Treadham in Maryland, 4d 8mo 1692’ in Keithian Schism Docs., SCQC. 75 Samuel Jennings, The State of the Case (1694), pp.49–50. 76 Ibid., p.50 77 ‘Address to the County Court of the County of Philadelphia, 12d 10mo 1692’ in William Penn Miscellaneous Letters and Documents, 1655–1801, MS B.P38, vol.1, fos.222–223, American Philosophical Society Library (APS). 78 George Keith, The Tryals of Peter Boss, George Keith, Thomas Budd, and William Bradford (1693), pp.9–10. 175

£6 each. Keith vowed that he would fight on, by appealing the case to the King and the London Yearly Meeting, eventually sailing for England in 1693.79 In the end, Keith’s criticism of the alleged worldliness of the Public Friends had gone some way to proving his point. What began as a controversy ostensibly about theology quickly became about whether Quakers were able to reconcile their principles with holding office. The apprehension of pirates required that they sanction violence and broke with their pacifist commitments. Their response had been to attempt to silence Keith through prosecution, a course of action that could easily be framed as an act of religious intolerance. This prosecution would resonate with Anglican ambitions in two ways. First, in Pennsylvania they would later use this connection between pirates and Quaker nonviolence to explain the sect’s complicity on the Madagascar trade. But second and of more immediate concern here, they made a very vocal enemy in Keith. For critics of Quakerism in England, his trial presented the opportunity to claim that Quakerism was a form of popery, conveyed as fundamentally secular, tyrannical and intolerant of dissent. Keith did find supporters for his cause on his entry into London, but not amongst the Public Friends of the London Yearly Meeting. As early as 1692, his followers began making their case in England, but it was a printed account of their leader’s trial that got them widespread attention.80 It was distributed so widely around London and the rest of England that William Penn claimed the prosecution had become a national scandal.81 His willingness to continue his verbal assaults on his fellow Quakers eventually led the London Yearly Meeting to disown him in March 1695.82 In particular, the Schism and its fallout were received with glee by a collection of former Quakers in London, outcasts who held their own meeting in London at Harp Lane.83 There, they

79 ‘Keith to Philadelphia Quarter Sessions, 12d 10mo 1692’ in Penn Miscellaneous Documents, MS B.P38, vol.1, APS. 80 George Keith, An account of the great divisions, amongst the Quakers, in Pensilvania, &c. as appears by their own book, here following (1692); George Keith, A Farther account of the great divisions among the Quakers in Pensilvania, &c. as appears by another of their books lately come over from thence (1693); George Keith, A further discovery of the spirit of falshood & persecution in Sam. Jennings, and his party that joyned with him in Pensilvania (1694). 81 ‘William Penn to Philadelphia Public Friends, 11d 10m 1693’ in Parrish and Pemberton Families Papers, 1614– 1880, Box 2 Fol.11, HSP. 82 ‘Robert Barrow and Robert Wendell Epistle, 3d 10mo 1694’, PYM George Fox Epistles, MS C5.1, pp.46–47, HCQC; ‘Meeting Minutes, 2d 4mo 1694’, London Yearly Meeting: Minutes, vol.2, pp.50–60, FHL; ‘Meeting Minutes, 13d 3mo 1695’, London Yearly Meeting: Morning Meeting Minutes, vol.2, pp.84–85, FHL. 83 Elias Burling, A call to back-sliding Israel and may be as a necessary word of caution and admonition to the inhabitants of East and West-Jarsey, Pennsilvania (1694); Thomas Budd, The great doctrines of the gospel of Christ owned, believed and asserted in several declarations or sermons preached in London (1694); Anon., The Pretended Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, their nameless bull of excommunication given forth against George Keith (1695); Thomas Crisp, The discovery of the accursed thing in the Foxonian Quakers camp, englarged [sic] (1695), pp.23– 176 collaboratively produced texts that combined lengthy theological critiques of Quaker writings and Grub Street muckraking, alongside lobbying English Parliament to take action against the Society of Friends.84 Keith began attending at Harp Lane sometime during 1694, but the outcasts had already begun to take advantage of the Schism. One of their number, Francis Bugg, integrated Keith’s trial into his narrative of Quakerism as popery or a ‘new Rome’ – an anti-religion seeking the ultimate downfall of Christianity.85 In 1695, he wrote of the Public Friends that ‘by their Practice in Pensilvania in 1692, they say, they will not be affronted by anybody: They will Fight with Guns and Swords, and Persecute (such as tell them they go from their Principles) with Fines and Imprisonment’.86 Keith was similarly influenced by these writers, himself coming to write of Quakerism as a form of popery.87 These writings initially had a relatively limited resonance with Anglicans in England, the outcasts having a fairly spotted reputation among Anglicans as scurrilous writers with obvious ulterior motives.88 Keith’s greatest advocate turned out to be the Irish nonjuror Charles Leslie, whose struggles featured extensively in what became the era’s core piece of anti-Quaker polemic. His Snake in the Grass, published in 1696, was effectively a compendium of all writings critical of Friends from the past forty years, one that similarly conveyed Quakerism as a form of popery, guilty in the same

24. One public friend claimed that the Schism was to blame for the greater outpouring of anti-Quaker material after 1692, Edward Pennington, A modest detection of George Keith's (miscalled) Just vindication of his earnest expostulation (1696) p.52; also see: Shelton, ‘The Way Cast Up’, pp.57–63; Martin, ‘Controversy and Division in Post Restoration Quakerism’, pp.376–398; Richard Clark, ‘“The Gangreen of Quakerism”: An Anti-Quaker Anglican Offensive in England after the Glorious Revolution’, Journal of Religious History, vol.11, no.3 (1981), pp.404–429. 84 By 1694, the best known members were Francis Bugg, John Pennyman, Thomas Crisp and one of Keith’s followers Thomas Budd. 85 Bugg had initial shied away from this comparison, but portraying the Quakers as “new Rome” became his central argument after 1691, Francis Bugg, The painted-harlot both stript and whipt, or, The second part of Naked truth containing a further discovery of the mischief of imposition among the people called Quakers (1683), unpaginated introduction; Francis Bugg, Battering rams against New Rome containing a farther discovery of the grand hypocrisie of the leaders and teachers of the people called Quakers (1691); Francis Bugg, New Rome arraigned And out of her own mouth condemned. Containing a farther discovery of the dangerous errors, and pernicious principles of the leaders and teachers of the Foxonian Quakers (1693), pp.23–38. 86 Francis Bugg, A Second Summons to the City of Abel (1695), p.5. Roughly the same quote is included in Francis Bugg, The Quakers Set in their True Light (1696), p.1; William Shewen, William Penn and the Quakers either Imposters or Apostates (1696), pp.67–68; Thomas Crisp, A Just and Lawful Tryal of the Foxonian Chief Priests (1697), pp.200–201. 87 George Keith, The anti-Christs and Sadduces detected among a sort of Quakers, or, Caleb Pusie of Pensilvania and John Pennington (1696), p.40; George Keith, A just vindication of my earnest expostulation, added to my book, called The Antichrists and Sadduces detected (1696), p.2. 88 ‘Francis Bugg to Archbishop of Canterbury, 12 August 1680, Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, 1572–1802, MS 1834, fo.25, LPL; ‘Arthur Charlett to Thomas Tanner, 1 May 1699’, A Collection of Letters Chiefly Written During the Year 1699, Tanner MS, vol.21, fo.41, BLO. 177 breath of being both essentially secular and a form of witchcraft.89 The Babbitt case and Keith’s prosecution had a lengthy airing in the book’s enormous introduction, and he concluded the text by warning warned that ‘deputies come every year from the West-Indies, and all other their Colonies through the World’ and that ‘such Intelligence, and Politick Institution is no where else to be found, but among the Jews and the Jesuits’.90 The wider influence of Leslie’s book is difficult to pin down precisely, but it was undoubtedly popular and especially so among Anglican clergy. It ran to three editions in as many years, while the sermons and writings of London’s Anglican priests heaped praise on the book.91 The text clearly also had an impact on Thomas Bray, who included it in the parochial libraries he had sent to North America, as well as the packages of books sent out by his voluntary organisation, the SPCK.92 By 1696, therefore, Keith had won some support among High Church Anglicans. Keith’s acceptance within the Anglican Church only grew as Compton and Bray sought support for their missionary project. By 1697, his preaching against the Quakers had won him the attention and eventual endorsement of Compton, while the following year the newly founded SPCK began seeking his advice on how to proceed against Friends in England.93 Both he and Francis Bugg were

89 ‘John Tomkins to John Rodes, 14d 2m 1698’ in Godfrey Locker Lampson (ed.), The Quaker Post Bag: Letters of Sir John Rodes of Barlbrough Hall, in the County of Derby, baronet and to John Gratton of Monyash, 1693–1742 (1910), p.135; Leslie was directly influence by the outcasts: Shelton, ‘The Way Cast Up’, pp.364–365; ‘Francis Bugg to Governors of Sion College, 16 April 1716’, Francis Bugg Papers, vol.3, unfoliated, LPL. 90 Charles Leslie, The Snake in the grass: or, Satan transform’d into an angel of light (1696), pp.iv-xiii, clvi-clxi, ccliv-cclx, 15–17, 119–142, 271. 91 Examples are numerous: Trepidantium Malleus, The foxonian Quakers dunces lyars and slanderers, proved out of George Fox's journal, and other scriblers (1697), p.55; Edward Marston, A sermon of simony & sacriledge (1699), pp.22–24; John Meriton, An antidote against the venom of Quakerism, or, Some observations, on a little pamphlet, stiled, The Christianity of the people commonly called Quakers (1699), p.29; John Adams, A sermon preach'd at St. Clement-Danes (1700), p.15; Trepidantium Melleus, A Snake in the grass, caught and crusht, or, A third and last epistle to a now furious deacon in the Church of England, the Reverend Mr. George Keith (1700); George Keith, George Keith’s Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-hall (1700), pp.100, 116; ‘John Talbot to Richard Gillingham, 3 May 1703’, Records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1667–1803, vol.12, fos.172–3, LPL; ‘Lancaster Topcliffe to Humphrey Prideaux, 8 March 1699’, A Collection of Letters Almost Entirely Written During the Year 1698, Tanner MS, vol.22, fo.186, BLO. 92 Thomas Bray, Bibliotheca parochialis: or, A scheme of such theological heads both general and particular, as are more peculiarly requisite to be well studied by every pastor of a parish (1697), p.100; Thomas Bray, An essay towards promoting all necessary and useful knowledge, both divine and human in all parts of His Majesty's dominions, both at home and abroad (1697), p.21. 93 George Keith, An exact narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the month called June, 1696 (1696); George Keith, A third narrative of the proceedings at Turner’s Hall (1698), unpaginated preface; George Keith, A fourth narrative of the proceedings at Turner’s Hall (1699), unpaginated preface; ‘A memorial’, Bray Papers, Box 29, fol.1, MSC; SPCK Cash Book, 1699–1724, vol.1, SPCK MS C 1/2, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge (CUL); Edmund McClure (ed.), A Chapter in English Church History: Being the Minutes of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge for the Years 1698–1704 (1888), pp.32, 35, 90, 98, 103, 105, 125; ‘A form of subscription towards books against Quakerism, 1701’, SPCK Wanley Manuscripts, SPCK MS E 1/1, CUL; SPCK Subscription Book 1698–1769, SPCK MS C 1/1, CUL. 178 subsequently employed by the voluntary society to attempt to convert Quakers in England.94 The SPCK, however, only acted as a springboard for Keith to influence the founding of the SPG in June 1701. He attended its first recorded meeting in February 1702 and, from the start, attempted to direct them towards Pennsylvania.95 In three separate reports he suggested they target regions with high Quaker populations such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Long Island, supposedly because of their disillusionment with their leaders following the Schism.96 Eventually, he would also be employed as their first missionary, arriving in North America again in 1704, underscoring the extent to which the society’s initial work was directed against the Quakers. While Keith did not initially set out to secure the approval of Compton, the bishop came to appreciate that they shared common enemies and objectives. It was no coincidence that Keith and the other outcasts were initially kept at a distance by the Anglican Church, but by 1697 – the same time when Compton and Bray were struggling to overcome Quaker opposition in Maryland – they began to reach out to them. By this point, the outcasts’ arguments against Quakerism and particularly its association with Catholicism had become useful, given that these two Anglicans sought to win support for a missionary project predominantly directed against dissenters. Yet when Keith made the case for the SPG to direct their efforts towards Quakers in America in general and Pennsylvania in particular, he was pushing at an open door. Already by 1701, Anglicans in Pennsylvania and Maryland had for some years been interested in the divisions caused a consequence of the Schism and had sought to capitalise on them by tying the colony’s Quakers to the Madagascar trade.

*** Following Keith’s departure for England in 1693, like their brethren in Maryland, Pennsylvania’s Quakers came to experience the advance of Anglicanism northwards out of the plantation colonies. Migration, alongside the conversion of the Keithians, was responsible for this change, but these changes had a larger North American context, being encouraged by Francis Nicholson, the

94 ‘Henry Meriton to John Moore, 4 November 1698’, 1698 Letters, Tanner MS, vol.22, fo.117, BLO; ‘Mr. Bedford to Chamberlayne, 8 January 1700’, SPCK Letters, SPCK MS 2/2, no.229, CUL; Francis Bugg, A bomb thrown amongst the Quakers in Norwich (1702); A narrative of the conference at Sleeford in Lincolnshire (1702); George Keith, An account of an occasional conference (1701). 95 ‘Meeting Minutes, 27 February 1702’, SPG Records, vol.1, fos.1–2, LPL. 96 ‘Memorial of George Keith Concerning Religion in the Americas, 1701’, ‘A Brief Account of the State of the Church in America’, SPG Records, vol.10, fos.4–7, 13–20, LPL. 179

Governor of Maryland. His objective was to weaken the Quakers and eventually pave the way for missionaries once Bray’s project came into existence. When the hunt for Avery’s crew across North America began, it opened a new front in this contest, as Nicholson and recently arrived Anglicans in Philadelphia attempted to turn the scandal against its Quaker leaders. Simultaneous with the warnings issued from Maryland and the outcasts in England, Anglicans would use pirates to claim that Quaker principles, specifically their pacifism, encouraged the presence of pirates in the Americas. As a consequence, Quakerism could be presented as exactly the combined religious and commercial threat they needed. Soon after Keith’s departure for England, the presence of the Anglican Church in Pennsylvania began to grow. The remaining Keithians, leaderless after 1693, graduated towards a number of different sects, including the Seventh Day Baptists and the German millenarian community led by the mystic Johannes Kelpius.97 As early as 1695, a substantial part of their number in Pennsylvania also began to follow their former leader in converting to Anglicanism.98 These conversions were being actively promoted from Maryland, from where Nicholson spent thousands of pounds sponsoring trips by ministers out of his colony into Pennsylvania and New Jersey.99 The first congregation formed in Philadelphia during 1695, and, owing to a substantial donation from Nicholson, construction of what became Christ Church in Philadelphia was finished the following year.100 This congregation initially comprised many converted Keithians from Chester County, Pennsylvania but also merchants and landowners who had arrived from the Caribbean or the plantation colonies of the South. Jasper Yeates and Robert Quarry, for instance, both came from the Carolinas, while the aforementioned Robert Snead migrated via Jamaica.101 This group remained in persistent contact with Nicholson from the early 1690s, but also expanded their

97 ‘John Calucet to Patrick Logan, 26d 3mo 1698’, R.R. Logan collection of John Dickinson papers, 1671–1882, MS 383, Box 7, fo.8, HSP; Jon Butler, ‘Into Pennsylvania’s Spiritual Abyss: The Rise and Fall of the Later Keithians, 1693–1703’, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol.101, no.2 (1977), pp.151–170. 98 ‘PYM to LYM, 15–19d 7mo 1695’ in PYM George Fox Epistles, MS C5.1, p.53, HCQC. 99 A complete list is given in his ‘List of Benefactions by Francis Nicholson to 1702’, SPG Records, vol.10, fo.30, LPL. 100 ‘Nicholson to Tenison, 28 February 1697’, Ibid., vol.2, fos.87–88; ‘Thomas Martin to Thomas Clayton, 16d 9m 1698’ and ‘Thomas Clayton to Maryland clergy, 29 October 1698’ both in Fulham Papers, vol.7, fos.18–19; Butler, ‘Into Pennsylvania's Spiritual Abyss’, pp.151–170; ‘Vestry of Kings Church to Nicholson, 26 December 1699’, Fulham Papers, vol.41, fo.21, LPL; ‘Keith to Compton, 26 February 1703’, SPG Letterbooks, A Series, vol.1, fo.88, BLO. 101 ‘Robert Quarry to Francis Nicholson, 18 January 1697’ in William Stevens Perry (ed.), Papers Relating to the History of the Church in Pennsylvania (1871), pp.5–7; Deborah Mathias Gough, Christ Church, Philadelphia: The Nation’s Church in a Changing City (1995), p.10. 180 networks to include Henry Compton after 1697.102 Distinct from what historians describe as the “Anglican-dominated” lower three counties of Pennsylvania, these new arrivals came specifically intending to wrestle control of the colony from the Quakers. They represented Anglicanism spilling out of the plantation colonies, and, as had been the case in Jamaica during the 1680s, they believed that driving pirates from the colony would aid them in seeking control. Just as Francis Nicholson promoted the growth of this community, he was also the first to connect Quakers with the Madagascar trade. In June 1691, he claimed that their growth in the Americas presented a danger, as they were both pacifists and Jacobites, both facts that made them vulnerable to French attacks.103 The following year he also picked up on the Babbitt case, claiming in July that pirates had become drawn to the region, as the Keithian Schism had facilitated a collapse in government authority.104 The case he would later make was an amalgamation of these two arguments. During 1695, Nicholson complained to the Lords of Trade that Quakers received goods from Madagascar pirates, but as with his previous case, this claim gained no traction. This situation changed in early 1696, when Avery’s crew named Pennsylvania as somewhere they had previously traded.105 Nicholson then began gathering evidence of these links to send to the newly formed Board of Trade. An Anglican from Philadelphia, Francis Jones, gathered testimonies on his behalf, emphasising in a letter of August 1696 that Quakers there traded openly for stolen coins and east India goods emanating from Madagascar.106 He also described an episode in which Anglican magistrates in Philadelphia had appealed to Maryland for helping capture the pirate Captain Day and his crew, but this plan was scuppered when the men were disarmed and the suspected pirates released.107 In an inversion of what Keith had argued in the case of Babbitt during 1691, therefore, Nicholson began to build a case that Quaker nonviolence was itself the cause of the Madagascar trade.

102 ‘Richard Powell to Compton, 9 October 1697’, Fulham Papers, vol.7, fo.11, LPL; ‘Nicholson to Tenison, 12 June 1696’, Fulham Papers, vol.1, fos.53–54, LPL. 103 ‘Francis Nicholson to the Lords of Trade, 10 June, 1691’ in Lords of Trade: Criminal Correspondence, 1691– 1692, CO 5/1306, fo.41, TNA. 104 ‘Lieutenant Governor Nicholson to Lords of Trade and Plantations, 16 July, 1692’ in Ibid,, fo.119. 105 ‘Memorial of Thomas Laurence, 26 June 1695’ in CSP Col, vol.14, no.1916; Anon., Tryals of Joseph Dawson et al., pp.20–26. 106 ‘Francis Jones to Francis Nicholson, 20 August 1696’ in Archives of Maryland, vol.25 (1905), pp.554–555. 107 ‘Jones to Nicholson, 21 August 1696’, ‘The Deposition of John Taylor of Dorchester County in the Province of Maryland, 12 October 1696’, ‘William Markham to Captain Daniel, November 1696’, Archives of Maryland, vol.25, pp.557–560; ‘William Markham to William Penn, 1 March 1697’ in Board of Trade: Properties, vol.3, no.599, HSP; ‘Snead to Tenison, 28 September 1698’, Fulham Papers, vol.7, fo.19, LPL. 181

Pennsylvania’s Anglicans worked vociferously in the following years to reinforce this connection first made by Nicholson. From 1696 one of their number, the former Governor of South Carolina, Robert Quary, began supplying evidence of Quaker participation in the Madagascar trade to the Board, claiming that they had grown enormously wealthy as a result.108 For his initial efforts, Quary was awarded the title of Admiralty Judge for the newly established Vice-Admiralty Court in Pennsylvania, but he sought further measures to bolster his influence.109 In early 1697, he sailed for England, seeking to further convince the Board of Quaker complicity and to make connections that would aid the expansion of Anglicanism in the colony. After arriving in London, he met with Compton, and, while what they discussed is unclear, he was able to secure an Anglican priest for Philadelphia.110 Quary then attended a meeting of the Board of Trade in November 1697, presenting all the evidence he had been able to gather on Pennsylvania’s connections to the Indian Ocean. In a preface, he hints at how he framed the evidence to the Board, asserting that: ‘As long as the Government is in the hands of Quakers, as it is, it must be expected that pirates and unlawful traders will still be encouraged’, as ‘they may come for there is none to oppose them, here being no militia nor even power to raise any’.111 On his return to Pennsylvania in July 1698, Quary began to use Quaker trade with pirates to argue more directly of the dangers he believed that the denomination posed. As was the case across the Americas, his attempts to prosecute captured pirates in Pennsylvania yielded few results, as the accused were persistently either broken out of jail or acquitted by juries.112 To explain this failure to the Board, he began to much more explicitly blame Quaker beliefs. In September he reported that the colony’s Friends resisted his efforts because a successful prosecution would serve to deter traders coming from the Indian Ocean. His explanation here came with a reference to Leslie, claiming that ‘I am confident that the cloven foote and snake in the grass cannot bee hid from your

108 ‘Memorandum of Robert Quary, 12 October 1696’ in Archives of Maryland, vol.25, pp.560–561; ‘Robert Quarry to Board of Trade and Plantations, 22 September 1697’ in CSP Col, vol.15, no.1338. 109 ‘The Names of the Persons to be the Judges, Registers and Marshalls of the Courts of Admiralty, 31 July 1696’ in Robert Noxon Toppan (ed.), Edward Randolph: Including his Letters and Official Papers, 1676–1703, vol.5 (1899), p.136; ‘Names of persons to be appointed Judges, Registers and Marshals in the Courts of Admiralty, 25 February 1697’, CSP Col, vol.15, no.759. 110 Charles T. Laugher, Thomas Bray’s Grand Design; Libraries of the Church of England in America, 1695–1785 (1973), p.47; ‘Christ Church Vestry to Nicholson, 16 January 1697’, Fulham Papers, vol.7, fos.7–8, LPL. ‘Thomas Clayton to Francis Nicholson, 29 September 1698’ in Fulham Papers, vol.7, fo.20, LPL. 111 A Collection of Papers relating to pirates and other matters in Pennsylvania, 29 November 1697’, Board of Trade Records: Proprieties B, CO 5/1257, no.6, TNA. 112 Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.263–268. 182 lordship’s wisdom’.113 He pressed further in December. Like Nicholson, he claimed that secret Jacobite allegiances lay behind their cooperation with pirates, an accusation he supported by recounting a Pennsylvania Vice-Admiralty Court session in which one of the public friends and the colony’s attorney general, David Lloyd, was said to mock an effigy of William III to the amusement of the Quaker jury.114 Quary’s final piece of evidence was Pennsylvania’s 1698 Act for the Preventing of Frauds and Regulating of Abuses in Trade, which the colony’s assembly had been ordered to pass by the Board, but omitted the word armed, leaving justices, sheriffs and constables unable to apprehend any of the sailors who arrived from Madagascar.115 By 1699, a substantial case had been constructed that Quaker beliefs in general and their pacifism in particular had driven trade with pirates in Pennsylvania. The three strands that facilitated the creation of missionary Anglicanism in 1701 were now clearly visible and began to converge. The first involved Anglican experiences in Maryland, which had stressed the danger posed by a pact between Friends and Catholics, an experience that was formative for Bray’s project. The second was the influence of Keith and the other outcasts, who readily supplied supporting accounts of Quaker crypto-popery in England and a pool of initial converts in Pennsylvania. Lastly, Pennsylvania’s Anglicans supplied a commercial dimension to the creation of missionary Anglicanism, providing evidence that Quaker pacifism served to encourage pirates. Over the course of the following three years, it would be this final context that would fuel efforts to not just aid the SPG’s formation, but to launch an attempt, through legislation, to begin unifying of English colonies in the Americas under common Anglicanism.

*** As the challenges posed by the Schism eventually gave way to the prospect of an emergent missionary Anglicanism, Pennsylvania’s Quakers used their transatlantic meeting structure to organise a defence. In the first instance, they prepared to safeguard their membership from Anglican proselytes, but they were forced to take further steps when they became implicated in the Madagascar trade. Initially, Quaker leaders did not appreciate that the two were related, but they soon came to realise that a larger Anglican design was afoot. Their own investigations made these

113 ‘Quary to Board of Trade, 6 September 1698’, Proprieties, B.34, HSP. 114 ‘Quary to Board of Trade, 23 December 1698’, Ibid., B.40, HSP. 115 ‘Quary to Board of Trade, 6 June 1699’, Board of Trade Records: Proprieties C, CO 5/1258. no.31, TNA; ‘Randolph to William Blathwayt, 25 August 1698’ in Blathwayt Papers, vol.2, fo.5, LLH. 183 motives plain, a perception that was then vindicated when a Bill was initiated in England’s Parliament to rescind all non-royal colonial charters. Public Friends viewed this act as a sleight of hand, in which commerce was a mere pretext to impose the Anglican faith across Stuart dominions in the Americas. They then began mobilising their lobbying machinery and accumulating evidence to fight its passage. The initial Quaker reaction to both the Schism and Nicholson’s support for his coreligionists in Pennsylvania was to begin instituting a programme of reforms not unlike those that Keith initially proposed. As early as 1692, Maryland’s Public Friends warned that divisions in Pennsylvania could be exploited by their opponents in the neighbouring colony, who already openly spoke of such plans.116 During the course of 1694, with Keith now in England, the Public Friends began to coordinate with the London Yearly Meeting to take measures that would strengthen the commitment of their members. A host of proposals were disseminated across the monthly and quarterly meetings in Pennsylvania to keep a check on creeping worldliness and heresy.117 From 1695 onward, individuals were appointed throughout the colony to ensure that orthodox beliefs were upheld among Friends and taught in schools quickly established across the colony’s counties.118 These efforts were supplemented by increased circulation of print refuting the arguments of Keith, Leslie and Bugg, as well as writings detailing “orthodox” opinions.119 If the flow of texts rose sharply, so did the exchange of people. Dozens more travelling friends were also sent to the Americas to assist in both mediating the Schism and ensuring greater adherence to orthodox Quaker principles.120 As a consequence, formal disciplines and disownments rose across

116 ‘Address to George Keith from the Yearly Meeting at Treadham in Maryland, 4d 8mo 1692’, Keithian Schism Documents, SCQC; ‘Some of Robert Barrow’s Dying Words and Exhortations to Friends, 1d 2mo 1697’ in LYM Epistles Received, vol.1, pp.252–257, FHL. 117 ‘Epistle to the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings in Philadelphia, 1694’ and ‘A General Testimony against all Looseness & Vanity in Youth & Others, 19d 7mo 1694’ in PYM George Fox Epistles, p.43, HCQC. 118 ‘Epistle from PYM to LYM, 19d 7mo 1695’, PYM George Fox Epistles, MS C5.1, pp.52–53, HCQC; ‘Meeting Minutes, 2d 1mo 1695’, PYM Ministers and Elders, vol.1, pp.35–36, HCQC; ‘Meeting Minutes, 22d 3mo, 1700’, London Yearly Meeting: Minutes, vol.2, pp.381–383, FHL. 119 Pennsylvania’s public friends first requested books to help deal with the Schism in: ‘Meeting Minutes 15–17d 7mo, 1695’, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting: Minutes 1681–1710, vol.1, unpaginated, MS A1.1, HCQC; ‘Meeting Minutes, 11d 9mo 1695’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 28d 10mo 1696’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 5d 5mo 1697’, LYM Morning Meeting Minutes, vol.2, pp.108, 157, 178, FHL. These books were distributed amongst the various quarterly and monthly meetings in Pennsylvania: ‘Meeting Minutes, 2d 1mo 1696’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 7d 10mo 1696’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 7d 4mo 1697’, Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting: Minutes, 1682–1711, vol.1, pp.63, 66, 68, HCQC. They began producing replies to Keith from ‘Meeting Minutes, 22d 8mo 1694’, Morning Meeting Minutes, vol.2, p.70, FHL; ‘Meeting Minutes, 31d 10mo 1697’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 4d 3mo, 1698’, London Yearly Meeting: Meeting for Sufferings Minutes, vol.12, pp.75, 200, FHL. 120 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting reports that the primary purpose of this growth was the Schism and a demand for greater discipline: ‘Meeting Minutes, 24d 7mo 1701’, PYM Ministers and Elders, vol.1, pp.65–68, HCQC; Thomas 184 the later 1690s, as the colony’s Public Friends began to exercise increasing control over the behaviour of its members.121 The Society of Friends in America, therefore, underwent a period of experimentation similar in many ways to that which the Anglican Church underwent, seeking to address the issues raised by the Schism and a projected expansion of Anglicanism. Yet these were not measures that could protect the Society of Friends from the news that they were complicit in trade with pirates. As the accounts of Quary and Nicholson arrived in London, Pennsylvania’s founder William Penn was placed under increasing pressure to take action. He first wrote to chastise Pennsylvania’s Public Friends for not doing more to curb Quaker participation in the Madagascar trade following Quary’s presentation of evidence to the Board in July 1697.122 Penn initially saw the proof offered as evidence of the growing worldliness among Friends in Pennsylvania, suggesting proclamations against vice to the colony’s Public Friends, including the closer monitoring of taverns and stricter punishments for all forms of immoral behaviour.123 At the same time, he was wary of the threat they faced from the Anglican Church. Penn believed that the association served to encourage the efforts of Keith, Leslie and Compton, all of whom he believed were working with Tory MPs, William Blathwayt in particular, to secure the passage of an Act in English Parliament rescinding Pennsylvania’s charter.124 This idea had been proposed as early as 1695 by Edward Randolph but, by 1698, had not yet been formally presented.125 With evidence growing of Quaker sponsoring of pirates, in January 1698 and under pressure from the Board of Trade, Parliament and the Privy Council, Penn was ordered to travel to Pennsylvania and resolve the problem himself. The Quaker leader, therefore, appreciated the potential of the scandal to advance Compton and Bray’s plans, but did not yet understand that it had been engineered for their benefit.

Story, A Journal of the Life of Thomas Story (1747), pp.225–226, 244–259; ‘Meeting Minutes, 24d 4mo 1699’, LYM Meeting Minutes, vol.2, pp.222–223, LPL. 121 Disciplinary cases rose from 47% from 42 between 1689 and 1692 to 62 between 1693 and 1697. In 1690, around 2% of those formally disciplined were disowned, consistently rising to 9% in 1705. Jack D. Marietta, Individuals dealt with for infractions of Quaker discipline by monthly meetings in Pennsylvania, 1682–1776 (1973), SCQC. 122 ‘Penn to Public Friends, 5d 7mo 1697’, Ferdinand J. Dreer Autograph Collection, 1492–1925, Box 321, fol.1, HSP; ‘Penn to Samuel Carpenter et al., 1d 10mo 1697’ in Penn Family Papers: William Penn Letters and Deeds, Box 1, no.853, HCQC. 123 ‘Penn to Public Friends, 5d 7mo 1697’, Dreer Collection, Box 321, fol.1, HSP; Samuel Hazard (ed.), Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, vol.1 (1831), pp.494–497; ‘PYM to LYM Epistle, 21d 7mo 1698’, ‘PYM to LYM Epistle, 16d 7mo 1699’, LYM Epistles Received, vol.1, FHL. 124 ‘Penn to Robert Turner, 16d 1mo 1698’ in Dreer Collection, Box 321, fol.6, HSP. 125 Toppan, Randolph Letters, vol.7, pp.476–477. 185

Penn finally arrived back in Pennsylvania in December 1699, where he soon came to realise how Anglicans had used the Madagascar trade against his coreligionists. In his first few months there, Penn aided Quary, having the current governor and attorney general dismissed and ensuring bills were drafted to suppress pirates and illegal trade.126 Penn also helped with the hunt for William Kidd’s crew, who were filtering back to North America. He helped to secure the capture of the ship’s surgeon Robert Bradenham, dutifully sending the sailors and his east India goods to England.127 By February, however, he began to develop misgivings about the investigations. In a letter to the Earl of Bellomont, he remarked on how he was overseeing the arrest of poor farmers, many of whom had been pardoned before and against whom the evidence was generally scant.128 He also came to understand that sailors arrived from Madagascar into neighbouring Maryland as well, placing some pressure upon Quary’s claim that it was Pennsylvania’s Quakers in particular who drew them to the region.129 During the month of March, Penn witnessed a session of the Vice- Admiralty Court where two men, named as Churchill and Stowe, stood accused of piracy and assaulting a customs officer.130 What intrigued Penn here, however, was the jury. According to Quary, Friends packed juries with their coreligionists, who would always vote for an acquittal, yet at the trial of Churchill and Stowe the majority of the jury were Anglicans and Lutherans. Both men walked free, and Penn found it remarkable that the Quakers were taking the blame for these trials failing to secure a prosecution.131 His most significant discovery was still to come, however. Back in April, he had found the rector of the Philadelphia’s Anglican church drinking with Bradenham, Kidd’s surgeon who Penn had formerly arrested. His subsequent trial in England had revealed that he had used the rector as a broker for his stolen goods, evidence that Penn was only too happy to supply to the Board of Trade. Penn claimed that the priest would ‘inveigh against the Quakers for their being too tame and easy too pirates…while he himself at the same time stood possest of a pirates treasure’.132 He demanded that Compton and Nicholson take responsibility for securing Portlock’s arrest, the priest having since fled to Maryland, as well as for an immediate

126 ‘William Penn to Lord Bellomont, 30d 11mo 1699’, Penn Family Papers: Penn-Logan Correspondence, 1699– 1738, Box 38 fo.7, HSP. 127 ‘William Penn to James Vernon, 10d 1mo 1700’, Ibid. 128 For more on Bellomont, see Chapter 3, below. ‘Penn to Lord Bellomont, 23d 2mo 1700’, Penn-Logan Correspondence, Box 38 fol.7, HSP. 129 ‘William Penn to Board of Trade, 22d 7mo 1700’, Ibid. 130 ‘William Penn to the Commissioners of Customs at London, 7d 3mo 1700’, Ibid. 131 Ibid. 132 ‘William Penn to Secretary Vernon, 30d 10mo 1700’, Penn Family Papers: William Penn Letterbook 1699–1702, p.62, HSP. 186 investigation being held into Pennsylvania’s Anglicans.133 In less than a year, Penn successfully unpicked the evidence supporting the case that Quakerism was particularly to blame for the Madagascar trade. Yet his discoveries would have little immediate impact in England, where the Resumption Bill was already progressing through Parliament, supported by evidence gathered previously in Pennsylvania. The Resumption Bill was intended to annul all private and proprietary charters, converting them into royal colonies. During 1698, efforts were already underway to lay the groundwork and ensure that, in law, sponsoring pirates and illegal trade was sufficient grounds to annul colonial charters. That year members of the Board of Trade, in which William Blathwayt was now dominant following Locke’s retirement, worked to ensure the passage of a new anti-piracy act through English Parliament, the Act for the more effectual suppression of Piracy, finally passing on 23 March 1700.134 The actual contents of the revised Act hint that its objective was to support resumption, it stipulating that failing to act against pirates was grounds to rescind a colonial charter.135 This provision alarmed Penn, who understood that Pennsylvania’s was now in ‘danger of being quo warranto’d by the late act against piracy’.136 On 26 March, just three days after the passage of the Piracy Act, members of the Board introduced the Resumption Bill to Parliament, citing widespread illegal trade and ‘the great countenance given to pirates in some of the plantations, and chiefly in the proprieties and charter-governments’.137 Indeed, the initial evidence given to the Commons was arranged to disproportionately convey these colonies as encouraging trade with the Indian Ocean and Pennsylvania most of all. They also had space in their evidence for criticism of how Bellomont had behaved in the northeast and his handling of the Madagascar trade there.138 There was, of course, no mention of religion in the evidence presented, the Board being at pains to demonstrate that the act was about issues of law and commercial regulation. The formal efforts to influence parliamentarians, however, stress how much the act was about a larger plan to impose Anglicanism throughout the Americas. In February 1701, the London Meeting for Sufferings began making efforts opposing the legislation on the grounds that it was

133 ‘Penn to Francis Nicholson, 31d 10mo 1700’ in Ibid., pp.81–86. 134 Stock, Proceedings and Debates, vol.2 (1927) pp.315–336, 345–364. 135 An Act for the more Effectuall Suppressions of Piracy (1700), clauses I-V, IX, XV. 136 Quoted in Louise Phelps Kellogg, ‘The American Colonial Charter’ in Annual Report of the American Historical Association, vol.1 (1903), p.288. 137 Stock, Proceedings and Debates, vol.2, p.367. 138 Ibid., pp.395–401. 187 part of an attempt to roll back religious toleration.139 Quary was recalled to present evidence to Parliament after the act was proposed in earnest on 29 March, and Penn wrote that his inclusion confirmed that the efforts were the work of ‘ye Bishop of London and Comr. Blathwayt’.140 By this time, supporters of the missionary project had already been seeking to influence the MPs who would vote on the Act’s passage. Thomas Bray was back in England by this point and set about promoting his missionary society in print, claiming that the establishment of Anglicanism across North America would combat Catholicism and Quakerism, as well as promoting trade.141 Publicly, a number of Quakers made their own case in reply, arguing that any attempts towards establishment had nothing to do with commerce, but were instead renewed persecution.142 At the same time, the SPCK had been sending large numbers of writings by Keith and the other outcasts as well as copies of Snake in the Grass to MPs, with Quaker writers consistently working to publish replies.143 The strategy of the Society of Friends, therefore, was to refute the claim that the Act was a purely commercial measure and make plain its religious dimension. During March, the Meeting for Sufferings began appointing Public Friends to lobby and delay the Bill, alongside drafting petitions to William III and blanketing MPs with printed material emphasising the sufferings of the Quakers during the Restoration.144 Their first concerted attempt to disrupt the Act’s passage came when it reached the House of Lords. On 11 May 1701, Quary presented his list of the evidence submitted to the House, which included letters from Nicholson, Jones, Snead, himself and even early letters by Penn, alongside a testimony from Pennsylvania’s Anglicans collectively complaining that the pacifism of Friends encouraged pirates.145 The later letters written by Penn reporting the complicity

139 ‘Meeting Minutes, 11d 2mo 1701’ LYM Meetings for Sufferings: Minutes, p.76, FHL. 140 ‘William Penn to James Logan, 28d 5mo 1702’, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol.36, no.3 (1912), p.306. 141 Thomas Bray, A Letter from Dr. Bray, to such as have Contributed Towards the Propagating Christian Knowledge in the Plantations (1700), p.3. 142 Joseph Wyeth, An answer to A letter from Dr. Bray Directed to Such as Have Contributed Towards the Propagating Christian Knowledge in the Plantations (1700), pp.4–7; Another reply drawn up in ‘Meeting Minutes, 24d 7mo 1701’, PYM Meeting Minutes, vol.1, MS A1.1 p.52, HCQC. 143 ‘Meeting Minutes, 10d 12mo 1698’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 17d 1mo 1699’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 3d 5mo 1699’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 23d 4mo 1699’, LYM Meetings for Sufferings Minutes, vol.13, pp.149, 156, 162, 233, FHL. 144 ‘Meeting Minutes, 23d 3mo 1701’, Ibid., vol.15, pp.85, 90–91, 102, FHL. 145 The list of evidence presented is in: ‘Delivered by Lord Lexington from the Lords of Trade, 10 May 1701’, Logan Family Papers, 1638–1964: James Logan Letterbook, Box 3, fo.13, HSP; ‘10 May 1701’, Journal of the House of Lords, vol.16 (1803), pp.671–676; ‘Vestrymen of Christchurch in Philadelphia to the Council of Trade and Plantations, 28 January 1701’, Board of Trade Records: Proprieties E, CO 5/1260, no.89, TNA. 188 of Pennsylvania’s Anglicans in the Madagascar trade were conspicuously absent.146 This was an omission that the Quakers had already anticipated. William Penn Jr had already testified the day before Quary’s evidence was presented to the House of Lords, that he and the Board of Trade were suppressing evidence of Anglican complicity. Some days later, he provided the additional material sent over by his father.147 It was not just London’s Quakers who were moved to oppose the Act, with the very coalition of dissenters and Catholics that Bray had warned about coming out to oppose it. Agents spoke on behalf of Congregationalists in Connecticut, Catholics in Maryland and Quakers in Rhode Island, and they were also joined by the proprietors of the Carolinas.148 The arguments offered by these combined interests were given publicly in a pamphlet of that same year, which argued that resumption would actually harm trade, as well as reducing the rights of dissenters.149 Flooding the Lords with arguments, evidence and speakers proved an effective strategy, pushing the vote forwards until after Parliament’s summer recess.150 Across the summer, Penn began to coordinate a more decisive reply to the evidence that Quary had presented about Quaker trade with pirates. In June 1701, Penn wrote to his agent, Charles Lawton, detailing a strategy for how they could do so. He proposed that they argue Pennsylvania had never encouraged trade with Madagascar and that, in fact, Maryland under Nicholson had participated with far more enthusiasm.151 During August, the London Yearly Meeting received this letter, along with additional evidence Penn sent of Anglican involvement in the Madagascar trade.152 His London agent was also instructed to hold talks with other North American dissenters on turning the Madagascar trade against the Anglicans, claiming that ‘if this were well insinuated to the chief of the Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists methinks they would see the common

146 Penn actually had James Logan attempt to gain testimonies from Anglicans in Pennsylvania that they were not persecuted, but this failed ‘they having conferred together on this head’, ‘James Logan to William Penn, 2d 2mo 1701’ in Logan Family Papers, Box 3, fo.70, HSP. 147 ‘9 May 1701’, Journal of the House of Lords, vol.16, pp.671–676; ‘Penn to Charlewood Lawton, 21d 10mo 1700’, Penn Family Papers: William Penn Letterbook, pp.76–81, HSP; ‘William Penn to William Penn Jr., 2d 2mo 1701’ in Richard S. Dunn and Mary Maples Dunn (eds.), The Papers of William Penn, 1701–1718, vol.4 (1987), pp.27–29. 148 ’31 May 1701’, Journal of the House of Lords, vol.16, pp.713–715; ‘9 May 1701’, Ibid., pp.671–676; ‘Assembly Meeting Minutes, 3 May 1699’, Rhode Island Assembly Journal, p.103, RISA; CSP Col, vol.18 (1910), no.977. 149 Anon., Allegations Against Proprietary Governments Considered and their Merit and Benefit to the Crown Observed (1701), pp.1–2. 150 ‘Meeting Minutes, 13d 4mo 1701’, LYM Meetings for Sufferings Minutes, vol.15, p.110, FHL. 151 ‘William Penn to Charles Lawton, 16d 6mo 1701’, Penn Family Papers: William Penn Letterbook, p.112, HSP. 152 ‘Meeting Minutes, 27d 8mo 1701’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 17d 9mo 1701’, LYM Morning Meeting Minutes, vol.3, pp.43–44, 51, FHL. 189 cause’.153 By the time that Parliament resumed in the autumn, therefore, members were poised to nullify any renewed attempt to pass the Bill by further emphasising that it was a predominantly religious matter, rather than a commercial issue. Fortunately for London’s Quakers and their allies, two events occurred before Parliament sat once again. First, William Kidd was executed on 18 May 1701, in what was a symbolic victory over the Madagascar trade, and second, war erupted two months later on 9 July. When MPs resumed with now altered priories, both Compton and the Board of Trade struggled to keep the case they had initially made relevant. To do so, they attempted to repurpose it as a wartime measure, shifting their arguments from trade to defence. In January 1702, Blathwayt put to the Commons his complaints about North American plantations, in which propriety and private colonies no longer stood accused of entertaining pirates but of being defenceless.154 A similar address followed to the House of Lords on 16 February.155 At the same time, Pennsylvania’s Anglicans attempted to make their voices heard once again.156 Their complaints now predominantly related to liberty of conscience, asserting that the colony’s Quaker leaders had formerly used the judiciary to oppress dissidents and advocates of the Church of England.157 Only Quary continued to supply reports of Quaker failure to deal with pirates, but also began to shift his emphasis to defence. He wrote to the Board of Trade that Anglicans ‘have lately felt the fatal effects of their being thus naked and defenceless, having been most barberously robbed and plundered by pirates’.158 Despite their renewed efforts, the Bill was not considered seriously again by Parliament, and by May it disappeared as a consideration altogether. Penn was delighted with the outcome, voicing his satisfaction that Quary’s as well as Compton’s ‘mountain would now become a molehill’.159 As Pennsylvania’s founder knew well, this Act had represented a particular moment in which an Anglican empire could have come into being. Bray’s missionary project would have ensured a

153 ‘William Penn to William Cavendish, 27d 6mo, 1701, Penn Family Papers: William Penn Letterbook, p.117, HSP. 154 Stock, Proceedings and Debates, vol.2, pp.438–439. 155 ’16 February 1702’, Journal of the House of Lords, vol.17 (1803), pp.35–36. 156 ‘James Logan to William Penn, 2d 10mo 1701’ in Edward Armstrong (ed.), Correspondence Between William Penn and James Logan, vol.1 (1870), p.65. 157 Anon., Reflections on the Printed Case of William Penn, Esq (1702), pp.2–8. The documents claims to be authored by ‘gentlemen in Pennsylvania’ and by this point Christ Church’s vestry had taken to issuing statements to encourage resumption, for example: ‘Minister and Vestry of Christ Church in Philadelphia to the Council of Trade and Plantations, 31 March 1702’, Board of Trade Records: Proprieties G, CO 5/1261, no.61, TNA. 158 ‘Quary to Board of Trade, 7 April 1702’, Ibid., no.70, TNA. 159 ‘William Penn to James Logan, 7d 5mo 1702’, Penn Letters and Deeds, Box 1, HCQC. 190 supply of ministers to royal colonies where sympathetic governors worked to pass supporting legislation. Bellomont’s successor in New York, the Tory Edward Hyde, was a case study in what they had in mind, a man who oversaw the installing of Anglican missionaries across the colony, drafted laws for their benefit and clamped down on dissenters.160 Complaints that the Quakers were growing in strength in the Americas or were as one with Catholics were made publicly and in private, persuading some Anglicans of the need to act. Yet alone these arguments were not enough to secure public sanction, and it took the connection of Quakers to pirates, made by Pennsylvania’s Anglicans, to make the case for it. In the end, not just the Society of Friends, but other American dissenters worked against this legislation by confessionalising it, stripping back the commercial veneer to reveal the religious motivations beneath. Even under the reign of Queen Anne, a monarch considerably more loyal to the Church of England, no such legislation would be proposed again.

*** This chapter has traced how an emerging transatlantic coalition of Anglicans created and sought to capitalise on the scandal of Quaker trade with pirates. This coalition initially did so not out of any particular concern for suppressing criminality, but to aid the formation of a missionary society, an organisation intended as one step in the creation of an empire unified by common Anglicanism. The missionary project itself was first imagined by the clergyman Thomas Bray as a response to the failure of his coreligionists in seeking to overcome the resistance of Quakers and Catholics in Maryland. It was events in the neighbouring colony of Pennsylvania that further strengthened Bray’s plan. The Schism that George Keith fomented there cracked the facade of Quaker unity, suggesting a pool of potential converts in the form of Quakers disaffected with their spiritual and political leaders. Keith’s subsequent attacks on his former coreligionists as crypto-papists only further substantiated the argument that his former followers presented a great opportunity for the Anglican Church. Yet it was the connection between Quakers and pirates made by Pennsylvania’s Anglicans that served to amplify the scheme’s potential. Conflating Quaker religious principles with deviant commercial practices allowed this emergent transatlantic network of Anglicans to seek a legislative

160 ‘Cornbury to Compton, 21 March 1704’, ‘John Bartow to John Chamberlayne, 10 April 1704’, ‘James Honeyman to Chamberlayne, 26 June 1704’, ‘Account of the Church in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania before a convocation of the Church in New York, 5 October 1704’ SPG Records, vol.13, fos.30, 43–44, 56, 71–79’, LPL. Also see Patricia U. Bonomi, The Lord Cornbury Scandal: The Politics of Reputation in British America (2000). 191 underpinning for their faith’s establishment across the Americas. Their common interest materialised in the form of the Resumption Bill, which the Anglican clergy and its supporters believed to be a major step in bringing their vision of an Anglican empire into being. In the climate of religious toleration in England after 1688, the arguments they and their sypathisers on the Board of Trade advanced in the Bill’s favour had to be largely commercial. As a result, they focused upon illegal trade with pirates in the proprietary and private colonies, regions of North America that just so happened to hold the majority of North America’s dissenters. Quaker resolve to oppose the Act was strengthened by William Penn’s own discoveries of Anglican trade with pirates in Pennsylvania, while the Quakers mobilised their own transatlantic networks against the legislation. In cooperation with other dissenting groups, they were then able to successfully confessionalise the debates surrounding the Bill and aid in its eventual defeat. George Keith arrived back in North America in 1704, disembarking at Boston harbour on 14 June. This time, he came as a missionary for the SPG, intent on targeting his former followers throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey for conversion, believing that an Anglican resurgence was still possible. Within four years, however, he was on a ship back to England, disappointed with his rather limited success; he lamented that the Quakers had been ‘misled and prejudiced by their leaders (and) seemed too generally reject my labour of love’.161 Keith, like other Anglican clergy in this period, had to adjust to the fact that they had not initially succeeded in making the case that their objectives were inherently beneficial to commercial gain, and that, rather than bending trade to their will, they, like their adversaries in the Society of Friends, now had to take their place within the Atlantic ‘marketplace of religion’.162 Nevertheless, this position was an improvement for the Anglican Church. The SPG provided Compton and others within the episcopate a means to successfully expand their flock in North America, seeing them secure thousands of converts in the following decade. The scandal of Quaker trade with pirates may not have facilitated the dramatic resurgence they imagined, but it did place them on an even footing with their dissenting opponents. In a sense, these events did see religious denominations in the Atlantic come to accord more closely with commerce. Greater circulation of missionaries saw confessions begin to spill beyond their traditionally established borders, be they in New England, Maryland or Pennsylvania. A freer

161 George Keith, A journal of travels from New-Hampshire to Caratuck (1706), p.87. 162 Schlenther, ‘Religious Faith and Commercial Empire’, pp.128–149. 192 movement of preachers facilitated a greater diversity of Protestant belief within anglophone communities, resulting in a move towards Protestant coexistence, rather than separation.

193

V: The Assada Projects, Pirates and East India Companies, 1688– 1707

Sometime in February 1682, a merchant ship appeared off the coast of the Island of Mozambique, part of an ill-fated venture to procure slaves for the sugar plantations of Barbados.1 The Old London carried a crew under the employ of the EIC, and its cargo comprised highly valuable bars of gold and silver. Putting ashore, the sailors proceeded to buy over a hundred unfortunate captives from either Bantu or Portuguese merchants, conducting the exchange out of sight of the nearby Estado da Índia fort. They believed such caution was necessary as, should they be discovered, officials on the island would surely enforce their prohibition on other Europeans trading there. The voyage ended in dramatic fashion soon thereafter. Immediately following its departure for the Caribbean, the Old London’s interpreter, a Swahili speaker originally from the region, instigated an uprising among the slaves aboard, killing several of the English crew before casting the ship’s officers adrift.2 Driven again to the coast, these remaining EIC sailors quickly fell into the hands of the Portuguese authorities, but from here the story develops further significant details. The vessel’s captain, Samuel Davis, was transported to Goa for trial, but, when he finally set foot on the Indian Subcontinent some months later, he found that additional criminal charges awaited him. Witnesses at Goa asserted that he was guilty of piracy, having allegedly robbed a Portuguese merchant vessel twelve years previously.3 At the same time, there are indications that the uprising on the Old London was premeditated. Shortly after gaining control of the ship, the Bantu sailors transferred the bullion they had acquired to another English vessel, the Firebrass of London, which was funded by the EIC’s opponents in the capital. Both vessels then disappear from the Company’s records, a brief, if dramatic glimpse of life in the Indian Ocean often obscured to historians.4 On the southeastern coast of Africa, each of these crews came seeking a means to bridge the trade of the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Across the seventeenth century, sailors from around the anglophone world came to this region intent on linking the two most lucrative trades that they knew: plantation goods from the Caribbean and luxury goods from the east. Yet, as the case of

1 The Island of Mozambique lies in the northeast of the modern-day state of Mozambique, with the former named as such by the Portuguese in the early sixteenth century and then subsequently applied to the latter. 2 ‘John Child to Directors, 13 November 1682’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, 1682–1683, IOR E/3/42, fo.93, BL. 3 ‘John Child to Directors, 13 November 1682’, Ibid., fo.101. 4 ‘Abstract of a Letter Received by the Interloper Ship Crowne, January 1683’, Ibid., fo.163. 194

Davis demonstrates, many European companies claimed the right to control this chokepoint and were keen to prosecute interlopers. This impediment made this aspiration difficult to realise, but nevertheless would-be colonisers continued to try. Madagascar and its surrounding islands became connecting points of special interest for early modern Europeans. The promotional literature for one colonial project there, intending for the island of Nosy Be, called their prospective settlement Assada and enthused about the great riches it would bring. Recounting a meeting between an English sailor and one of the island’s Malagasy rulers some years previous, the tract described how this king allegedly presented the sailor with a shipment he had recently received. It apparently included ‘treasure, which was a Massy Silver Staffe, some peeces of Eight, peeces of cloth of Gold, of Sattin and silke stuffes, Arabian Coates, which the Arabians brought from India, being bought of them for Ambergreese, Tortle-shels’. Not only did this lucrative trade sit untapped by Europeans, but the Malagasy king ‘invited our men to come againe, and promised all his Country should be at their command’.5 Into the later seventeenth century, this same image of “Assada” endured, being a settlement on, or around, Madagascar, from which settlers would be able to buy slaves to trade into the Americas, source bullion from continental Africa or the Red Sea and traffic goods from India as well as East Asia. In other words, they imagined Madagascar could become an entrepôt linking east and west. One successful instance of this project was instituted by migrants from the Americas during the later 1680s on St Maries (Nosy Boraha), which, of course, became notorious in England and North America as a hub for pirates.6 Yet, the application of this label had something in common with the fate of Davies when he attempted to trade at Mozambique. It was first applied by the EIC as a means to eliminate competition, rather than as a means to restrain robbery at sea. The hunting of pirates by the EIC constituted just one dispute over this project’s realisation and was part of a contest between rival east India companies, which stretched over many decades. An entrepôt at Madagascar was attempted by Stuart subjects at least three times before 1707, first by the Assada Company in the later 1640s, then by colonists from the Americas during the 1680s and, finally, by the Company of Scotland after 1701. Each instance came when political support for the

5 Robert Hunt, The Island of Assada, neere Madagascar Impartially Defined (1650), p.5; Jane Hooper, Feeding Globalization: Madagascar and the Provisioning Trade, 1600–1800 (2017); McDonald, Pirates, Merchants, Settlers and Slaves, pp.61–80; Games, Web of Empire, pp.181–218. 6 Nosy Boraha, as the island is called today, lies off the northeastern coast of Madagascar. 195

EIC’s monopoly appeared to be ebbing away in England and, in the latter two cases, rivalries resulted in criminal prosecutions. Madagascar was of especial interest to prospective colonisers in England and Scotland, because they viewed it as a strategic chokepoint between the Atlantic and Indian oceans. By the mid- seventeenth century, the experiences of Stuart subjects in both maritime spaces differed substantially. In the former, they flocked predominantly to the Caribbean, seeking precious metals and plantation goods, or entered the region as unfree workers. In the case of the Indian Ocean, they instead had to accord with established and cosmopolitan practices of exchange in the basin’s many port-polities. This separation had been given legal form by Elizabeth I when she issued a charter establishing the EIC in 1600. The document stated that the Cape of Good Hope would be the barrier between these two oceanic systems, a division that ensured trade flows from both oceans were directed into England. Yet, as the Americas were colonised by people from England, Scotland and Ireland during the seventeenth century, maintaining this boundary became a recurring challenge for the EIC. Global flow of bullion from production centres in the Americas to eventual sinks in China and the Indian Ocean had little practical need to be channeled through Europe, and the same was true for the people and goods that followed them. As a result, Madagascar was a natural point of convergence in a way a port like London was not. Merchant opponents of the EIC came to see Madagascar as well situated for a lucrative colonial venture, it being a project that would help break the Company’s monopoly and, with it, the legal barrier to freer movement between the two oceans. Controlling this chokepoint, therefore, allowed prospective colonisers a level of control over how far economic and socio-cultural practices unique to each maritime space were transferred to the other. The following chapter will be divided into four sections. The first sketches the period preceding 1688, beginning with an outline of how national monopoly companies formed as a response to the particular circumstances of Indian Ocean trade, with piracy prosecutions emerging as one means by which companies enforced jurisdiction. It then demonstrates how the English followed this same pattern when they entered trade with the east, stressing the emerging role of Madagascar in two competing visions for its organisation, articulated by the Assada Company and, later, the EIC president, Josiah Child. The second part focuses on how the two were placed in direct competition during the 1690s. Initially, it follows how advocates of a regulated company in England used the EIC’s connections to James II to erode its monopoly. It then moves to the colonisation of St Maries

196 by migrants from the Americas, considered as a realisation of the entrepôt imagined by the Assada Company some years earlier. Against its decaying monopoly and the formation of a rival Company in Scotland, the EIC had to respond, and it did so by denouncing the St Maries colonists as pirates to reassert the necessity of monopoly rule. The third section details the attempt of the Company of Scotland to institute this same project. It recovers their plan to assume control over the St Maries colony, a scheme that quickly became entangled in jurisdictional disputes with the New EIC, precipitating one further piracy trial. The final part then examines the trial of the New EIC captain Thomas Green for piracy in Edinburgh. The prosecution mirrored the prosecution of William Kidd four years earlier, challenging the Company’s right to control transoceanic movements through a monopoly and asserting the rights of Stuart subjects to conduct free trade into the east. Finally, it traces how members of the EIC responded, sowing so much discord between England and Scotland over the trial that it made a conclusive case for the further reassertion of an English monopoly, expressed finally through Anglo–Scottish Union in 1707. Tracing this larger context to the EIC’s campaign against pirates contributes to three separate areas of historiography. First of all, it engages with recent work on early modern pirates. For the most part, these works remain confined to the Atlantic and do not consider events around and beyond Cape Horn in any great detail.7 Exceptions include Robert Ritchie, who has similarly viewed the pursuit of pirates as a strategy by the EIC and, more recently, Kevin McDonald, who has fleshed out the details of Madagascar’s links to New York.8 Yet the approach here demonstrates that the Company’s efforts against pirates had a far longer history than is popularly realised. Events like the prosecution of William Kidd were not isolated occurrences, but part of an ongoing competition between rival visions of how connected the two oceans should be, a debate that extended beyond England. Secondly, it speaks to histories of the Indian Ocean littoral, which have, in recent years, come to challenge older perceptions that it was an initially pacific maritime space made violent by Europeans.9 As part of this revision, scholars have come to take an interest in earlier instances of maritime predation and, as a result, to be interested in prosecution of Hindu and

7 Considered sporadically in Hanna, Pirate Nests, pp.222–250; Burgess, Politics of Piracy, pp.108–117, 153–158. 8 McDonald, Pirates Merchants Settlers and Slaves, esp.ch.2; Ritchie, Captain Kidd. 9 Anthony Reid, ‘Islam in South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean Littoral 1500–1800: Expansion, Polarisation, Synthesis’ in David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (eds.), The New Cambridge History of Islam, vol.3 (2010), pp.427–469; Pearson, The Indian Ocean, pp.113–158; Janet L. Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World-System, A.D. 1250–1350 (1989), pp.3–32; K.N. Chaudhuri, Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (1985), pp.3–4. 197

Muslim sailors as pirates from the early eighteenth century. The work of Lakshmi Subramanian is most notable here.10 To these studies, this chapter adds detail on how Europeans themselves came to accord with these existing practices, as well as highlighting that piracy prosecutions in the Indian Ocean were first honed among Europeans before then being applied to other peoples. Lastly, it contributes to the scholarship on Anglo–Scottish Union. Writing on the Union of 1707 has tended to downplay the significance of trade with the east in driving the process, a tendency recently criticised by Andrew Mackillop.11 This chapter adds to this debate by elevating the significance of the trial of Thomas Green in driving Union, it being a component of the process oriented around the question of trade with the east. In a sense it restores this emphasis, as Green’s execution was emphasised in the very first history of Anglo–Scottish Union by Daniel Defoe, although it has since been downplayed.12

*** The engagement of Europeans with the Indian Ocean initially proceeded very differently to overseas expansion in the Atlantic. Early expeditions out of Europe deployed similarly violent strategies, but were unable to seize large swathes of territory as they did in the Americas. Instead, they seized a scattering of port towns or came to be confined to enclaves within those that proved more resilient. European sovereigns responded to this pattern by creating corporate entities with state-like characteristics, allocated monopolies and intended to organise flows of people and goods

10 Lakshmi Subramanian, The Sovereign and the Pirate: Ordering Maritime Subjects in India’s Western Littoral (2016), pp.9–12; Roy Kaushik, Military Transition in Early Modern Asia, 1400–1750: Cavalry, Guns, Governments and Ships (2014), pp.136–138; Prange, ‘A Trade of No Dishonor’, p.1272; Derek L. Elliott, ‘Pirates, Polities and Companies: Global Politics on the Konkan Littoral, c.1690–1756’. Economic History Working Papers, no.136/10 (2010), pp.8–13; Rahul C. Oka and Chapurukha M. Kusimba, ‘Siddi as Mercenary or as African Success Story on the West Coast of India in John C. Hawley (ed.), India in Africa, Africa in India: Indian Ocean Cosmopolitanisms (2008), pp.203–229; Lakshmi Subramanian, ‘Of Pirates and Potentates: Maritime Jurisdiction and the Construction of Piracy in the Indian Ocean’ in Devleena Ghosh and Stephen Muecke (eds.), Cultures of Trade: Indian Ocean Exchanges (2007), pp.20–27; Patricia Risso, ‘Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy: Maritime Violence in the Western Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf Region during a Long Eighteenth Century’, JWH, vol.12, no.2 (2001), pp.317–319. 11 Andrew Mackillop, ‘A North Europe World of Tea: Scotland and the Tea Trade, c.1690 to c.1790’ in Maxine Berg et al. (eds.), Goods from the East, 1600–1800: Trading Eurasia (2015), pp.294–308; Andrew Mackillop, ‘Accessing Empire: Scotland, Europe, Britain, and the Asia Trade, 1695–c.1750’, Itinerario, vol.29, no.3 (2005), pp.7–30. 12 Daniel Defoe, The History of the Union of Great Britain (1709), pp.81–98; Alvin Jackson, The Two Unions: Ireland, Scotland, and the Survival of the United Kingdom, 1707–2007 (2012), p.62; Alasdair Raffe, ‘1707, 2007, and the Unionist Turn in Scottish History’, The Historical Journal, vol.53, no.4 (2010), p.1076; some scattered mentions in MacInnes, Union and Empire; Bowie, Scottish Public, pp.41–43; Whatley, The Scots and Union, p.200; Michael Fry, The Union: England, Scotland and the Treaty of 1707 (2007). 198 between Europe and the east. Such bodies were by no means unusual during the early modern period, and their members were predominantly traders, but with shifting responsibilities for the administration of justice, diplomacy, warfare, religious life and taxation.13 These companies quickly came to function as intermediaries, required to adhere to local laws and traditions, as well as appearing to serve the interests of distant European sovereigns. Yet they were also buffers, preventing the markedly more cosmopolitan practices of exchange common to the Indian Ocean from feeding back into the Atlantic. The ability to punish interlopers and convince audiences in Europe of its effectiveness as intermediaries became essential for any successful monopoly, an objective that piracy prosecutions came to form an important part in achieving. This dynamic was no different when English sailors, colonists and traders first began to move eastwards. The EIC itself had to weather the opposition of established companies, especially accusations that they acted as pirates. These were strategies they would themselves come to deploy in order to protect their monopoly from fellow subjects as they arose to challenge it during the late seventeenth century. The Portuguese founded the first company-state and, in the process, set the terms upon which European sovereigns sought to manage engagement with the Indian Ocean thereafter. By the fifteenth century, it was a maritime space chequered with trade networks already many hundred years old, extending from Cairo to Canton (Guangzhou) and Calicut (Kozhikode) to Mombasa. These routes carried luxury goods, such as silks, spices, ivory and slaves, and did so stepwise through the ocean’s innumerable port-polities.14 Over the centuries, cosmopolitan communities of predominantly Islamic merchants had formed in these towns to facilitate trade, but the Ocean was neither as pacific nor as tolerant as this description might suggest.15 Writing in the mid-fourteenth century, the Moroccan sailor Ibn Battūtah remarked that the Maldives were often raided by ‘the robbers and thieves of India’, while whenever ‘the war-vessels of the infidel Hindus pass by these

13 Stern, The Company State. 14 Pearson, ‘Islamic Trade’, pp.317–322; Geoffrey C. Gunn, History Without Borders: The Making of an Asian World Region, 1000–1800 (2011), pp.79–87; Kenneth R. Hall, ‘Ports-of-Trade, Maritime Diasporas, and Networks of Trade and Cultural Integration in the Bay of Bengal Region of the Indian Ocean: c.1300–1500’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol.53, no.1/2 (2010), pp.109–145. 15 Roxani Eleni Margariti, ‘Mercantile Networks, Port Cities, and “Pirate” States: Conflict and Competition in the Indian Ocean World of Trade before the Sixteenth Century’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol.51, no.4 (2008), pp.543–577; Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony, pp.275–276; Patricia Risso, Merchants and Faith: Muslim Commerce and Culture in the Indian Ocean (1995); M.H. Ilias, ‘Mappila Muslims and the Cultural Content of Trading Arab Diaspora on the Malabar Coast’, Asian Journal of Social Science, vol.35 (2007), pp.443–445; Pearson, ‘Islamic Trade’, pp.350–352. 199 island, they take whatsoever they can find, without being resisted by anyone’.16 Upon their entry into the Indian Ocean during the late fifteenth century, the Portuguese initially replicated and expanded these more predatory practices, viewing the basin through the more reified confessional lens of the Mediterranean.17 Some Islamic polities responded in kind, but, across the sixteenth century, cooperation rather than crusade came to offer greater rewards.18 The employees of the Estado da Índia, the body established in 1505 and charged with organising flows of bullion out of Iberia into the east, began to adjust to the cosmopolitanism that underpinned Indian Ocean trade. At Mozambique, for instance, Mestiço populations gradually established themselves as Prazos – rulers of landed chiefdoms – becoming brokers between the Ocean and the African Continent, while similar positions were held by Luso-Indian populations in and around Goa.19 An initially violent entry into the Indian Ocean allowed the Portuguese to carve a place for themselves somewhere that would have otherwise been closed to them, before then giving way to accommodation with existing trading practices, managed by a monopoly company to ensure the enormous rewards this trade brought were channeled northwards into Europe. By the seventeenth century, other Europeans followed after Portuguese explorers, merchants and sailors in seeking to organise trade with the east, a threat that the Estado da Índia sought to contain. By this point, the flow of goods around Cape Horn had served to make Iberia extraordinarily wealthy. Following the union of the crowns of Spain and Portugal in 1580, Philip III claimed control over 80% of the world’s gold and silver supply, drawn from production centres in the

16 Samuel Lee (ed.) The Travels of Ibn Batūta (1829), p.177. 17 Pius Malekandathil, Maritime India: Trade, Religion and Polity in the Indian Ocean (2010), p.113; Pearson, The Indian Ocean, pp.114–125. 18 Prange, ‘A Trade of No Dishonor’; Kenneth R. Hall, ‘European Southeast Asia Encounters with Islamic Expansionism, circa 1500–1700: Comparative Case Studies of Banten, Ayutthaya, and Banjarmasin in the Wider Indian Ocean Context’, JWH, vol.25, no.2/3 (2014), pp.232–255; Edward A. Alpers, The Indian Ocean in World History (2014), pp.75–78; Paulo Jorge De Sousa Pinto, The Portuguese and the Straits of Melaka, 1575–1619: Power, Trade and Diplomacy (2012), pp.81–84; Andreu Martínez d’Alòs-Moner, ‘Conquistadores, Mercenaries, and Missionaries: The Failed Portuguese Dominion of the Red Sea’, Northeast African Studies, vol.12, no.1 (2012), pp.1–28. 19 Teotónio R. de Souza, ‘Portuguese Impact upon Goa: Lusotopic, Lusophonic, Lusophilic?’ in Philip J. Havik and Malyn Newitt (eds.), Creole Societies in the Portuguese Colonial Empire (2015), pp.202–204; Sanjay Subrahmanyam, The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500–1700: A Political and Economic History, 2nd ed. (2012), pp.206–211; Anthony Disney, ‘Portuguese Expansion, 1400–1800: Encounters, Negotiations, and Interactions’ in Francisco Bethencourt and Diogo Ramada Curto (eds.), Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400–1800 (2007), pp.302– 309; Ashin Das Gupta, The World of the Indian Ocean Merchant, 1500–1800: Collected Essays by Ashin Das Gupta, compiled by Uma Das Gupta (2001), pp.244–249; Maria Augusta Lima Cruz, ‘Notes on Portuguese Relations with Vijayanagara, 1500–1565’ in Sanjay Subrahmanyam (ed.), Saints and Sinners: The Successors of Vasco da Gama (1998), pp.32–34. 200

Americas, before being directed into Cadiz and Manilla.20 Flows of bullion served to supercharge the economy of the Indian Ocean, allowing the Iberian Peninsula to flourish but producing comparative shortages of specie elsewhere.21 At the beginning of the century, Dutch sailors also began venturing eastwards and, after 1602, did so under the employ of their own corporate monopoly, the newly-formed VOC. Halting the military efforts of the Dutch, then at war with the House of Habsburg, required that the Estado da Índia break new legal ground. Papal sanction as well as the treaties of Tordesillas and Zaragoza forbade the presence of these newcomers in the east, as was the case in the Atlantic.22 Borrowing from Spanish practice, the Portuguese began charging Dutch sailors they captured with piracy, the first being the crew of Jacob Corneliszoon Van Neck, who were executed for the crime en masse at Canton in 1602.23 The VOC again stood accused of piracy in 1603 following the capture of the Santa Caterina near Hong Kong by Jacob van Heemskerk and likewise with the capture of the silver-laden Santo António two years later.24 The Amsterdam High Court of Admiralty declared these seizures legal on 4 September 1604, and in so doing it asserted the right of the VOC to operate in the east. This episode inspired Hugo Grotius to forward the more formal case for the verdict in his De Iure Praedae. In the text, he laid out the Company’s rights in international law, claiming that it had a right to defend itself in reprisal against a hostile foreign power, an argument developed in his published pamphlet Mare liberum in 1609.25 In the following decades, the VOC would expand aggressively at the expense of the Estado da Índia, before similarly coming to find their place in the Ocean’s port towns and coming to accord with existing Indian Ocean trade practices.

20 Flynn, ‘Silver in a Global Context’, pp.226–233; Ricardo Padrón, ‘A Sea of Denial: The Early Modern Spanish Invention of the Pacific Rim’, Hispanic Review, vol.77, no.1 (2009), pp.7–19; Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World, pp.267–268. 21 Francesca Trivellato, ‘The Organisation of Trade in Europe and Asia, 1400–1800’ in Bentley et al., The Cambridge World History, vol.6, Part 2, p.183. 22 Peter Borschberg, ‘The Johor-VOC Alliance and the Twelve Years’ Truce: Factionalism, Intrigue and International Diplomacy 1606–13’, Institute of International Law and Justice Working Papers, vol.8 (2009), pp.3–6. 23 Kempe, ‘Beyond the Law, p.380. 24 Peter Borschberg, ‘The Seizure of the Sta. Catarina off Singapore: Dutch Freebooting, the Portuguese Empire and Intra-Asian Trade at the Dawn of the Seventeenth Century’, Revista de Cultura, vol.11 (2004), pp.14–22. 25 For the significance of Mare liberum in an Atlantic context, see Chapter 2, above. Martine Julia Van Ittersum, ‘Dating the Manuscript of De Jure Praedae: What Watermarks, Foliation and Quire Divisions can tell us about Hugo Grotius’ Development as a Natural Rights and Natural Law Theorist’, History of European Ideas, vol.35, no.2 (2009), pp.125–193; Eadem (ed.), Hugo Grotius, Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty (2006), pp.223–285; Eadem, ‘Hugo Grotius in Context: Van Heemskerck’s Capture of the Santa Catarina and its Justification in De Jure Praedae (1604–1606)’, Asian Journal of Social Science, vol.31, no.3 (2003), pp.511–548. 201

The case of these two corporate bodies offers a template for how the jurisdiction of monopoly companies would be challenged and defended in future. Newcomers came seeking to break into existing markets, either by trading in disregard of existing claims or through more violent means. They would support their actions by stressing that existing monopolies stifled commerce and seek a means to undermine their privileges in law. When challenged, corporate bodies would then attempt to delegitimise and criminalise those who violated their monopoly. In particular, condemning rivals as pirates or as interlopers and seeing to their prosecution allowed for the enforcement of a charter and, more importantly, suppressed the ambitions of rivals who came advocating that the grip of existing companies on trade be loosened. During its earliest years, the EIC similarly had to weather accusations that English mariners acted as pirates. Established by royal charter in December 1600 by Elizabeth I, the Company was granted a monopoly on the trade, but also government over English and Irish subjects beyond the Cape of Good Hope.26 During the first four decades of their existence, both the Estado Da Índia and the VOC regularly complained that English sailors acted as pirates and that they targeted Muslim shipping. The EIC initially dismissed these claims as politically motivated smears, but a clear pattern of behaviour began to develop.27 These attacks were directed towards the treasure- laden vessels dispatched by the Mughals between Surat and the port towns of the Red Sea, ships that also carried pilgrims on hajj to and from Mecca and the other holy sites of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula.28 In 1637, the EIC recorded the robbery of several of these vessels in the Red Sea, prompting the Mughal Shah Jahan to have several of the English Company’s ships seized in reprisal.29 The Company deplored these attacks as acts of piracy and explained that they were carried out by “interlopers”, those who departed from Britain and Ireland without regard for the Company’s charter. Here, the EIC referred to merchants who opposed the organisation of exchange through a monopoly, funded from the later 1610s by Puritan magnates such as Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, but also by established international merchants who were excluded from the EIC’s

26 Jane Ohlmeyer, ‘Eastward Enterprises: Colonial Ireland, Colonial India’, Past & Present, vol.240, no.1 (2018), pp.87–96; CSP East, vol.2, nos.266, 286. 27 Ibid., nos.325, 619; CSP East, vol.3, nos.217, 267, 522, 735, 759, 769, 896; CSP East, vol.4, nos.103, 303, 372, 394; CSP East, vol.6, nos.126, 139; CSP East, vol.8, no.477. 28 Eric Tagliacozzo, ‘The Hajj by Sea’ in Eric Tagliacozzo and Shawkat M. Toorawa (eds.), The Hajj: Pilgrimage in Islam (2016), pp.119–125; Pearson, Indian Ocean, p.164. 29 William Foster (ed.), A Calendar of the Court Minutes of the East India Company, 1635–1639, vol.1 (1907), pp.xxi, 211, 269. 202 stock.30 Yet the Mughals were under no obligation to appreciate the finer points of this distinction. As a monopoly company, the EIC was held responsible for the behaviour of their fellow subjects, and it was preferable for Shah Jahan to recoup losses from Company’s ships, rather than enforce its laws for them. These attacks therefore ate into the EIC’s profits, but also caused diplomatic complications, harming its ability to act as an effective intermediary. To make the situation even more challenging, responsibility of restraining these attacks fell to the EIC alone. In practice, the Company was almost completely hamstrung from preventing these raids. Its representatives had good reasons to stress that interlopers sponsored these pirates, as the attacks conducted in the Red Sea during 1637 were carried out by sailors in the employ of Courteen’s Associates, a company established by the Anglo-Dutch merchant William Courteen in December 1635, through a license from Charles I.31 With this support, there was little the EIC could do to stop them. This new Association included those who had been previously cast out of the English Company, alongside Puritan merchants such as Maurice Thompson, who had coincident roles in the initial colonisation of the Caribbean.32 The creation of Courteen’s Associates, with their experience in the trade of two oceans, heralded the beginnings of an alternative vision of how movements between the two oceans could be organised. The midcentury conflicts in Britain and Ireland provided a climate in which the Associates could advance their vision, and they did so through a proposed colony at Madagascar. Following their founder’s death in 1636, the Associates continued trading into the Indian Ocean, as well as colonies like Barbados in the Caribbean.33 The idea for a project to colonise Madagascar was first conceived in the mid-1630s by Prince Rupert as a kind of African El Dorado, but after 1640 became seen as a means to transfer the plantation model developed in the Caribbean into the Indian Ocean.34 More than any other group at the time, the Associates viewed themselves as well equipped to put these

30 CSP East, vol.3, nos.269, 289, 584, 745; Robert Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (2003), pp.100–102. 31 Foster, Calendar of Court Minutes, vol.1, pp.211–213; L.H. Roper, Advancing Empire: English Interests and Overseas Expansion, 1613–1688 (2017), p.103; Emily Erickson, Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600–1757 (2014), p.57. 32 Kupperman, Providence Island, p.201; Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, pp.125–129; Pearl, ‘Thomson [Thompson], Maurice (1604–1676)’; P.J. Marshall, ‘The English in Asia to 1700’ in Canny, Oxford History of the British Empire, vol.1, p.277. 33 Brenner, Merchants and Revolution, pp.172–178. 34 Edmond J. Smith, ‘“Canaanising Madagascar”: Africa in English Imperial Imagination, 1635–1650’, Itinerario, vol.39, no.2 (2015), pp.283–293; Games, Web of Empire, pp.197–198; William D’Avenant, Madagascar with other poems (1638); Walter Hamond, A Paradox Proving that the Inhabitants of the Isle Called Madagascar, or St. Laurence (in temporall things) are the happiest people in the world (1640). 203 ideas into practice, leading to their first attempt to found a colony on to the east coast of Madagascar. Their ambitions went beyond the cultivation of sugar, however. Plantations were simply the first stage in a venture that would, in time, transition to become an entrepôt linking the trades of the Atlantic and the Indian oceans.35 Remaining members of the EIC of course opposed the settlement. They denounced the colonists as interlopers and claimed that the island would quickly become used as a base to expand the attacks they continued to commit in the Red Sea.36 By later 1646, this attempt had failed, but the Associates remained convinced of a colony’s potential. After a further three years of promotion and planning, in 1649 they changed their name to the Assada Company, after their name for the island of Nosy Be, and launched a second attempt.37 Yet by 1650 this colony had also failed. Following the death of Charles I, the resistance of the EIC to a takeover by their opponents was finally broken in a manner that killed off this project. The Assada merchants were progressively subsumed into the EIC, giving them little reason to then seek to undermine monopoly rule. The Assada Company set a precedent that later challengers would seek to replicate. Madagascar had been identified as potential free port where colonisers could bridge the trade of the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Strategically, the island provided access to the Indian Subcontinent, a supply of slaves who could be shipped to the Caribbean and access to the Red Sea and the bullion carried by Mughal shipping. It was also a region over which the EIC and other European companies held little influence, ruled by a host of autonomous Malagasy rulers, with whom alliances could be forged. Assada symbolised a kind of liberum oceanum for those seeking to break the corporate monopoly that prevented the greater integration of commercial traffic from the two basins. After the Restoration, when this project began to take form once again, the EIC would develop its own plans for Madagascar, instead conducive to consolidating its grip on the trade of the Indian Ocean. It was not until the early part of the 1680s that the EIC again began to face a threat comparable to Courteen’s Associates. Over the previous twenty years, monopoly rule was reaffirmed and even

35 Richard Boothby, A briefe discovery or description of the most famous island of Madagascar or St. Laurence in Asia neare unto East-India (1647), pp.6–11, 20–27; Hunt, The island of Assada; W. Foster, ‘An English Settlement in Madagascar in 1645–6’, The English Historical Review, vol.27, no.106 (1912), pp.239–250. 36 ‘Thomas Ivie to Directors, 4 January 1646’, ‘Hickes to Surat Council, 15 July 1647’, ‘Edward Thompson to Surat Council, 26 August 1647’, EIC Surat Factory Records, 1621–1636, IOR G 36/102A, pp.87, 240, 257–259, BL; Foster, A Calendar of the Court Minutes, vol.1, p.240. 37 McDonald, Pirates, Merchants, Settlers, and Slaves, pp.69–75; Games, Web of Empire, pp.181–216; J.T. Hardyman, ‘Outline of the Maritime History of St Augustine’s Bay (Madagascar)’, Studia, vol.11 (1963), pp.319– 324. 204 extended with the creation of the Royal African Company, putting up further barriers to exchange between the two oceans.38 As one contemporary stated in a speech to the English Parliament during 1675, he and the weavers he was representing believed that poor employment ‘arises from the great restraint on trade by the East India and Guinea Companies, they having monopolised the sole trade of above half of the world, and utterly excluding all other subjects from trading to any places within their charters’.39 Despite these continuing complaints, during 1681 large numbers of Company employees were purged, especially Whigs, for relatively minor infractions against its charter.40 These ejections were mirrored in the Company’s factories and colonies, where the EIC began to enforce the letter of its monopoly more closely. Yet this was a policy that soon provoked two separate uprisings. The first was in Bombay (today Mumbai, in the Indian state of Maharashtra) where, on 27 December 1683, the militia commander Richard Keigwin seized control of the English fort.41 At the same time, mutiny also brewed far to the south on St Helena. In recent years, the island had come to be not just a provisioning centre, but also a plantation colony, becoming the base from which the EIC oversaw the passage of its shipping between the two oceans.42 On 21 October 1684, around a hundred soldiers there marched to the island’s fort demanding the resignation of the EIC’s officials.43 Strong commonalities existed in the arguments articulated by both groups of rebels. As employees, they complained of stringent measures barring them from entering trade and failures to fund adequate protection. Both Keigwin and the St Helena colonists vowed that they would lay open trade to all subjects, accusing the EIC of using its monopoly to stifle commerce.44 The following year, Keigwin began to form his own trade networks. Working

38 Kay, The Glorious Revolution and the Continuity of Law, pp.246–247; William A. Pettigrew, Freedom’s Debt: The Royal African Company and the Politics of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1672–1752 (2013), pp.22–32. 39 W.T. Ottewill (ed.), East India Company Calendar of Court Records, 1674–1676 (1935), vol.10, pp.232–233. 40 Perry Gauci, ‘Papillon, Thomas (1623–1702)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn., Jan 2018 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21247, accessed 13 May. 2018]; Stern, The Company State, pp.42–50, 145; K.N. Chaudhuri, ‘The English East India Company’s Shipping (c.1660–1760)’ in Jaap R. Bruijn and Femme S. Gaastra (eds.), Ships, Sailors and Spices: East India Companies and their Shipping in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries (1993), p.57. 41 ‘C. Ward and Thomas Petit to Directors’, 8 January 1683’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/42, fo.164, BL; Ray and Oliver Strachey, Keigwin’s Rebellion (1683–4): An Episode in History of Bombay (1916), pp.166–167. 42 For a recent assessment of the island’s significance for the EIC see: Philip J. Stern, ‘Politics and Ideology in the Early East India Company-State: The Case of St Helena, 1673–1709’ in The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol.35, no.1 (2007), pp.1–23. 43 ‘John Child to Directors, 26 April 1684’, ‘The Deposition of Andrew Wilson, 15 August 1684’, ‘The Narrative of Morris Hunt, Sargeant, 23 October 1684’, ‘The Narrative of James Johnson, Soldier, 23 October 1684’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/42, fos.44, 102, 211, 213, BL. 44 ‘Thomas Grantham to Directors, 23 August 1684’, ‘Keigwin to Charles II, 15 September 1684’, ‘The Deposition of Francis Day, 25 September 1684’, ‘The further Examination of James Johnson, 23 October 1684’, ‘The examination of Thomas Brown, 10 November 1684’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/42, fos.110, 128, 147, 205 with merchants recently excluded from the Company, he secured alliances with the Maratha Chhatrapati Sambhaji, the Estado Da Índia and the VOC, as well as the Greek adventurer and royal favourite Konstantine Phalkoun in Siam (Thailand).45 These traders began to describe themselves as a Company, but the EIC’s agents decried the practices of these “interlopers”, counter-intuitively suggesting that they had both converted to Islam and begun to sponsor attacks upon Mughal treasure shipments.46 These merchants, therefore, were presented not just as a threat to the existence of a monopoly but as acculturating with Indian Ocean practices. Yet in contrast to the 1640s, the EIC were able to organise an effective opposition. The company’s more assertive behaviour after 1681 owed to the appointment of the merchant and economic writer Josiah Child as its President.47 While a firm Tory who allowed Catholics as stockholders within the Company, it was to the VOC that he looked for guidance. To become more like the VOC, he believed that the EIC should seek greater powers to punish interlopers, the expansion of the populations and territories of its factories and the use of armed trading vessels.48 When James II assumed the throne in 1685, Child’s wish for greater powers was granted in the form of a new charter, which bestowed the right to establish admiralty courts as well as institute martial law across its colonies and factories.49 During 1687, the former rebels at St Helena were executed under martial law, while newly established admiralty courts prosecuted dozens of

214–215, 266, BL; ‘Directors to Surat Council, 26 March 1686’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, 1685–1688, IOR E/3/91, fo.58, BL; Hudson Ralph Janisch (ed.), Extracts from the St Helena Records (1885), pp.18–20, 26–27, 40– 43. 45 ‘John Child to Directors, 13 November 1682’, ‘John Child to Directors, 26 January 1683’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/42, fos.94, 201, BL; ‘John Child to Directors, 10 April 1684’, ‘John Child to Directors, 26 April 1684’, ‘William Strange to Directors, 11 May 1684’, ‘John Child Proclamation against Keigwin, 15 July 1684’, ‘Keigwin to Charles II, 15 September 1684’, ‘Proceedings of the Admiralty Court at Surat 2 September 1684’, ‘Declaration of the Council of Surat, 18 September 1684’, ‘Child to Directors, 29 November 1684’, ‘Child to Directors, January 1685’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/44, fos.14, 43–44, 65, 82, 128, 133, 135, 143, 311–318, 400, BL; ‘Secret Orders sent on the ships Rochester, Beaufort and Nathaniel, 14 January 1686’, ‘Directors to Councilors of Bombay and Surat, 15 October 1686’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.38, 95, BL. 46 ‘Abstract of a Letter Received by the Interloper Ship Crowne, January 1682’, ‘John Child to Directors, 10 April 1684’, ‘John Child to Directors, 26 April 1684’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/42, fos.18–19, 34, 163, BL; ‘Child to Directors, 29 November 1684’, ‘Child to Directors, 16 February 1685’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/44, fos.318, 435 BL; ‘Directors to Councilors of Bombay and Surat, 15 October 1686’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fo.95, BL. 47 Richard Grassby, ‘Child, Sir Josiah, first baronet (bap.1631–d.1699)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn., Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5290, accessed 3 Sep 2018]; Pincus, 1688, p.373. 48 ‘Directors to Surat Council, 28 October 1685’, ‘Directors to Pryaman Council, 20 January’, ‘Directors to Surat Council, 3 February 1687’, ‘Directors to Surat Council, 23 March 1687’, ‘Directors to St Helena Council, 3 August 1687’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.6, 12, 131, 135–136, 182, BL. 49 ‘Thomas Grantham to Bristol crew, 30 October 1684’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/44, fo.238, BL; A Collection of Charters and Statutes Relating to the East India Company (1817), pp.v-vi. 206

“interloper” merchants.50 He believed that Madagascar presented the best means to expand the population of the EIC’s outposts. At the same time, Child thought that it was important to prevent any factory or colony from becoming in majority English, claiming that it could promote common opposition to the Company. Instead, he suggested importing large numbers of slaves into them from Madagascar, where they would work on surrounding plantations, serving to both bolster defences and deter English employees from rebelling.51 Particularly from the mid-1680s, EIC merchants began transporting human cargos in their hundreds to a number of different factories, but particularly to Bencoolen on Sumatra (part of what is now Bengkulu City), which Child used as a test case for this form of colonisation to mirror Batavia (now Jakarta).52 By February 1687, participation in this trade first made the EIC aware of the colony recently founded at St Maries by sailors from colonies in North America and the Caribbean.53 Realising the threat it presented, the directors sought to establish an outpost on the island to secure a regular supply of slaves, which they could send eastwards, but they first had to first eliminate the competition. Later in the month, they implored the governor of New York to seize all vessels trading there.54 Yet no action is recorded against these ships in North America and the Caribbean, instead the colony continued to expand alongside this slave trade out of Madagascar into Bencoolen.55 Part of Child’s attempt to reassert the EIC’s monopoly was its own reiteration of the Assada project. His initial plan was to try and redirect this slave trade eastwards, severing Madagascar’s connection to the Americas and expanding the populations of the Company’s outposts in the process.

50 ‘Secret Orders sent on the ships Rochester, Beaufort and Nathaniel, 14 January 1686’, ‘Directors to Council of Bombay, 22 October 1686’, ‘Directors to Bombay Council, 7 January 1686’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.38, 110, 121, BL; ‘Proceedings of the Admiralty Court at Surat, 2 September 1684’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/44, fos.133–139, BL; ‘Kings Bench Session Minutes, 1687’, EIC Legal Papers 1685– 1721, IOR H/23, fos.1–12, BL; ‘Directors to Surat Council, 28 October 1685’, ‘Directors to Surat Council, 3 February 1687’, ‘Commission to Thomas Dongan, 20 March 1687’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.5, 133, 141, BL; ‘Meeting Minutes, 27 July 1687’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 30 November 1687’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/39, fos.28–29, 81, BL. 51 ‘Directors to Pryaman Council, 21 October 1685’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.3–4, BL. 52 ‘John Child to Directors, 26 April 1684’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/44, fo.44, BL; ‘Directors to Pryaman Council, 21 October 1685’, ‘Directors to Pryaman Council, 20 January 1686’, ‘Directors to Council at Bombay, 14 April 1686’, ‘Instructions for Captain Harding, 3 August 1687’, ‘Directors to Council of Bencoolen, 3 August, 1687’ EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.3–4, 12, 14, 63, 175, 187, BL; ‘Meeting Minutes, 27th July 1687’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/39, BL. 53 ‘Directors to Surat Council, 3 February 1687’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fo.132, BL. 54 ‘Directors to Thomas Dongan, 20 March 1687’, Ibid., fo.141. 55 ‘Elisha Yale to Directors, 20th November 1691’, ‘Bombay Council to Charles Fleetwood, undated’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E 3/49, fos.44, 216, BL. 207

The EIC’s attempts to drive these colonists from Madagascar took place in the following decade, but were foreshadowed by legal proceedings in England during late 1685. The case involved a number of former Company traders based in London who owned shares in the Andalucia, a trading vessel with investors such as Thomas Pitt, formerly resident at Siam, and Thomas Bowrey, a merchant with extensive experience trading to Malaysia.56 Without securing the permission of the EIC, the vessel was dispatched to Cadiz in January 1686, where it took on around £100,000 in bullion before departing for the Coromandel Coast in southeastern India. There, they picked up local crewmembers and bought calico fabrics.57 By September, the Andalucia was in Balasore (today Beleswar, in the Indian state of Odisha), where the captain became embroiled in a dispute over the ownership of some saltpetre with another English merchant. The Mughal governor of the town initially imprisoned him on suspicion of theft but eventually, through the mediation of a Dutch factor in the port, the Andalucia was granted permission to take the cargo of saltpetre from a vessel in the harbour.58 This was a somewhat eventful but ultimately unremarkable voyage. Yet in mid- January 1687 when they arrived into Portsmouth, the vessel was immediately seized by admiralty officials there.59 The EIC’s directors appear to have been informed of the Andalucia’s arrival and, on 11 January, complained of the ship’s voyage to King James, who accordingly ordered the vessel to be confiscated.60 The Company then arranged for two separate suits, one against the vessel itself in the Court of King’s Bench for interloping and another for its crew in the High Court of Admiralty for piracy.61 The former charge was simply on account of their departing without permission from the EIC, but to justify the latter prosecution, they cited that the sailors had “seized” cargo under permission from a Muslim ruler, a sanction not valid in common law.62 The penalty for piracy would, of course, have been death, and the directors wrote of their hopes that the exacted

56 ‘The Examination of Charles Price, 2 February 1687’, Examinations of Pirates and Other Criminals, 1683–1694, HCA 1/52, fo.65, TNA. 57 ‘The Examination of John Bonnell, 13 January 1687’, Ibid., fo.59. 58 ‘The Examination of William Freake. 15 January 1687’, Ibid., fo.61. 59 ‘Inventory of Cargo in the Andaluzia, 8 April 1687’, High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Indictments and Proceedings Filed, 1684–1688, HCA 1/12, fo.52, TNA. 60 ‘Directors to Bombay Council, 22 January 1687’, EIC Outbound Correspondence 1685–1688, IOR E/3/91, fo.130, BL; ‘Warrant to Richard Raines’, State Papers: Entry Books, Warrants and Passes, 1686–1688, SP 44/337, fo.177, TNA; ‘The Earl of Sunderland to the Earl of Gainsborough, 14 January 1687’, State Papers: Entry Books, Earl of Sunderland’s Letters, 1679–1688, SP 44/56, fo.359, TNA. 61 ‘Draft Arrest Warrant, February 1687’, High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Indictments and Monitions, 1674–1687, HCA 1/28, fo.158, TNA; ‘Directors to Surat Council, 22 January 1687’, ‘Directors to Surat Council, 3 February 1687’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.130–131, BL. 62 ‘Directors to Surat Council, 3 February 1687’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, BL. 208 punishment would mean they would not be ‘hearing of interlopers in India during the generation’.63 Although both cases initially proceeded quickly, the King interceded in April to halt the piracy charge by pardoning the sailors, believing it too severe to seek the execution of the crew in addition to the forfeiture of the ship’s goods.64 Just as the Estado da Índia had been before them, the greater powers awarded to the EIC now placed them in a position to prosecute newcomers for piracy. By 1688, contrasting colonisation projects for Madagascar, and the island of St Maries in particular, had emerged to reflect the now decades-old debate about the conduct of exchange with the east. The first was represented by the efforts of the Assada Company during the 1640s. Its vision had comprised of a settlement in which the commerce of two oceans could interlink, countermanding and undermining the monopoly allocated to the EIC and, in practice, shifting the centre of global trade and migration southwards. The second was the product of Child’s own economic thought. He imagined a militarised monopoly company with powerful executive and judicial powers, which, through the control of slave labour, could prevent this convergence of the two oceans in a manner that largely bypassed England. By this point, it was unclear which of these projects would succeed.

*** As a consequence of having bound itself so closely to James II, the EIC was placed in a difficult position by the 1688 Revolution. The traders who they had first excluded and then prosecuted during the previous decade were able to make substantial capital out of the Company’s ascent at the behest of a Catholic king now widely deemed a tyrant. Against the eruption of war with France, this argument was enough to loosen the monopoly of the EIC, but not to see it overthrown entirely. Two rival companies in the form of the New East India Company (the New EIC) and the Company of Scotland began to form across the decade, seeking to take its place, while the colony at St Maries began to swell with those displaced by war. To fight back against these threats, the Old EIC came to characterise the colonists at St Maries at pirates, using their prosecution to emphasise the necessity of a quasi-state monopoly and suppress links to the Americas.

63 ‘Directors to Council of Bombay, 8 April 1687’, Ibid., fo.145. 64 ‘James II Proclamation, 7 April 1687’, Indictments and Proceedings Filed, 1684–1688, HCA 1/12, fo.51, TNA; ‘Meeting Minutes, 30 November 1687’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/39, fo.81, BL. 209

During 1689, opponents of the Old EIC in England began to conduct a sustained print campaign against the Company, presenting Child’s associates as a drain on England’s war effort and a remnant of James II in corporate form. The issue touched upon with the greatest force was the issue of bullion. Pamphleteers argued that the trade as it existed under the EIC’s monopoly only caused an outpouring of gold and silver, benefitting only a handful of wealthy stockholders and ruining domestic industries.65 The application of the Company’s enhanced powers after 1685 was also heavily criticised. Numerous printed works also outlined the efforts the Company had gone to in using its judiciary to impoverish traders and mariners – the Andalucia was specifically referenced – while also using martial law to crush dissidents at St Helena.66 Consideration of previous parliamentary lobbying efforts against the EIC reveals the many enemies it had made. Its opponents included not only those who had been expelled and prosecuted for interloping, but also the St Helena planters, the Levant Company and English cloth manufacturers.67 Following campaigns and debates in Parliament, the EIC’s charter was forfeited in 1693, and, that same year, legislation was proposed that opened trade with the east to any company established by statute.68 This victory was not capitalised upon fully until 1698, however, with the establishment of a separate regulated joint-stock company by Act of English Parliament, comprising, in majority, of EIC outcasts and

65 Anon., Considerations humbly offered to the honourable House of Commons assembled in Parliament, concerning prohibiting the exportation of wooll (1689); James William, England’s interest: or, Means to promote the consumption of English wooll (1689), pp.3–4; Anon., The East-India and Guinny-trade, as novv under a joynt-stock, considered and proved prejudicial to the kingdom’s interest (1690); Anon., Companies in joynt-stock unnecessary and inconvenient. Free trade to India in a regulated company, the interest of England (1691); Anon., An Apology for the English Nation (1691); Anon., Free regulated trade, particularly to India the interest of England: being the true, natural means, to promote the navigation and riches of this nation (1691); Anon., The consequences of tolerating gold and silver to be exported out of this kingdom, discovered; and the manner how the coin of this nation has been destroy’d (1692); Anon., A letter, written to a member of Parliament, concerning the East-India trade (1693), pp.3– 5. 66 Anon., The case of the marriners which served the East-India Company in their wars in the East-Indies (1690); Anon., An essay towards a scheme or model for erecting a National East-India joynt-stock or company more generally diffused and enlarged for the restoring, establishing, and better carrying on that most important trade (1691), p.14; George White, An account of the trade to the East Indies together with the state of the present company (1691), pp.3–9; Anon., A journal of several remarkable passages, before the Honourable House of Commons, and the Right Honourable the Lords of Their Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council: relating to the East-India trade (1693), pp.25–30; William Hodges, An humble representation of the seamens misery in the loss and abuse of them in their payment (1694), pp.9–11. 67 See State Papers: Domestic, Papers and Petitions to James II, 1685–1688, SP 31/5, pp.22–50, TNA; ‘An Abstract of the Most Deplorable Case of Samuel White under the Cruel Oppressions of the East India Company’, State Papers: Domestic, Letters and Papers, 1686–1687, SP 31/3, p.9, TNA; Anon., A petition against the East-India Company To the Honourable the Commons of England in Parliament assembled (1691). 68 James Bohun, ‘Protecting Prerogative: William III and the East India Trade Debate, 1689–1698’, Past Imperfect, vol.2 (1993), pp.76–78. 210 those previously condemned as interlopers.69 Challengers like Keigwin, who had aspired to establish a rival company, had managed to secure legal sanction amounting to a duopoly, but the Old EIC was far from defeated. The most significant practical challenge to how trade with the east was conducted remained at St Maries. While it is difficult to determine the precise size of this settlement, it certainly grew from a few hundred people in the late 1680s to as many as 1400 by 1697.70 The precise nationalities of these migrants are difficult to determine, but while their primary westward trade was with the Americas they certainly originated from France, West Africa, Denmark and the Low Countries, as well as Britain and Ireland.71 What precisely drove this process of colonisation has been examined in greater detail in Chapter 3, but it is worth reiterating that the settlers traded for textiles and manufactured goods in India, procured stolen coinage from the Red Sea and funneled all this into the slave trade with the Caribbean.72 They linked the trade of the Caribbean and Indian Ocean, thus realising the project initially attempted by the Assada Company fifty years previously. A significant reason why they succeeded where others had failed owed to the fact that the diverse backgrounds of the colonists allowed them to navigate the Indian Ocean’s trade comfortably. Accounts testify that their vessels held crews of many nationalities and were able to convincingly sail under the colours and papers of different nations to overcome attempts by monopoly companies and local rulers to impose restrictions.73 One of these sailors, captured after being driven into port at Bandar Abbas in the Persian Gulf during 1696, reflects how some of the Madagascar colonists were able to claim different nationalities. The sailor stated that he was ‘an Irishman and says his father was a Dutchman and his mother an English woman’.74 So not only did these newcomers shift Atlantic trade networks southwards, they succeeded in doing so by according more closely with existing practices in the Indian Ocean.

69 Charters and Statutes Relating to the East India Company, pp.xv-xxiv. 70 ‘Thomas Warren to Directors, 28 November 1697’, BOT General Correspondence A, CO 323/2, p.467, TNA. 71 ‘The Narrative of Phillip Middleton delivered to the Lords Justices the 4 August 1696’, EIC Miscellaneous Papers, IOR H/36, fo.189, BL; ‘Meeting Minutes, 24 April 1700’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/43, fo.130, BL; ‘Frederick Philipse to Adam Baldridge, 25 February 1694’, Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, 1694–1699, HCA 1/98, fo.200, TNA. 72 ‘John Child to Directors, 27 October 1691’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/49, fo.37, BL; ‘Meeting Minutes, 29th June 1687’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/39, fo.25, BL. 73 Benton, A Search for Sovereignty, pp.104–161; ‘Elisha Yale to Directors, 20 November 1691’, ‘Bombay and Calicut Accounts, 15 January 1697/30 November 1696’, BOT General Correspondence A, CO 323/2, pp.47–48, 465, TNA; ‘Summary of Letters sent to the EIC Directors, Submitted for the Consideration of the Board of Trade’, EIC Miscellaneous Papers, IOR H/36, fo.277, BL. 74 ‘Governor of Gombroon to Directors, 16 January 1697’, BOT General Correspondence A, CO 323/2, p.465, TNA. 211

Yet, unlike the New EIC or Courteen’s Associates, they lacked the protection of any kind of sovereign for their presence at Madagascar, making them vulnerable to prosecution by the EIC. An example of how these colonists operated and the Old Company’s growing interest in their activities can be found in the early efforts of ship’s captain James Kelly (who went by the alias Gillam or Guillam). Of uncertain origins, he was most likely Irish or English and possibly fought for James II during the Jacobite War, having a career in the Indian Ocean that spanned at least seven years between 1691 and 1698. While he was later condemned for piracy after having attacked a Mughal treasure shipment, details of his life in the Indian Ocean imply that was also a trader. By September 1691, Kelly had assembled a crew at St Maries and intended to sail north for the Malabar Coast, arriving at the EIC factory in Calicut during October. In a letter to the factory’s governor, he claimed to be captain of a crew of English sailors driven from Europe by war, yet the governor refused them the opportunity to trade and sent details of the episode back to London.75 From Calicut, they then proceeded north to Mangalore (now Mangaluru, in the Indian state of Karnataka), arriving there in March 1692. The city itself fell within the dominion of Keladi Chennamma, the Lingayat queen of the Keladi Kingdom, who was at this point allied with the Marathas and the Portuguese.76 Given the EIC’s alliance with the Mughals, English sailors would not have been welcome at the port, which likely explains why Kelly claimed upon arrival that they came from France and ‘there was of all nationes amongst them’.77 Possibly sensing the opportunity to secure a further trade partner in the French, Mangalore’s governor invited them to dinner. The situation then quickly escalated for Kelly. Halfway through the meal, guards were called into the room and he was arrested – quite why is unclear.78 EIC sources testify that the governor did so because the sailors were suspected of attacking Maratha shipping nearby and that he had sought to entrap them.79 Kelly, however, wrote his own account of the proceedings to Surat, claiming again to be English and pleading that the Company negotiate their release. He asserted that their imprisonment resulted from the false impression on the governor’s part that they were Danes.80 Kelly eventually

75 ‘Copie of ye pirat’s noate to our friends at Calicut, 29 October 1691’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E 3/49, fo.41, BL; ‘J. Weldor and Samuel Whetcome to Directors, 28 January 1692’, Ibid., fo.64. 76 The daughter of the local merchant Sidappa Shettar, Chennamma became an ally of the Marathas. Little is written about her in English but see: Shankaragouda Hanamantagouda Patil, Community Dominance and Political Modernisation: The Lingayats (2012), pp.38–40; K. Mohankrishna Rai, ‘Portuguese Hegemony over Mangalore’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol.64 (2003), pp.614–621. 77 ‘John Vaux to Josiah Child, 20 March 1692’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E 3/49, fo.73, BL. 78 Ibid., fo.74. 79 ‘Bartholomew Harris to William Uthwatt, 14 September 1692’, Ibid., fo.135. 80 ‘James Gillam to President of Surat, 18 August 1692’, Ibid., fo.122. 212 escaped and remained in the Indian Ocean for some years thereafter, becoming conspicuous through his service in William Kidd’s crew some years later.81 By 1700, he had established himself in New York as a broker in goods from Madagascar, before eventually being arrested during the Earl of Bellomont’s investigations and subsequently executed in England.82 The activities of sailors and traders like Kelly operating out of Madagascar soon became an opportunity for Child and the Old EIC to win back support for their monopoly. The Madagascar colonists were not, of course, the first to go after Mughal shipping: Courteen’s Associates did so previously.83 As recently as 1691, raids by sailors from Madagascar had caused a deterioration of relations with Shah Muhi-ud-Din Muhammad, the Mughal Emperor commonly known as Aurungzeb, provoking him to enact reparations upon the EIC at Surat and bar them from trading.84 These attacks and reparations were, therefore, a cyclical setback. When Henry Avery attacked the Ganj-i Sawa’i on 8 September 1695, the Mughal response was consistent: Aurungzeb seized English shipping at Surat, barred the EIC from trade there and demanded that the perpetrator be captured. In the aftermath of the attack, the Company went to lengths that they had never attempted previously to ensure Avery was tracked and captured.85 In June 1696, the directors provided the Privy Council with a mass of first-hand accounts of his crimes and warned of the dire consequences of Mughal retaliation.86 The same pieces of evidence made their way to the Board of Trade.87 The

81 ‘Council Minutes 9 August 1699’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA; ‘Peleg Sanford to John Winthrop, 12 August 1699’, John Winthrop Papers, P-350, Reel 15, MHS. 82 ‘Bombay and Calicut Accounts, 15 January 1697/30, November 1696’, BOT General Correspondence A, CO 323/2, p.465, BL; ‘Bellomont to BOT, 5 January 1700’, BOT New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043, fo.78, TNA; ‘Council Minutes, 27 January 1701’, New York Council Minutes Transcripts, MS A4406, NYSA. 83 Foster, Calendar of Court Manuscripts of the EIC, vol.1, pp.211, 240; ‘John Child to Directors, 26 April 1684’, ‘Proceedings of the Admiralty Court at Surat, 2 September 1684’, ‘John Child to Directors, 28 August 1684’, ‘Charges of George Gosfright against Thomas Ivatt, 11 November 1684’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/44, fos.43, 135, 223, 470, BL; ‘Directors to Councilors of Bombay and Surat, 15 October 1686’, ‘Directors to St Helena Council, 3rd August 1687’, EIC Outbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/91, fos.95, 178, BL. 84 ‘John Child to Surat Council, 6 July 1692’, ‘Bartholomew Harris to William Uthwatt, 14 September 1692’, EIC Inbound Correspondence, IOR E/3/49, fos.122, 133, BL. 85 Venetia Porter (ed.), Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam (2012), p.169; Ellison B. Findly, ‘The Capture of Maryam-uz-Zamānī’s Ship: Mughal Women and European Traders’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol.108, no.2 (1988), pp.227–38; S. Moinul Haq, Khafi Khan’s History of ʻAlamgir (1975); Adrian van Broeck, The life and adventures of Capt. John Avery, the famous English pirate... Written by a person who made his escape from thence, and faithfully extracted from his journal (1709). 86 ‘Meeting Minutes, 24 June 1696’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 3 August 1696’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 5 August 1696’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/41, fos.76, 84–85, BL; ‘Petition of the EIC to the Privy Council, 16 July 1696’, ‘The Narrative of Phillip Middleton delivered to the Lords Justices the 4 August 1696’, EIC Miscellaneous Papers, IOR H/36, fos.65, 189, BL. 87 ‘Meeting Minutes, 5 February 1697’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 24 February 1697’, EIC Court Minutes, fos.148, 151, BL; ‘Advices received from the EIC, 28 September 1697’, ‘Council of Bombay to Directors, 12 December 1696’, BOT General Correspondence A, CO 323/2, pp.462–467, TNA. 213 core difference between Avery’s deed and the similar situation in 1691 was that it occurred after the Company had lost its full monopoly in 1694 and the formation of the Company of Scotland a year later.88 A letter written from Bombay in 1696 best demonstrates what the EIC’s employees believed they had to gain from stressing the significance of the pirate issue. It was included in the evidence sent to both the Privy Council and Board of Trade:

…which disorders (pirates) the factors conclude certainly in a very great measure spring from the licentious principles and practices of the interlopers, who have to the utmost of their power in India endevoured to banish all reverence of government out of the minds of men, and how far the actions of some of that sort in England have continued thereunto by declaiming against all acts of justice done in India against malefactors, stiling all in authority arbitrary.89

Madagascar pirates, this letter claimed, were as one with interlopers, and it could only be resolved by a strengthening of the EIC’s powers. The support it received in the following years would be a vindication of this belief. The strengthening of the Old EIC’s powers to respond to the attacks of Madagascar pirates began soon after the Company had initially reported the consequences of Avery’s attack. While its admiralty jurisdiction had been stripped from it in 1693, the Company’s representatives consulted with William Oldys and the other admiralty advocates in August 1696, who informed them of their best methods to secure prosecutions in piracy cases brought in England, as well as confirming that they could apply the crime to any who took foreign commissions in the Indian Ocean.90 As printed accounts of the captain’s crimes and the trials of captured crew members followed, the Old EIC began, once again, to accumulate political support. It received convoys to protect its shipping alongside the right to issue commissions to seize “pirate” vessels and their goods.91 The further and

88 ‘Meeting Minutes, 4 December 1695’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 6 December 1695’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/41, fos.41, 42, BL; ‘East India Company, Objections to the Scottish Act, 5 December 1695’, House of Lords Papers 23 November 1695–3 December 1695, no.955(b), PA. 89 ‘Account of piracy from Bombay, 15 December 1696’, BOT General Correspondence A, CO 323/2, p.463, TNA. 90 For more on Oldys, see Chapter 1, above. ‘Meeting Minutes, 19 August 1696’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 26 August 1696’, ‘Meeting Minutes, 28 August 1696’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/41, fos.86, 88, 89, BL; ‘Statement of Charles Hedges, 10 March 1698’, Board of Trade Journal, 1698, CO 191/10, fo.229, TNA. 91 ‘Petition of the EIC to William III, March 1698’, ‘Commission to Seize Pirates, 29 November 1700’, EIC Miscellanies, 1699–1709, IOR E/1/196, fos.122–124, BL; ‘Meeting Minutes, 4 March 1698’, EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/41, fo.420, BL; ‘Admiralty Board to Josiah Child, 7 August 1701’, EIC Miscellaneous Letters Received, 1701–1709, IOR E 1/1, unfoliated, BL. 214 very public trial of Captain Kidd some years later functioned to demonstrate the Old EIC’s effectiveness when backed by royal authority. There are signs that these public performances also strengthened its standing with both the Estado da Índia and the VOC, who cooperated with the Company in working to capture vessels operating out of Madagascar.92 The Old EIC grew sufficiently confident in 1699 to make representation to Aurangzeb that it was his cooperation with “interlopers” in the past that had caused this upsurge in attacks.93 By February 1699, some of its old opponents were already considering coming to terms with the Old Company. Less than a year after the New EIC’s creation, the two entered talks about merging into a single monopoly company, to the outrage of those who had first supported the campaign against the Old Company.94 Stressing the dangers posed by Madagascar pirates ultimately helped the Old EIC avert disaster and begin to absorb one of its new competitors. Yet, despite the flurry of activity in the Indian Ocean, England and the Americas, by 1701 European settlement at Madagascar endured. In the ensuing years, correspondence continued to mention colonists of all nations on the island trading and attacking Mughal shipping.95 Kidd’s death was, not least, a symbolic bookend to the issue of pirates in the Indian Ocean. However, connections between the Americas and Indian Ocean remained. The limited impact of this fervour is testified by proclamations issued by William III in 1698 and 1701, both of which offered pardons to all pirates but Avery and Kidd’s crews, should they surrender themselves.96 Even in attempts to administer these pardons there were issues. During the summer of 1699, the ship’s captain Thomas Warren was sent with several vessels to find the colony at St Maries, administer the former pardon and make an example of any who refused to surrender. Yet, after sailing to the island, he claimed he was unable to find the colony.97 Furthermore, across the 1690s, few sailors ever stood trial before the English High Court of Admiralty for piracy committed in the Indian Ocean, far fewer of them than the considerably more obscure Irish sailors who were prosecuted in the early part of

92 ‘Answer of the EIC to Don Luis da Cunza, 22 June 1699’, ‘Extract of Surratt Letters to the EIC, 5 December 1698’, EIC Miscellaneous Papers, IOR H/36, fos.433–434, BL. 93 ‘EIC Address to Aurangzeb, 25 March 1699’, EIC Saint Helena Letterbook, IOR E/3/93, fo.173, BL. 94 See Extracts from East India Tracts, 1661–1726, IOR H/44, pp.727–1028, BL. 95 ‘The Earl of Morton to the Earl of Stair, 1704’, Papers of the Earl of Morton, GD 150/2628, NRS; ‘Cromartie to Queen Anne, October 1705’, Correspondence of the Earl of Mar, GD 124/15, NRS; ‘A Letter from Captain George Wooley to Captain Pennying, chief of the East India Company’s factory at Callicut, 7 November 1703’, Thomas Bowrey Papers, MS 24177, LMA. 96 CSP Dom., vol.3, p.364; CSP Dom., vol.5, pp.243–245. 97 ‘The Report of Thomas Warren, 6 August 1699’, Admiralty Board: In Letters, Captains W-Y, ADM 106/532, fo.137, TNA. 215 the decade.98 The low rate of actual executions owed to the fact that many who stood accused of robbing Mughal shipping were pardoned, after having given information that allowed the investors and benefactors in the Americas who supported the Madagascar colony to be traced.99 In other words, unlike the Irish sailors, many of the denizens of St Maries were given a second chance provided that they were willing to give up their investors. All along, the Old EIC had been seeking – and in piracy trials found – a means to prevent these transoceanic links, as well as to eliminate or absorb formal competitors. Over the course of this decade, the merchants of the New EIC had successfully used the outbreak of war with France and the older Company’s connections to James II to argue that a powerful monopoly association depressed trade and oppressed subjects. In doing so, they managed to secure their own incorporation through statute, stopping far short of promoting a more open trade with the east. In response to this formation of a duopoly, the EIC had chosen to proceed against the inhabitants of St Maries, who could claim no such state sanction. In inflating the danger they represented, the Old EIC sought to demonstrate the benefits of Child’s vision of a Company with extensive legal and political power. It showcased its ability to prevent commercial streams from both oceans merging and to mend diplomatic rifts – making the case that being mere merchants was not enough. By the eighteenth century the Old EIC had begun to extinguish one competitor, yet another remained in the Company of Scotland.

*** Even while they were committed in Panama, representatives of the Scottish Company came to see that a colonial project on Madagascar presented a substantial opportunity. The plans they drew up did not intend a colonial project of their own as much as they sought to assume control over one that already existed. They planned to create an outpost that would draw the colonists from St Maries, a labour force with network that would enable them to create another free port, but this time, connecting the Americas to the Indian Ocean. The Scots’ growing interest in the east did not go unnoticed, however, and it soon drew the attention of the New EIC, whose opposition would

98 See Examinations of Pirates and Other Criminals, 1683–1694, HCA 1/52 and High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Examinations of Pirates and Other Criminals, 1694–1710, HCA 1/53 and indictments in HCA 1/13, HCA 1/14, all TNA. 99 Robert C. Ritchie, ‘Samuel Burgess, Pirate’ in W. Pencak and C.E. Wright (eds.), Authority and Resistance in Early New York (1988), pp.114–137; ‘The Voluntary Confession of William Phillips concerning the ship Charles the Second’, State Papers: Ireland, 1696, SP 63/358, fos.127–132, TNA. 216 serve to pit the two companies and their respective visions of trade with the east against one another. The Company of Scotland considered several prospective trades with the east across its lifetime. During the course of 1700, its directors first considered trade links with Armenian merchants at Surat, followed by its dispatching of a vessel to trade at Macau in southern China, where it was eventually seized by representatives of the Old EIC.100 It was instead through the slave trade that the Scottish Company began to realise its first profits. In late 1699, an Edinburgh merchant under license from the Company completed a voyage to West Africa and the Caribbean, bringing modest returns.101 That this venture led the directors to consider the slave trade out of Madagascar is testified to by an anonymous proposal presented to the Court of Directors in 1699. Written by an inhabitant of New York, the tract asserted that they could secure both slaves and goods from India at Madagascar to trade into the Americas. To gain a foothold there, the writer advocated that, in the long term, they create a factory on or close to St Maries, so that they could easily draw these “pirates” as colonists at little cost.102 The directors only acted on this proposal as the Darien Scheme began to run into difficulty. On 4 March 1701, the Company’s directors gave the order to begin outfitting a ship named the Speedy Return for a voyage to Madagascar. Their choice of captain was Thomas Drummond, a survivor of the first expedition to Panama, who they ordered to take on gold and silver at Madeira before sailing to the island for slaves.103 The Speedy Return then departed from Leith Harbour during May 1701. A similar scheme was possibly being considered at the same time by the New EIC merchant Thomas Bowrey. He had left the service of the Old EIC at some point during the 1680s but continued to trade into the Indian Ocean, where he ran afoul of Childs’s crackdown in the later part of the decade, being one of the investors behind the Andalucia in 1685.104 A later proposal, this

100 Insh, Ships and Voyages of the Company of Scotland, pp.221–227, 238–240; ‘Instructions for the Speedwell, 12 December 1700’, Instructions Issued by the Court of Directors, unfoliated, BSA; ‘Meeting Minutes, 7 October 1703’, Company Of Scotland: Directors Journal, no.2, BSA. 101 MacKillop, ‘Accessing Empire’, p.10. 102 ‘Proposal to the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies for Establishing a Trade at Madagascar’, Papers of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, 1696–1707, MS 63, no.12, Senate House Library Special Collections (SHL). 103 ‘Meeting Minutes, 4 March 1701’, Company of Scotland: Directors Journal, no.2, BSA; ‘Instructions for the Speedy Return, 8 May 1701’, Instructions from the Court of Directors, BSA; Insh, Darien Shipping Papers, pp.247– 248. 104 ‘The Examination of Charles Price, 2 February 1687’, Examinations of Pirates and Other Criminals, 1683–1694, HCA 1/52, fo.65, TNA. 217 time written by Bowrey in 1707, shows that he had planned to establish deeper connections with Madagascar for some time. Its resemblance to the proposal that the Company of Scotland considered is uncanny. He advocated that, following initial voyages, the New EIC offer pardons to the colonists at St Maries and then establish a settlement on a nearby island, where they would be a cheap labour force.105 During the end of 1701, Bowrey and a number of other investors obtained a license from the New EIC to charter a ship, the Worcester, before recruiting sailors for its voyage. Quite what they intended is unclear. Some sources testify that the vessel was intended for St Maries and then the Malabar Coast, but others claim that there was no intermediate step and the Worcester was instead bound directly for Surat.106 Either way, no correspondence survives from any of the crew between the Cape of Good Hope and their arrival in India, so its proposed route cannot be determined with certainty. On 8 March 1702, many months after the Speedwell had departed, the Worcester, captained by Thomas Green, set sail from the Downs in southeastern England.107 Two conflicting stories – given respectively by the Company of Scotland and the New EIC some years later – provide an unclear picture of how entwined the voyages of these two vessels were. In the accounts of both companies, Madagascar played a central role. The Speedy Return arrived at the island sometime in the middle of 1701, where the crew purchased slaves before sailing to Rodrigues in the Mascarene Islands.108 There they supplied a town recently established by French colonists, who had themselves been able to siphon European settlers from St Maries.109 What then happened to the ship following its departure is contested. Sources produced by members of the Scottish Company claim the Speedy Return then went to the Malabar Coast, where it met with the Worcester, the crew of which then robbed the vessel and murdered many of the Speedy Return’s sailors.110 These accounts also state that Green and his men continued to attack and raid two further

105 ‘Proposal offered for taking a Useful Island from ye French in East India and ffor Reducing ye Pirats of Madagascar’, Bowrey Papers, MS 3041, vol.2, LMA. 106 ‘The Horrid Murther Committed by Captain Green and his Crue on Captain Drummond and his whole men’, ‘The Merites of Piracy or a new song on Captain Green’, Roxburgh Ballads, III, C 20, BL; Thomas Bowrey, The innocency of Capt. Green, and his crew, vindicated, from the murther of Capt. Drummond. Published by order of the owners of the ship Worcester (1705). 107 ‘Draft Letter from Thomas Bowrey to Thomas Green, 1701’, Bowrey Papers, MS 24176, LMA; ‘Commission to Captain Green, 8 January 1702’, State Papers: Military Correspondence, Commissions and Warrants, SP 44/168 fo.372, TNA. 108 The Mascarene islands lie to the east of Madagascar and include Mauritius, Réunion and Rodrigues. 109 Richard Carnac Temple, New Light on the Mysterious The Tragedy of the “Worcester”, 1704–1705. An Episode in the Long Struggle between England and Scotland for Union as Great Britain (1930), p.323. 110 Thomas Green, The Tryal of Capt. Thomas Green and his Crew (1705); ‘William Bennett to William Nisbett, 17 March 1705’, Seafield Correspondence, GD 248/599/18, NRS. 218 vessels, before returning to Madagascar and taking passage home.111 In contrast, English testimonies linked to the New EIC assert that the two vessels never met on the Malabar Coast and that the Scottish ship instead departed from Rodrigues to St Maries, where some of its sailors mutinied with the aid of “pirates” on the island.112 There is also the possibility that the two vessels did indeed meet, and this was, in actuality, an attempted seizure of some kind gone wrong, the Worcester carrying a commission to seize pirates. These voyages would not become a source of acrimony until later, however. During late 1703, the Company of Scotland dispatched the Annandale to secure its cargo that had been confiscated at Macau, but during February 1704 customs officials had the vessel seized when it was recruiting in the Downs.113 It was the New EIC who had appealed for the capture, on grounds that English sailors and money were on board, forbidden by the Navigation Acts.114 Despite the efforts of the Scottish directors, the vessel was condemned in London on 8 July, part of its cargo going to the New Company.115 At this point, the Company of Scotland’s directors opted not to accept these further setbacks but to retaliate. In August, they appealed to the Scottish Parliament for assistance in obtaining compensation on the grounds that reprisal was their right as a corporate body established by statute and that, if they tolerated the seizure, they could be treated as pirates, a clear reference to the fate of Caledonia.116 It was at this point that the Worcester became significant. Following its return to London, the ship’s owners had ordered Green to depart for Leith to avoid French privateers and await further orders.117 On 12 August, it was seized in reprisal by Roderick Mackenzie, Secretary to the Company of Scotland.118 Through the Annandale’s seizure, the two

111 ‘A Letter from Captain George Wooley to Captain Pennying, chief of the East India Company’s factory at Callicut, 7 November 1703’, Bowrey Papers, MS 24176, LMA. 112 ‘Israel Phippenny and Peter Freeland Affidavit, 20 March 1705’, ‘Anon. to Bowrey, October 1704’, Ibid. 113 The East India Company also seized the cargo of the first ship the Scots sent: ‘Meeting Minutes, 7 October 1703’, Company of Scotland: Directors Journal, no.2, BSA. 114 ‘Memorial of the Company of Scotland in Relation to the Ship Annandale’, Leven’s Darien Papers, Adv.MS 83/7/3, fo.18, NLS; The process of seizure and condemnation of the Annandale are in EIC Court Minutes, IOR B/47, pp.235–427, BL. First entry relating to the Annandale is the 1 February 1704, last is the 21 March 1705. 115 ‘Meeting Minutes, 8 February 1704’, Company of Scotland: Directors Journal, no.2, BSA; ‘Alexander Gawne to Roderick Mackenzie, 26 February 1704’, ‘Alexander Gawne to Roderick Mackenzie, 8 July 1704’, Darien Papers, vol.3, Adv.MS 83/7/6, fos.13–15, 18, NLS; ‘Memorial of the Company of Scotland to the Duke of Queensbury and the Earl of Cromartie’, Papers of the Early of Morton: Papers Relating to the Company of Scotland and also to Madagascar Pirates, GD 150/2628, NRS. 116 Company of Scotland, To His Grace John Marquess of Tweeddale, Her Majesty's high commissioner, and the Right Honourable Estates of Parliament. The petition of the Court of Directors (1704), p.3; Company of Scotland, The Petition of the Scots East-India and African Company, for Reprisal of the Ship Worcester (1705). 117 ‘Meeting Minutes, 11 August 1704’, Company of Scotland: Directors Journal, no.2, BSA. 118 ‘Warrant for the seizure of the Worcester, 12 August 1704’, ‘Roderick Mackenzie to Directors, 12 August 1704’, Darien Papers, vol.3, Adv.MS 83/7/6, fos.21, 28, NLS. 219 companies attempted to navigate the vagaries of Anglo-Scottish jurisdiction for their own benefit. Representatives of the New EIC, many of whom had suffered through interloping prosecutions before 1688, turned these very same tactics against the Scottish newcomers, only citing statute, rather than a royal charter. At the same time, the Company of Scotland replied by escalating the dispute through a similarly unclear legal precedent, placing two statutes, passed by two different parliaments in conflict. What might have otherwise been a swiftly resolved dispute soon escalated. With the Annandale already condemned, the legal grounds for the taking of the Worcester came before the Scottish Privy Council in the ensuing months. Interests representing the Scottish Country Party argued in favour of the seizure, claiming that the New EIC had condemned its ship illegally, there being no English subjects concerned on the ship and that this act bestowed the right to enact reprisals for such a measure. Thomas Green and the Worcester’s owner Thomas Bowrey, in contrast, counted on the support of a broad coalition, including the directors of the New EIC, members of the Scottish Court Party, England’s admiralty advocates and the predominantly Tory English Ministry.119 With their backing, Green’s defence depended to a far greater extent on royal prerogative. First, he claimed that they were not actually employed by the EIC but were simply private traders – partially true, as they had been granted a license under the New Company’s looser regulations.120 At the same time and more potently, he argued that there was no precedent for reprisals between subjects of the same sovereign.121 From here, what had been a dispute between two corporate authorities became woven into the pervading climate of discord between England and Scotland. Further legal posturing between the two parties only served to articulate more explicitly that this was not a relatively routine commercial dispute, but a matter of evident national conflict. By November 1704, it became clear that the Privy Council would not support the Scottish Company’s position.122

119 ‘Robert Southwell to Charles Hedges, 28 March 1705’, State Papers: Ireland Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, 1705, SP 63/365, fo.147, TNA; ‘Seafield to Godolphin, 7 April 1705’, Correspondence of Sidney Godolphin, 1701– 1710, Add. MS 28055, fo.152, BL; ‘Thomas Hammond to John Spottiswood, 27 March 1705’, Spottiswood Papers, MS 2936, fo.137, NLS; ‘Some Observations Upon the Probation Taken Against Captain Green, undated’, Ibid., fo.144. 120 ‘Thomas Green’s Petition against Roderick Mackenzie, 1704’, Darien Papers, vol.3, Adv.MS 83/7/6, fos.34–35, NLS. 121 ‘Thomas Green to Thomas Bowrey, 15 August 1704’, Bowrey Papers, MS 24176, LMA. 122 Green and the Worcester’s owners had sent three petitions by the 10 October each with an extensive case for them to rebut all are in Darien Papers, vol.3, Adv.MS 83/7/6, fos.40–53, NLS. Also see A letter from Scotland, To a Friend in London: Containing A particular Narrative of the whole Proceedings against the Worcester and her Crew (1705), p.5. 220

Fearing the further financial and political consequences of losing, the Company of Scotland’s representative, Roderick Mackenzie, began searching for further evidence that would allow the case to be transferred out of the hands of the council. On 3 December, he appeared before them with new evidence, citing an account from the Worcester’s cook that the crew had attacked a vessel on the Malabar Coast, supported further by allusions to ‘wickedness committed at sea’ by another of the sailors.123 Green and his men were then immediately arrested on suspicion of piracy, and the case was remitted to the Scottish High Court of Admiralty.124 Some days afterwards, a member of the council wrote an anonymous letter to the Duke of Hamilton – widely held to be the leader of the Country Party – which further supports that this remission was the product of political maneuvering. The writer claimed that he had influenced the council to remit the case to the Admiralty Court in spite of limited evidence and made sure that two of its allies were appointed assistants to the judge.125 Irrespective of whether Green and his crew committed the crime or not, the trial had now become too important for the Company of Scotland to lose. Jurisdictional disputes between these two competing east India companies quickly escalated, producing a piracy trial in which the purpose was to assert the rights of the Company of Scotland. While, at this stage, the Speedwell and its venture to Madagascar was absent from proceedings, the colony at St Maries came to loom large in the subsequent months. The trial of Thomas Green would become a counterpoint of that of William Kidd some years earlier, a challenge to the EIC’s right to a monopoly over all Stuart subjects, supporting the case for more widespread participation in trade with the east, whether emanating from England, Scotland or the Americas.

*** In the case of Green, the Company of Scotland’s attempt to defend their right to trade with the east, manifested in their intended colonial project at Madagascar, became the most substantial challenge to the EIC to date. The differing state sanction that each party enjoyed served to make the case into a matter of more than simply corporate jurisdiction but national conflict. The situation that occurred bore greatest resemblance to the initial dispute between the Estado da Índia and the VOC, with one side seeking to close off trade into the Indian Ocean, the other to establish their legitimacy in

123 ‘The Tryal of Captain Green, Madder &c.’, Papers of Clerk family of Penicuik, GD 18/6072/2, NRS. 124 ‘Annandale and Levin examination of Green’s Crew and Ship, 3–30 December 1704’, Privy Council Papers, PC12/1704, NRS; ‘Committee anent Captain Green and His Crew Minutes, 13 February 1705’, Ibid. 125 ‘Anon. to James Hamilton, 16 March 1705’, Correspondence of the Duke of Hamilton, GD 406/1/5227, NRS. 221 participating. In law, and subsequently through a contest for public opinion, the question of how the anglophone world should engage with the east was now played out between advocates of a single powerful quasi-state monopoly and those who claimed the rights of any association that gained state support. The national dimension to Green’s trial owed a great deal to the recent history of Scotland. Previously, the Company of Scotland had suffered through the fact that William III had effectively declared their colony at Panama illegal, resulting in several of their sailors being condemned for piracy in Seville.126 Many of the Company’s directors were in fact committed members of this political faction and at the time saw events in Spain as jeopardising the Company’s future. In 1700, they petitioned the Scottish Parliament, arguing that a precedent had been set for all of their future schemes to be condemned as piracy unless they passed legislation and sent a letter to the king, asking him to retroactively declare Caledonia legal.127 They then put these proposals to Parliament in Edinburgh during January the following year.128 Securing an Act was their greatest challenge, so in the days that followed, Country politicians such as John Hamilton, Lord Belhaven and William Keith, Earl of Mariscal, spoke of the urgency of having Darien declared legal. The former argued that, if they did not do so, then the Company of Scotland would be deemed ‘pirates and unjust invaders of another nation’ wherever they dared venture. The Scottish captain, who has previously been condemned for piracy by the Casa de la Contratación but then pardoned, was brought in to testify on 14 January as a further reinforcement of this point.129 Yet, despite their efforts, the act failed to achieve a majority vote, and a petition was instead sent to William III, claiming that the Scots’ efforts at Darien served to thwart the ambitions of France and requesting that he repeal his earlier proclamation declaring the Caledonia project illegal.130 The King, of course, declined to do so.

126 See Chapter 2, above;. ‘Edinburgh Gazette, 11–15 July, Darien Papers, MS RY.II.B.8, fo.36, NLS; ‘Treasurer- Depute to William Carstares, 9 July 1700’ in State Papers and Letters Addressed to William Carstares (1774), p.554. 127 Company of Scotland, The Representation and Petition of the Council-General of the Indian and African Company to the Parliament (1700), pp.13–14. 128 ‘Meeting Minutes, 11 February 1701’, Company of Scotland: Directors Journals, no.2, BSA; His Majesties Most Gracious Letter to the Parliament of Scotland. Together with the Lord High Commissioner and Lord High Chancellors Speeches (1700). 129 John Hamilton, A Speech in Parliament on the 10. Day of January 1701, by the Lord Belhaven, on the Affair of the Indian and African Company (1701), p.9; Flying Post or The Post Master, 23 January 1701–25 January 1701, Issue 892 (1701); William Seton, The Interest of Scotland in Three Essays (1700), pp.112–113; ‘Minutes, 14 January 1701’ in Acts of Parliament, 1466–1706, PA2/37, fos.237–238, NRS. 130 ‘Minutes, 17 January 1701’, Ibid., fos.240–242. 222

Despite this setback, the prospect of looming Anglo–Scottish Union spurred the Country Party to vociferously promote its agenda during the following years. Throughout 1703, its members altered the Act of Security (1704), initially designed to secure a Hanoverian succession, transforming it into an attempt to formally obtain access to English markets for Scotland. Finally passing in 1704, it asserted that, unless access to overseas markets was formally granted to Scotland, they would select a different monarch to England’s in the event of Queen Anne’s death.131 The Kirk, similarly a symbol of Scottish nationhood, also made political gains during these years. Greater confirmation of its status as a national church was allocated to the church during 1703, while at the same time blocking the grant of formal toleration to Episcopalians.132 In other words, those who opposed union had recently enjoyed some success and victories, but they had been unable to secure assurances that the Company of Scotland would be able to continue its operations in future. The trial itself began on 17 March, and the question of how differing criminal law jurisdictions conducted piracy prosecutions became central to the case. A key distinction between English and Scottish piracy trials was that the latter took place entirely under Roman law, while the criminal jurisdiction of England High Court of Admiralty operated largely under common law procedures and standards of evidence. Green was assigned seven advocates to support his defence, with John Spottiswood appearing to be his lead counsel. In a manner common to Scottish criminal proceedings, the trial began with Spottiswood questioning the jurisdiction of the Court in the case.133 He opened by claiming that the indictment against Green was invalid, as admiralty courts did not have the right to prosecute foreigners, and that in law the Scots remained foreign to and distinct from the English. The advocate for the defence then proceeded, arguing that the case should be abandoned and the sailors translated to an English court.134 Such an argument may have won through to the south, but in Scotland the civil law technically applied in criminal proceedings before the admiralty. In response, the prosecuting advocate, Alexander Higgins, cited a Grotian understanding of piracy, arguing that all courts retained the right to prosecute them, they being the

131 P.W.J. Riley, The Union of England and Scotland: A Study in Anglo-Scottish Politics of the Eighteenth Century (1978), pp.98–102. 132 Jeffrey Stephen, Defending the Revolution: The Church of Scotland, 1689–1716 (2013), pp.82–95, 197–199; Josiah Woodward, An account of the progress of the reformation of manners, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and other parts of Europe and America (1704), p.8; An Account of the Proceedings of the Parliament of Scotland, which met at Edinburgh, May 6 1703 (1704), pp.42–45. 133 Sheriff J. Irvine Smith, ‘The Trial of Captain Green’, Stair Society Miscellany VII, vol.62 (2015), pp.223–224. 134 ‘William Bennett to William Nisbett, 17 March 1705’, Seafield Papers, GD 248/599/18, NRS. 223

‘common enemies of mankind’, so could claim no national status.135 The latter case was accepted by the Court’s judge and assistants, while the very arguments of the defence inflamed Country Party observers, with one remarking that: ‘Mr Spotswood impunged the authority of the Scotish Nation to judge of English men for any crimes perpetrated by them beyond the line and wher we had ane settlement, the advocat argued like ane angell one yt head and sylenced the other with shame’.136 The first verdict of the trial, therefore, was that the legal jurisdiction the EIC understood itself to have in the Indian Ocean did not apply in this case. The central witness for the prosecution was the assistant to the ship’s cook known as Antonio Ferdinando, who claimed to be from Quilon on the Malabar Coast (today Kollam, in the Indian state of Kerala). Not able to speak English, he communicated with the Court through an interpreter who understood the lingua franca used on ships in the Indian Ocean, describing that the Worcester attacked a vessel under ‘English colours’.137 It is worth noting that at no point during the trail was this vessel identified. Green’s advocates countered this testimony with the argument that Ferdinando was not a Christian, so his testimony could not be accepted by the Court.138 The witness himself claimed that he had been baptised a Catholic, but there was some disagreement about how this fact might be demonstrated. Ultimately the judge and assistants ruled that, owing to high evidentiary standards of the law of nations, in exceptional cases the Court could accept testimony from non-Christians and those normally barred from testifying.139 Ferdinando’s statement was accepted as a result and became the central piece of evidence drawing together the more tangential evidence given by seven other witnesses.140 Had the trial taken place in England, the verdict would have stood. At stake was the question of how piracy should be defined and prosecuted, but also whether the EIC had an exclusive jurisdiction over all subjects east of the Cape of Good Hope. The case had become a kind of Santa Caterina in reverse, as if the newly-founded VOC were prosecuting sailors employed by the Estado Da Índia. A guilty verdict would demonstrate the

135 Thomas Green, The Tryal of Capt. Thomas Green and his Crew (1705), p.50. 136 ‘William Bennett to William Nisbett, 17 March 1705’, Seafield Papers, GD 248/599/18, NRS. 137 Thomas Green, The case of Capt. Tho. Green, Commander of the Ship Worcester, and his crew, Tried and Condemned for Pyracy & Murther (1705), pp.5–6. 138 Roderick Mackenzie, Some cursory remarks on a late printed paper, called, The last speeches and dying-words of Captain Thomas Green (1705), pp.16–17; Anon., Observations on the tryal of Capt. Green, and the speech at his death (1705). 139 T.B. Howell (ed.), A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, vol.14 (1816), p.1291. 140 Anon., A True and impartial account of the proceedings against Capt Green and his crew, together with the confessions of severals of them under sentence of death (1705). 224 authority of the corporate body advocating that trade be opened further, challenging the monopoly claimed by an established rival. Following the outcome of the trial, Green became directly connected to the failed St Maries venture undertaken by the Company of Scotland. On 15 March, the jury not only returned with a guilty verdict, but with a substantial margin of ten to five.141 Green and his lawyers obviously sought to overturn the verdict, so immediately placed the legitimacy of the Court’s proceedings in question. The Worcester’s sailors and owners submitted petitions to Queen Anne, as did the directors of the New EIC, all condemning what they claimed was a show trial and asking that the sentence due to be delivered on 27 March be stayed until more evidence could arrive.142 The Queen granted their request and the execution date was delayed by two weeks.143 In Edinburgh, the Country Party busied themselves, arguing that this action constituted a willful disregard of Scottish law orchestrated by nefarious EIC influencers in England. As already stated, the ship supposedly robbed by Green remained unnamed in the trial, but this changed in the charged atmosphere of Edinburgh during early April. Rumours circulating there claimed that the Worcester was in fact operating as a pirate vessel out of Madagascar and had attacked the Speedy Return, but done so deliberately to enforce an English monopoly on trade with the east.144 Printed accounts in Scotland were circulated making exactly this claim, and anonymously published English counterparts argued that the trial had been a deliberate attempt to connect Green to the failed St Maries expedition.145 Affidavits procured by Bowrey in England and dispatched to Scotland during early April were viewed and dismissed as insufficient evidence by members of the Court, who claimed that they could find no record that the witnesses existed.146 In response, Bowrey appealed for an extension of the reprieve to examine the Court’s conduct as a whole.147

141 ‘William Bennett to William Nisbett, 17 March 1705’, Seafield Correspondence, GD 248/558/18, NRS. 142 ‘The Petition of Thomas Green, undated’, Seafield Correspondence, GD 248/634/6, NRS; ‘Petition of the Owners and Freighters of the Ship Worcester to the Queen’, Darien Papers, vol.3, Adv.MS 83/7/6, fo.31, NLS. 143 ‘Anon. to Hamilton, 3 April 1705’, Duke of Hamilton Correspondence, GD 406/1/5227, NRS. 144 ‘F.S. to Mackenzie, 15 December 1704’, ‘F.S. to Mackenzie, 17 December’ in Darien Papers, vol.3, Adv.MS 83/7/6, NLS; ‘Francis Scott to John Bruce, 20 February 1705’ in Papers of the Bruce Family of Kinross: Letters of Francis Scott, GD 29/29/2037, NRS. 145 William Forbes, A Pill for Pork-Eaters or a Scots Lancet for an English Swelling (1705); A Letter from Scotland, to a Friend in London, pp.7–8; Green, The Tryal. 146 ‘Testimony of George Kitchen, 29 December 1705’, ‘Testimony of Israel Phippenny and Peter Freeland, 20 March 1705’, Bowrey Papers, MS 24176, LMA; ‘Charles Hedges to Mr. Wedderburn, 7 April 1705’, Seafield Correspondence, GD 248/599/18, NRS. 147 ‘Testimony of Thomas Oakley and Thomas Whitehead, 3 April 1705’, ‘Israel Phipenny and Peter Freeland Affidavit, 20 March 1705’, ‘A Letter from Captain George Wooley to Captain Pennying, chief of the East India Company’s factory at Callicut, 7 November 1703’, Bowrey Papers, MS 24176, LMA. 225

Popular anger in Edinburgh grew in response to the news that the Scottish Privy Council was considering this second reprieve, as the integrity of the Court process and the execution of Green stood prominently as signs of Scottish independence from English influence. 11 April was the date set for the Privy Council to decide on whether to extend the reprieve. A sense of the popular mood was provided by one of the councilors, known to be of the Court Party, who was detained by a crowd demanding that he vote against the extension.148 They presumed correctly, as the councilors did indeed have their reservations about the case. One remarked of the trial that ‘in short, nobody believes it’, but ‘I doubt much that it’s in the power of man to convince this nation of it’.149 When the Council finally met, numerous members absented themselves and abstained, only six voted and, as the number was too low to constitute a quorum, the execution stood by default.150 It was at this point that any wider support in Scotland for the Worcester’s crew and owners seemed to drain away. The captain and several of his crew were hanged shortly thereafter at Leith on 11 April 1705 in front of a crowd said to be 10,000 strong. But Bowrey still did not accept defeat, even with Green’s execution. The trial itself had further weakened the position of the New EIC, who had failed to muster the necessary public support to stop the prosecution. To respond and to recoup his losses, he redirected his energies towards eliciting public sympathy for the captain in London. As early as 4 January 1705, Bowrey began to take his case to the public, placing a notice in the Post Man claiming that the trial relied on falsified evidence.151 However, his efforts in England only began in earnest after the captain’s death. Working with the Worcester’s other owners and his few remaining allies in Edinburgh, they together produced a broadsheet claiming to report Green and his first mate’s speeches from the scaffold, which they then dispersed in large numbers across London.152 The contents of the speech were as questionable as the connection drawn between Green and the Madagascar venture, casting as it did the captain as an English hero. It is clear that the paper was designed to appeal to Tory sensibilities, as Green appeared as a pious devotee of the Church of England and a victim of judicial murder by envious Scots. The target was not only a popular audience, but also the incumbent Tory

148 ‘Seafield to Godolphin, 11 April 1705’, Godolphin Correspondence, Add. MS 28055, fo.154, BL. 149 ‘Seafield to Godolphin, 7 April 1705’, Ibid. 150 Bowie, Scottish Public Opinion, p.42. 151 Post Man and the Historical Account, 2nd January 1705–4th January 105 (1705), Issue 1362; The Country Party responded to Bowrey in Flying Post or the Post Master, 24th March 1705–27th March 1705 (1705), Issue 1544; Flying Post or the Post Mater, 3rd April 1705–5th April 1705 (1705), Issue 1548. 152 Thomas Bowrey, The innocency of Capt. Green, and his crew, vindicated, from the murther of Capt. Drummond (1705). 226 ministry who had the capacity to provide restitution. Alongside the speech, he also arranged for the transcript of the trial to be published, allowing readers to pour over the details.153 The dozens of anonymous responses to the speech and transcript that entered circulation in the following weeks show, or perhaps were designed to show, that it did indeed resonate with committed Tories. Printed material spoke of Green the ‘English hero’ and ‘pious captain’, a martyr whose speech should be written in ‘letters of gold’.154 The Malabari, who had testified and since died, was most commonly seen to be responsible, denounced in terms normally reserved for enslaved Africans, as vengeful, dishonest and cruel.155 At the same time, the Kirk and English dissenters were targeted, accused of working with the Company of Scotland to bribe and cajole members of Green’s crew into confessing.156 Lastly, accounts denounced the supposedly nefarious commercial practices of Scotland. The nation, the writers claimed, were comprised of ‘pedlars turned merchant’ and ‘bullies, traitors and robbers’ who illegally thrived on the back of trade with other nations.157 This last remark certainly implies that the source of information or perhaps the writers themselves remained affiliated with Bowrey, as the accusation of bribery first occurs in the merchant’s correspondence.158 Whether it was a real outpouring of support in elite circles or a calculated public campaign, popular anger in London following the publication of Green’s speech was real.159 Following on the commotion he raised over the execution of Green, Bowrey found that little support was forthcoming in England. In June 1705, he petitioned both Queen Anne and English Parliament, requesting the right to sue both the Company of Scotland and the High Court of Admiralty, receiving only cursory responses from the Tory ministers.160 The sentiment of the

153 Thomas Bowrey, The case of the owners and freighters of the ship Worcester (1705); Thomas Bowrey, The Tryal of Capt. Thomas Green and his Crew (1705). 154 Anon., A trip lately to Scotland. With a true character of the country and people: Also Reflections on their Proceedings to disturb the present Reign (1705), p.13; Anon., Remarks upon the tryal of Capt. Thomas Green and his crew: Lately printed in Scotland and re-printed here in London (1705), p.3; A letter from Scotland, To a Friend in London, p.25. 155 Anon., Remarks upon the tryal of Capt. Thomas Green; Anon., Some Cursory Remarks, pp.16–21. 156 Anon., Some Cursory Remarks, pp.18–20. The bribery accusation was first obtained by Bowrey, see Anon., An Elegy on the Much Lamented Death of Captain Thomas Green (1705); Anon., An English Ointment for the Scotch Mange: or, a Short Memorandum of the Scots Cruelty to Captain Thomas Green (1705), p.2. 157 Anon., An Elegy; Anon., A Letter from Scotland, to a Friend in London, p.15. 158 ‘Affidavit of George Haines, 7 November 1705’, Bowrey Papers, MS 24176, LMA. 159 Anon., Some cursory remarks, p.21; Defoe, The History of the Union, pp.78–83. 160 ‘Thomas Bowrey to Spottiswood, 26 June 1705’, Spottiswood Papers, MS 2936, NLS; ‘Charles Hedges to David Nairne, 19 May 1705’, ‘Hedges to Nairne, 22 June 1705’, ‘Hedges to Nairne, 21 November 1705’, State Papers: Charles Hedges Letterbook, 1703–1706, SP 44/105, pp.251, 259, 303, TNA. 227 responses to his speech would suggest that he should have received outright support, but in fact the actions of the merchant and his rivals in the Company of Scotland had generated so much discord that they had, together, strengthened the case for two processes of union. Following Green’s execution, those who imposed the projected union between England and Scotland had begun citing the trial as a justification for war between the two neighbours, driving many moderates to support the proposed union negotiations.161 The EIC’s monopoly, while it had its critics, had never provoked such animosity; therefore, it is not surprising that the Scottish Company found itself abolished with the Act of Union in 1707 and its members excluded from the EIC.162 If this was bad news for the Company of Scotland, it was not entirely positive for the New EIC, either. The actions of Bowrey, a former interloper employed as a private trader under the freer regulations of the New Company, had seen one of their captains condemned as a pirate and very publically magnified the threat represented by the Company of Scotland. Indeed, following Green’s trial, the Old EIC had been careful to make sure that it represented that none of its sailors had ever been convicted for piracy.163 Two weeks after Green’s execution, negotiations for unifying the two companies had begun in earnest, ultimately completing in 1709.164 It was to be a monopoly company, chartered by both Crown and Parliament, notable for its substantial powers over employees and heavy restrictions on foreign participation.165 Through one more piracy trial, the Old EIC had ultimately fought off the challenge of another company, which had come seeking to link the trades of the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, placing the Old EIC in a stronger position to absorb its English competitor. As a stockholder, Bowrey was paid a substantial sum as part of this process, yet he continued to seek restitution for the Worcester for some years afterwards.166

161 Forbes, A Pill for Pork Eaters; George Ridpath, The Reducing of Scotland by Arms, and Annexing it to England as a Province Considered (1705), pp.2–4; Anon., A trip lately to Scotland, pp.6–13. 162 An Act Ratifying and Approving Treaty of Union the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England (1707), Article XV; ‘Petition of the Members of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, 14 May 1711’, Petitions to Parliament and the Crown; Auditors’ Reports, IOR H/30, pp.35–76, BL. 163 ‘Account of Ships Employed by the Old English East India Company, 7 April 1705’, EIC Miscellanies, IOR E/1/196, fo.322, BL. 164 ‘Appointment of Union Commissioners, 27 April 1705’, Ibid. 165 Charters and Statutes Relating to the East India Company, pp.vii-xxvii. 166 ‘Memorial of the proprietors of the ship Worcester, condemned in Scotland in reprisal for the seizure of the ship Annandale by the East India Company in England’, State Papers: Scotland, 1688–1706, SP 54/1, fo.6, TNA. 228

*** In the following decades, Madagascar and particularly the island of St Maries continued to occupy an important place in the imagination of British adventurers.167 None, however, would be successful in gaining the control over the colony first imagined by Courteen’s Associates during the 1640s, least of all the victorious EIC. In this sense, the second incarnation of this project, which emerged during Child’s tenure, was the most successful, as informal linkages between the Indian Ocean and Americas continued to exist. Yet, while these colonists were still known as pirates, no large-scale campaign emerged again on the part of the EIC to hunt them down and ensure their prosecution. Instead, after 1709 the Company sought to further expand its powers by prosecuting Indian (Maladari and Muslim) sailors, rather than focusing on Europeans. The Madagascar colony had presented a threat because it materialised when the EIC was at a low ebb, on account of its ties to James II and the prospect that it might be harnessed and formalised by a competitor, causing its star to descend further. In a sense, the case of the Company of Scotland demonstrated that the EIC was not incorrect. In the end, while conducted with markedly different stakes, the piracy trials that had emerged as part of the contest between these companies were in part performative action, disputes over how future engagement between the anglophone world and the east could be conducted, rather than with an eye to how it currently existed. No rival company would, ultimately, be able to secure the much-sought state support for an enduring traffic between the Americas and the east, channeled through an entrepôt at Madagascar. In doing so, the EIC successfully kept its barrier between the trades of the two oceans in place, preventing the further movement of global trade flows southwards.

167 Bialuschewski, ‘Greed, Fraud and Popular Culture’, pp.104–114; ‘The Earl of Morton’s Madagascar Proposal, 1704’, Papers of the Earl of Morton, GD 150/2628, NRS; ‘Cromartie to Morton, 31 December 1707’, Correspondence of the Earl of Mar, GD 124/15, NRS. 229

Conclusion

The period that followed the 1688 Revolution was a crisis that spanned not just Britain and Ireland, but all of the dominions William III came to rule. While the shock of the initial event had its significance, its consequences went far beyond politics and were being dealt with long afterwards. In particular, the war that ensued against a familiar Catholic enemy was decidedly unfamiliar in its global extent, displacing people, threatening large expanses of territory and disrupting the trade flows that linked the anglophone world together. Commercial, political and religious elites came to believe that these movements had to be controlled and effectively utilised to ensure that they were turned to the purposes of common defence and to organise an empire with a clear centre and dependent periphery. Yet no consensus, either ideological or practical, existed on how this end should be reached. This gap was to be filled by individuals, largely of middling means or indifferent social status, coming forward to advocate solutions. Their proposals, as contemporaries understood, heralded an Age of Projects, the global dimension of which crystallised in a range of colonial and imperial schemes. These projects included settlement plans, institutional creations and innovations, missionary work, campaigns of political influence, network-building and the establishment of new commercial markets. Projectors claimed that they knew best how to turn these movements of people and goods away from dangerous private interests towards a common benefit, but in reality, all had particular ideological agendas, be they commercial, political, religious or legal. This cacophony of voices called for solutions that contradicted and obstructed one another, with the result that their architects struggled to be heard by the public authorities and patronage brokers whose support they coveted. Claims that they would thwart Catholic influence, fill public coffers and thwart French designs were no longer sufficient. Instead, it was pirates and all that they came to represent and stand for who became the new enemy in the competition to legitimise the many schemes of this era. This thesis has been a study of these many projects, including the motives behind them, what they proposed to achieve and how they were implemented. None of them was truly as novel as its proponents claimed, as each was an attempt to realise colonial or imperial ambitions that had been developed, and usually only partially implemented, across the seventeenth century. The particular precarity of the 1690s allowed for an unusually high concentration of projects to be promoted and implemented, often reopening debates long believed settled. Exterminating or harnessing the labour of pirates was these projects’ consistently stated aim, yet it is unclear whether maritime 230 predation had grown noticeably, or that, even if it had, there were any particularly negative consequences for the anglophone world. Instead, pirates had been molded and created in accordance with individual taxonomies, traceable to the causes and consequences best befitting partisan visions of empire. It was no coincidence that concern with combatting the problem of pirates beyond the shores of Europe coincided with the growing usage of the word ‘empire’ by English contemporaries, conceived as a thalassocratic arrangement of territories positioned around a common centre. Maritime empires needed enemies, and no adversary had a longer pedigree than that of the ‘pirate’. These schemes were the product of not just the specific circumstances of the 1690s, but also global movements of people and the history of European colonialism. Preceding chapters have each been structured to convey how they both informed the creation of projects and pirates. They began with macro sketches of migration patterns and colonial ideas, before moving to orient the consideration of the particular projects around close studies of individuals. This micro-macro approach has shown how these undertaking played out in dialogue with numerous larger contexts that were not always immediately apparent in the source material. It has allowed for the reconstruction of a different, connected history of anglophone world in the 1690s. The actions of pirates, however conceived, affected many different people in often dispersed localities and, as a result, they represented an ideal lens for a study of this kind. The chapters themselves were as follows: The first considered the attempted prosecution of Irish Catholics for piracy during the Jacobite War. It argued that their capture and the attempted prosecutions that followed were conducted within the ongoing debate about the purpose of Protestant colonisation schemes and how their objectives were best transferred across the sea. The suppressing of Franco–Irish networks were viewed by politicians in England as part of a plan to reduce Ireland to a dependent supply colony, while Protestants in Ireland sought to repurpose them to promote what they claimed was the island’s prosperity, but which largely meant their own profits. Attempts to prosecute Irish Catholics for piracy were part of the former design. Its content began with a consideration of how Catholics had long used their connections, first with Spain, then with France and the French Caribbean, to offset the impoverishing consequences of Protestant colonisation projects across the seventeenth century. It then traced these same networks following the Treaty of Limerick (1691), as they expanded and became the sinews that connected an international Catholic community. Two

231 contrasting perspectives on how these links should be addressed then emerged, the first emanating from Protestants in England and the second from their coreligionists in Ireland. Disagreements between the two manifested in the seizure of the Postillion, a dispute in which both and neither party emerged victorious. The chapter then moved on to how the advocates of the English High Court of Admiralty, in particular Charles Hedges, saw the opportunity to establish themselves as the arbiters of Ireland’s coastlines. In achieving this objective, the prosecution of Irish Catholic privateers under the commission of James II for piracy became their first test. The advocates attempted to manipulate the definition of the crime in law to achieve this end, but their actions had unexpected consequences. Their plans became tangled in the challenge of reconciling practices of civil and common law, as, while Hedges was able to force through the piracy conviction, they were thereafter forced to opt for treason trials, resulting in the high-profile trial of Thomas Vaughan. Yet these were also largely unsuccessful, as many Irish sailors were able to obscure or deny their place of birth. Ultimately, this attempt by the admiralty court to reinvent itself as an agent of English influence on Ireland’s coasts failed. Protestants continued to conduct trade internationally and Catholics continued to move relatively freely in and out of French territories. Chapter 2 followed the attempt by the Company of Scotland to establish a colony in eastern Panama between 1698 and 1701, known to historians as the Darien Scheme. It traced why accusations that they acted as pirates dogged the project throughout its existence. This accusation signified how the scheme was positioned within a much older debate about colonisation within the Caribbean Sea, manifested in the contrasting colonial models of the plantation colony and the entrepôt. The first section considered ‘venture Calvinism’ in the Caribbean Sea – how, from the mid-sixteenth century, reformers used gold and silver stolen from Spanish shipping and settlements to fuel religious reform in Europe and colonisation projects in the Americas. Piracy prosecutions became the means by which the Spanish crown sought to deter these sailors, a definition that English planters on Jamaica later came to accept and use to drive the buccaneers from their island. The chapter then provided the background of William Paterson and his long-held project for an entrepôt in the Gulf of Darién, modelled on the former practices of buccaneers, a plan eventually adopted and set in motion by the Company of Scotland in 1697. Paterson’s plans, however, fell prey to the lobbying efforts of planter interests opposed to the colony, who successfully argued that the project would draw pirates and strengthen France’s position in the region, successfully winning the support of both English public institutions and William III. It then worked through events in

232

Panama and how local actors, including local merchants and indigenous groups, ensured that the colonists came to replicate the behaviours of the buccaneers on whose legacy they sought to build. Finally, it provided an account of the Scottish domestic response to Spanish opposition and attempts to reposition the venture as an anti-Catholic endeavour, being a means to win support in England. Their efforts did not succeed, however, driving the colonists to more closely replicate venture Calvinism by launching attacks on Catholic Spain in the name of Reformed Christianity. The eventual failure of the project and the victory of the planters was then marked in Seville during 1701, when several Scottish colonists were, like Huguenot and Dutch sailors before them, condemned for piracy. Chapter 3 explored the time spent in the American northeast by the Anglo-Irish peer Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont. It drew out how he attempted to use anxiety, first over the vulnerability of the American northeast to French influence and then over trade with pirates, to translate Irish colonisation strategies across the Atlantic. He eventually attempted to do so by instituting a naval stores project in New York and New Hampshire. The chapter first accounted for the existence of Madagascar pirates, beginning with a discussion of how regional competition within the northeast, stretching back to earliest settlement, stimulated closer connections with the Caribbean. As a consequence, the northeast came to develop a subordinate place in the Atlantic economy as a provisioning centre, and the shortage of specie this trade caused then drove the colony’s merchants to develop commercial links with Madagascar. On the island, sailors from the northeast took on goods stolen from Mughal treasure shipments, which they then layered into the slave trade to conceal its origins. The second part began with an overview of Coote’s background in Ireland and his particularly Anglo-Irish political ideology, before establishing that he owed his appointment to a particular moment when John Locke dominated the newly established Board of Trade. Locke intended that Bellomont should institute many of the ideas he had previously intended to apply in places like the Carolinas and, more recently, Virginia. Following his arrival in New York, Bellomont attempted to place the blame for the Madagascar trade at the feet of his opponents on New York’s council, a strategy that then backfired when it surfaced that he had himself sponsored the accused pirate William Kidd. The Earl was, however, able to survive the scandal through his further attempts to track down pirates across the northeast. Finally, this chapter laid out his naval stores project, beginning with its origins in the many schemes of the Huguenot merchant Gabriel Bernon. The way Bellomont envisaged it, he would draw the labour from the sailors engaged in

233 the Madagascar trade to produce manufactures for export, while at the same time planting soldiers from Ireland on the frontiers to secure the region from Catholic influence. It then finished by following his attempts to secure the breakup of land grants and missionaries in preparation for the arrival of these soldiers, before outlining the reasons for the project’s collapse. While he failed in his undertaking, the scheme would later be picked up in 1709, when one of his successors attempted the same with refugees from the Rhineland.1 The fourth chapter analysed how the alleged presence of pirates in Pennsylvania was engineered to benefit the establishment of an Anglican missionary society. Anglican plans to associate support for pirates with the Society of Friends (Quakers) was one branch of their overall strategy, which also included the presentation of the denomination as a form of Catholicism and securing converts among their disaffected. The body of the chapter first relayed the early successes of Quakerism in the Americas and how the Anglican Church became aware of the denomination’s expansion over its attempts to secure converts in Maryland. As a consequence, the Bishop of London, Henry Compton, and his commissary, Thomas Bray, realised that a voluntary society was required to overcome Quaker resistance, which they conflated with the threat posed by Catholicism. It then considered events in Pennsylvania during the early 1690s, focusing on the Schism fomented by the prominent Scottish Quaker George Keith. This division partly escalated as a consequence of Quaker willingness to apprehend pirates in violation of peace testimony and the subsequent prosecution of Keith when he criticised the colony’s leaders for doing so. When he joined with other Quaker outcasts in London to argue for the dangers posed by “new Rome” in North America, he won the support of Compton, who saw the opportunity to secure converts among his former followers. It then worked through attempts by Pennsylvania’s Anglicans to use the presence of alleged pirates from the Indian Ocean in Pennsylvania against the Society of Friends. Most of the former had recently arrived from plantation colonies to the south. The commercial dimension to this transatlantic campaign against Quakerism became quickly subsumed into a larger attempt to have all proprietary and private charters annulled in England. It was William Penn who then unearthed how the presence of pirates in the colony had been turned to benefit Anglican expansion, and who then successfully coordinated a coalition of dissenting interests in England to obstruct the

1 William O’Reilly, ‘The Naturalisation Act of 1709 and the Settlement of Germans in Britain, Ireland and the Colonies’ in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens. The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (2001), pp.292–302. 234 passage of the Resumption Bill. They did so by arguing that the motives for the Bill were as much religious as commercial. These efforts then blunted the eventual impact of the Church of England missionary society that emerged in 1701, derailing the larger project to establish Anglicanism across the Americas. The fifth and final chapter centered on the island of Madagascar and three separate schemes to establish an entrepôt there to link the trades of the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. The first came from the Assada Company during the 1640s, then colonists from the Americas in the 1680s, followed eventually by the Company of Scotland after 1701. Each attempt threatened the monopoly of the EIC, who, in each instance, sought to reassert their position and ensure that flows of people and goods were channeled north through London, rather than proceeding directly from the Caribbean and North America. The first section laid out how corporate monopolies were created as a response to trade practices as they already existed in the Indian Ocean, before then demonstrating how piracy trials were first used by the Estado da Índia to deter rivals. Next, it sketched the attempts of Courteen’s Associates, later the Assada Company, to establish a colony at Madagascar, followed by the strengthening of the EIC’s powers under Josiah Child to match the VOC. The second part then considered how the EIC’s monopoly was weakened on account of its relationship to James II after 1688, encouraging rival companies. The next challenge that the EIC faced was a colony founded on an island off the coast of Madagascar, known to English-speakers as St Maries. This settlement became a realisation of the entrepôt imagined by the Assada colonist’s decades earlier, as it successfully channeled trade from North America and the Caribbean directly into the Indian Ocean. Prosecuting the denizens of this island as pirates then became a means for the EIC to demonstrate its effectiveness in managing flows of people and goods, making the case once again for monopoly rule. Next, the chapter worked through the attempt by the Company of Scotland to establish a colony that could draw the labour of the “pirates” at St Maries, in a mirror image of the Darien Scheme. Yet their attempts to establish connections with the east quickly brought them into conflict with the New EIC, elevating the competition between these rival east India companies into a national dispute between England and Scotland. It then concluded with a study of the trial of Thomas Green, understood as a direct attack on the EIC’s monopoly claims and the effective inverse of William Kidd’s prosecution some years earlier. The acrimony between the two companies fomented so much public discord that it eventually served to make the case for the organisation of trade under a single monopoly, achieved by Anglo–Scottish Union in 1707,

235 which abolished the Company of Scotland. The colony at St Maries continued to exist, but the EIC was nevertheless satisfied, as it had already been able to use piracy prosecutions to recover from its falling fortunes and eliminate its competitors. On one level, the Age of Projects suggested many potential ways for the anglophone world to achieve closer integration. Yet none of these projects succeeded on implementation. No empire emerged that was built upon a common belief in and adherence to Anglicanism, nor practices of free or regulated trade, nor indeed a unified system of common law. Outcomes often cited by historians, such as the formation of the Board of Trade and the passage of statutes in England and Scotland, alongside the execution of key individuals for piracy, were the product of contradictory aims and campaigns of influence, rather than being the means by which some semblance of central authority was exerted over peripheries. Rather than cohering into an ‘imperial state’, what endured was a ‘mildly centripetal agglutination of bewilderingly heterodox elements’, not a monolithic block, but a people who continued to be organised by allegiance and connected, above all, by diverse processes of exchange.2 Viewed from this perspective, the Act of Anglo–Scottish Union passed in 1707, which claimed to give Scots access to English overseas possessions, was in fact surrender by both sides, a legal gloss applied to a continuing status quo in which many centres and peripheries already existed. Colonists from the Americas could continue to receive goods via Madagascar and Irish Catholics could pursue futures in France and the French Caribbean, while the Atlantic basin’s commerce was drawn into the orbit of the Caribbean. The process of overseas expansion was increasingly driven not by a metropolitan design or land-hungry colonists, but by individuals who were able to marshal the support of a range of formal institutions and direct movements of people and goods, while integrating historical contexts as they made their plans. As a consequence, the anglophone world remaining loosely bound itself facilitated expansion, driven by these intermediaries, or “projectors”. At the same time, the place of pirates within these schemes suggests a significant shift in how contemporaries understood the common endeavours that bound this world together. The fear of Catholicism and the threat of France, in particular, were used to promote or denigrate particular projects, but were never strong enough as arguments to win on their own. Bray and Compton could not simply turn opinion against the Quakers in England by conflating them with Catholicism, the

2 Steve Pincus, ‘Reconfiguring the British Empire’, WMQ, vol.69, no.1, pp.63–70; R.W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550–1700: An Interpretation (1979), p.447. 236

EIC’s support for James II was not enough to destroy it completely and Jamaican planters could not secure support against Darien by simply claiming that it aided French ambitions in the Caribbean. Connections to pirates stressed that an opponent also presented a commercial threat, an association which became of greater benefit to the realisation or frustration of particular schemes. The ever-present and conspiratorial papist was no longer sufficient as an absolute enemy, and others had to be imagined and fought to take its place. In fact, the common manipulation of the definition piracy and pirates displays how religion was coming to be accorded a subordinate place to commerce in emergent justifications of empire. Quakers and Irish Catholics needed to be presented as commercially deviant in order for larger action to be taken against them, while Fletcher’s councilors in New York were brought down by their alleged support for pirates, rather than accusations of Jacobitism. The materialisation of the pirate as an enemy of thalassocracy at this point was part of the larger process of secularisation that had begun to take hold amongst Europeans by the later seventeenth century. The early modern conception of the pirate was part of this transition, shifting from Islamic and Reformist enemies of Spain at sea to outlaws who preyed upon global trade.3 Yet this stretching and reworking of how the pirate was understood in order to suit particular interests had its drawbacks. All of the four prominent piracy trials here, of the Irish sailors, Avery’s crew, William Kidd and Thomas Green, were a foregone conclusion before they even began. The individuals involved had to be executed for reasons external to the courtroom: the Irish sailors for the sake of the Admiralty Court’s future prospects, Kidd and Avery to bolster the EIC’s jurisdiction and to effect the outcome of projects in the Americas, Green to assert the rights of the Company of Scotland. All of these trials were printed and heavily publicised, but popular belief did not follow the intended conclusion that these were simply dangerous criminals who had to be exterminated. By the end of this period, the pirate had begun to assume a place in popular culture, as tropes of

3 A scholarly debate explored and challenged in David Hempton, ‘Protestant Migrations: Narratives of the Rise and Decline of Religion in the North Atlantic World c.1650–1950’ in Callum G. Brown and Michael Francis Snape (eds.), Secularisation in the Christian World: Essays in Honour of Hugh Mcloed (2010), pp.41–54; for relevant recent discussions, see: Mark Somos, ‘Mare Clausum, Leviathan and Oceana: Bible Criticism, Secularisation and Imperialism in Seventeenth-Century English Political and Legal Thought’ in C.L. Crouch and Jonathan Stökl (eds.) with the assistance of Cat Quine, In the Name of God: the Bible in the Colonial Discourse of Empire (2014), pp.85– 132; John Seed, ‘“Secular” and “Religious”: Historical Perspectives’, Social History, vol.39, no.1 (2014), pp.3–13; Penelope J. Corfield, ‘“An Age of Infidelity”: Secularization in Eighteenth-Century England, Social History, vol.39, no.2 (2014), pp.229–247. 237 exactly the kind of free movement across maritime space that projectors had sought to harness.4 Yet, even as the pirate came to assume a great many meanings, the definitions of piracy as a crime became less plastic. While at the beginning of this period it could be reasonably conflated with treason, tyranny or a host of other landed crimes, instead piracy began to settle more comfortably as the common law crime of robbery in a maritime jurisdiction, decoupling it further from the vernacular usage of pirate. Ultimately, the allegorical pirate would not endure as a popular enemy. There was no event equivalent to the Marian persecutions or 1641 Uprising to make it assume an equivalent status to the papist in the minds of anglophone Protestants. Instead, the war against the pirates had a particular discursive purpose at a moment of crisis, resulting in show trials, which, by their very publication, worked to create the problem of indiscriminate robbery by the later 1710s. Contemporary printed material and many other sources stress that two maritime regions had a particular appeal for pirates in the late seventeenth century: the Caribbean and the Red Sea. Sailors gravitated to both of these regions because they presented the opportunity to directly acquire gold and silver, which was otherwise closely guarded or flowed away from Europe and the Americas. This desire to secure bullion and specie was not unique to pirates, however; in fact, how to best harness global flows of precious metals was at the heart of the Age of Projects. Bellomont believed his naval-stores scheme would direct them northwards into New York and New England, William Paterson intended to have them concentrated into his colony at Panama and the American colonists at Madagascar sought to divert them back across the Atlantic. This ambition stresses continuity within processes of European overseas expansion. Historians have often compartmentalised European colonialism into national frameworks to emphasise difference, rather than searching for commonality. The extent to which the pirates and projects laid out here were preoccupied with precious metals suggests that greater attention should be paid to the fact that there was actually considerable continuity between them all. Colonisers persistently created mechanisms to generate, protect and legitimise the fact that, even by the early-eighteenth century, Spain’s initial aspirations for gold and silver remained a core motivation across national boundaries.5 It was Iberian

4 A transition discussed in John C. Appleby, ‘Pirates, Privateers and Buccaneers: The Changing Face of English Piracy from the 1650s to the 1720s in Cheryl A. Fury (ed.), The Social History of English Seamen, 1650–1815 (2017), pp.213–230; Lincoln, British Pirates and Society, passim; Stephanie Jones, ‘Literature, Geography, Law: the Life and Adventures of Captain John Avery (Circa 1709)’, Cultural Geographies, vol.19, no.1, pp.71–86; Bialuschewski, ‘Greed, Fraud and Popular Culture’, pp.104–114; essays in Section 4 of Head, British Piracy in the Golden Age. 5 Histories of bullion and overseas expansion tend to focus upon Iberian powers and China, while pirates are not generally considered part of the story: Matthew P. Romaniello, ‘Trade and the Global Economy’ in Hamish Scott 238 enterprises that initially served to create global asymmetries in bullion flows, a phenomenon that pirates and colonial schemes continually worked to reverse into the eighteenth century. The fact that pirates became a locus for so many different controversies of religion, law and commerce emphasises that ideas, just like people, moved freely around the anglophone world. Often, particular debates are seen to be confined to localities or delimited within pre-determined geographical boundaries. The issues that were confronted within “empire” are frequently hived off from those conducted within the “nation”, which can serve to obscure how ideas were transmitted back and forth across seas and oceans. The contest between proponents of free trade and regulation were conducted as much at Panama, in Madagascar and on the coasts of Ireland as in pamphlet literature produced in Boston, Edinburgh or London. The limitations of religious toleration were tested in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, as well as in Ireland, but at the same time also determined in London. The jurisdiction of the common law over the oceans was discussed in the courtrooms of Edinburgh and London, but also challenged and reinforced by events on the coast of Munster and the Indian Ocean. At the same time, the fact that pirates were considered to have implications for so many areas of early modern life, shows how these domains, which historians often study through themes, were interrelated. The most prominent example here has been the connection between notions of economy and religion. Irish links to the French Caribbean were about reinforcing the strength of Irish Catholicism as much as securing a livelihood, a fact that Protestant commentators understood. What Bellomont attempted in the northeast sought to draw trade flows northwards, an objective he believed to be mutually reinforcing with the creation of a society of tolerant Protestant freeholders. For the colonists at Caledonia, striking a blow against Catholic Spain became as one with achieving eventual prosperity. A focus on pirates, who were at once considered enemies of commercial, religious, lawful and moral society, provides a means to trace the widespread transmission, confluence and implementation of debates that might otherwise appear unrelated. Finally, this doctorate has shown how the process of overseas expansion served to more closely entwine the lives of people from Scotland, England and Ireland. Nowhere was this mixing more

(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern European History, 1350–1750: Volume II, Cultures and Power (2015), pp.325–327; Nanny Kim and Keiko Nagase-Reimer (eds.), Mining Monies, and Culture in Early Modern Societies: East Asian and Global Perspectives (2014); Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World, pp.92–95; William S. Atwell, ‘Another Look at Silver Imports into China, ca.1635–1644’, JWH, vol.16 no.4 (2005), pp.467–489; Dennis O. Flynn and Arturo Giráldez, ‘Cycles of Silver: Global Economic Unity through the Mid-Eighteenth Century’, JWH, vol.13, no.2 (2002), pp.391–427. 239 clearly illustrated than within the ranks of the pirates featured throughout the preceding chapters. Among them were exiled Irish Jacobites, English Calvinists from New England and Scots such as William Kidd. This phenomenon was not unique to maritime communities, however. The projects considered were advanced by Anglo-Irish Protestants and Lowland Scots, as well as Quakers or Anglicans from England and Scotland. The combining of people from the three kingdoms in the Americas and the east had been underway across the seventeenth century, but was accelerated during the 1690s and became the Age of Projects, as many more people began to look overseas for opportunities. To speak of English America or an English Empire serves to obscure the fact that, by the later seventeenth century, individuals from across Britain and Ireland cooperated in the Indian Ocean, Caribbean and North America, in turn serving to forge closer links between their places of birth in Europe. Across the eighteenth century, these connections between the three kingdoms would only deepen, as the experience of overseas expansion bound them more closely together. The first history of the pirates in English was published almost two decades after Thomas Green was executed at Leith. The book was almost certainly written by Daniel Defoe under the pseudonym Charles Johnson, and the initial 1724 edition carried the title A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pyrates.6 The text is probably the most widely read history of pirates of all time and is to this day a central primary source for historians. Yet Green is nowhere to be found within its pages. Henry Avery features, as do later pirates such as the Barbadian Stede Bonnet and Edward Low. William Kidd is also conspicuously absent. In fact, with only two exceptions, all the captains in Johnson’s book are English.7 In the introduction, which was certainly written by Defoe, he does give some indication as to a motivation for why this history was anglicised. He argues that pirates were the sailors that the labour market had failed to utilise, a problem afflicting the English, as they failed to provide work during peacetime for sailors formerly employed as privateers. Continuing, he then argues for the establishment of a national fishery, which would ‘prevent pyracy, employ a number of the poor, and ease the nation of a great burthen’.8 Such a proposal gives the impression that, as a serial investor in commercial projects

6 Manuel Schonhorn, The General History of the Pirates (1999), pp.xxiv-xxxviii. 7 Charles Johnson, A General History of the Pyrates, from their First Rise and Settlement in the Island of Providence, to the Present Time (1724), pp.166–177, 425–429. 8 Daniel Defoe, A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pyrates (1724), unpaginated preface. 240 during his lifetime, Defoe stood to gain by such a scheme and thus from defining pirates as a national problem of labour organisation. He did not see who the pirates were, but who his interests and convictions dictated they should rather be – one final way in which the Age of Projects has shaped the history of pirates.

241

Bibliography

Primary Sources (Manuscript)

Codrington Library, All Souls’ College, Oxford (ASO). Miscellany Relating to Maritime Law, MS 148.

American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia, PA (APS). William Penn Miscellaneous Letters and Documents, 1655–1801, MS B.P38.

The Duke of Norfolk’s Archive, Arundel Castle, Arundel (ACA). The Correspondence of John Aylward Papers, AY1–AY133.

The British Library, London (BL). A Collection of Letters, Grants, Petitions, and Miscellaneous Documents Relative to the History of Ireland, 1576–1751, Vol.2, Add. MS 21136. A Collection of Paul Rycaut’s Letters, 1696–1700, Vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153. Blathwayt Correspondence, Vol.14, Add. MS 37992. Blathwayt Papers, Vol.39, Add. MS 9747. Blathwayt Papers, Vol.26, Add. MS 9744. Letterbook of Sir Charles Hedges Letterbook, Add. MS 24107. East India Company Court Minutes, 1687–1690, IOR B/39. East India Company Court Minutes, 1698–1699, IOR B/41. East India Company Court Minutes, 1698–1699, IOR B/42. East India Company Court Minutes, 1702–1705, IOR B/47. East India Company Inbound Correspondence, 1682–1683, IOR E/3/42. East India Company Inbound Correspondence, 1684–1685, IOR E/3/44. East India Company Inbound Correspondence, 1691–1693, IOR E/3/49. East India Company Legal Papers, 1685–1721, IOR H/23. East India Company Miscellaneous Letters Received, 1701–1709, IOR E/1/1. East India Company Miscellaneous Papers, 1658–1699, IOR H/36. East India Company Miscellanies, 1699–1709, IOR E/1/196. East India Company Outbound Correspondence, 1685–1688, IOR E/3/91. East India Company St Helena Letters, IOR E/3/93. Egmont Papers, Add. MS 47132. Correspondence with James Ellis, 1689–1708, Vol.6, Add. MS 28880. Private Correspondence and Papers of James Ellis, 1700–1701, Vol.7, Add. MS 28943. Private Correspondence and Papers of James Ellis, 1701–1702, Vol.8, Add. MS 28944.

242

Extracts from East India Tracts, 1661–1726, IOR H/44. Correspondence of Sidney Godolphin, 1701–1710, Add. MS 28055. Tracts Relating to the Island of Jamaica, 1503–1692, Vol.1, Add. MS 12429. Letters and Papers Relating to Admiralty Affairs, 1691–1698, Add. MS 25098. Letters Relative to the Southwells and Kinsale, Add. MS 9714. Miscellaneous Papers of William III Relating to Ireland, Add. MS 28939. Munster Vice-Admiralty Records, 1677–1694, Vol.1, Add. MS 38147. Collections of A. Hill Relating to Trade, 17th–18th Centuries, Sloane MS 2902. Paul Rycaut’s Letters, 1696–1700, Vol.5, Lansdowne MS 1153. Roxburgh Ballads, Vol.3, C 20. James Vernon’s Correspondence, 1693–1701, Add. MS 34348. EIC Surat Factory Records, 1621–1636, IOR G/36/102A. The Rights and Jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral of England asserted in Ireland by a Process of the Postillion Ketch, 1693, Egerton MS 744.

Bodleian Library, Oxford (BLO). Miscellaneous Admiralty Papers, 1693, Rawlinson MS A.452. Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Scottish and Irish Affairs, 1641–1754, Rawlinson MS D.921. Miscellaneous Theological Papers Chiefly Relating to the Non-Jurors, Rawlinson MS D.373. Samuel Pepys’ Papers, 1675–1677, Rawlinson MS A.191. SPG Letterbooks, A Series, Vol.1. A Collection of Letters Chiefly Written During the Year 1699, Tanner MS, Vol.21. A Collection of Letters Almost Entirely Written During the Year 1698, Tanner MS, Vol.22. Miscellaneous Irish Papers, 1660–88, Carte MS 69. Copies of Letters of the Lords Justice of Ireland, 1693–99, Carte MS 170. Correspondence and Papers of James II, of Queen Mary Beatrice, of James Francis Stewart the Old Pretender, their Secretaries and Adherents, 1689–1701, Carte MS 181. Copies of Correspondence of the 2nd Earl of Middleton, Secretary of State to James II During His Exile, Carte MS 256.

Royal Bank of Scotland Archive, Edinburgh (BSA). Journals of the Court of Directors of the Company of Scotland, 1696–1707, Nos.1–2. Instructions of the Court of Directors of the Company of Scotland, 1696–1701.

Cambridge University Library, Cambridge (CUL). SPCK Cash Book, 1699–1724, Vol.1, MS SPCK C/1/2. SPCK Subscription Book, 1698–1769, MS SPCK C/1/1. SPCK Wanley Manuscripts, MS SPCK E/1/1.

243

Library of the Society of Friends, Friends House, London (FHL). London Yearly Meeting: Meetings For Sufferings, Vols.12–13. London Yearly Meeting: Epistles Received, Vol.1. London Yearly Meeting: Morning Meeting Minutes, Vols.2–3. London Yearly Meeting: Minutes, Vol.2.

Magill Library, Haverford College, Philadelphia, PA (HCQC). Philadelphia Yearly Meeting: A Collections of Epistles from George Fox and Others, 1662–1699. Penn Family Papers: William Penn Letters and Deeds. Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting: Minutes, 1682–1711, Vol.1. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting: Ministers and Elders, Vol.1. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting: Minutes, 1681–1710, Vol.1.

Harvard Law Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (HLL). Law School Small Manuscript Collection.

Harvard University Archives, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (HUA). Charters and Legislative Acts Relating to the Governance of Harvard, 1650–1814, UAI 15.100.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (HSP). Board of Trade: Properties, Vols.3, 5. Etting Papers, Early Quaker Collection. Ferdinand J. Dreer Autograph Collection, 1492–1925. Logan Family Papers, 1638–1964: James Logan Letterbook. Parrish and Pemberton Families Papers, 1614–1880. Penn Family Papers: Penn-Logan Correspondence, 1699–1738. Penn Family Papers: William Penn Letterbook, 1699–1702. R. R. Logan collection of John Dickinson papers, 1671–1882.

The Jacob Leisler Institute, Hudson, NY (JLI). Photostat Collection.

Lamont Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (LLH). William Blathwayt Papers, 1631–1722 (microfilm), Film A 707.

London Metropolitan Archive, London (LMA). Thomas Bowrey Papers, 1671–1713, MS 24176. Thomas Bowrey Papers, 1666–1711, Vol.1, MS 3041.

Lambeth Palace Library, London (LPL). Francis Bugg Papers, 1660–1716, MS A69.7/B86.

244

Fulham Papers: Papers of the Bishop of London; Colonial, 1626–1822, Vols.2, 7, 10, 11 17, 19, 41. Miscellaneous Documents, 1595–1715, MS 953. Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, 1572–1802, MS 1834. Records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1667–1803, Vols.1, 10, 12, 13.

Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA (MHS). Francis Russell Hart collection, 1573–1936: Transcripts, MS N–189. F. L. Gay Transcripts, 1632–1786: Kidd Papers, MS N-2012, Vols.1–2. Winthrop Family Papers, 1537–1990: John Winthrop Papers (microfilm), P-350, Reels 14, 15. Photostat Collection.

Massachusetts State Archive, Boston, MA (MSA). Massachusetts State Archives Collection: Colonial Period, 1622–1788, Vols.2, 3, 20, 58, 81. Massachusetts State Archives Collection, Colonial and Post-Colonial Period, 1626–1806, Vol.288.

University of Maryland Special Collections, College Park, MD (MSC). Thomas Bray Papers, 1697–1705, MS 79–1.

The National Archives of Ireland, Dublin (NAI). Letters of the Lords Justices of Ireland, 1697, M.2454. Papers of Sir Cyril Wyche: Correspondence, 1634–1766, Series 1. Papers of Sir Cyril Wyche: Miscellaneous, 1694–1701, Series 1. Papers of Sir Cyril Wyche: Papers 1676–93, Series 2.

National Library of Ireland, Dublin (NLI). Letters to John Aylward, 1689–1701, MS 41685. Genealogical Office Manuscripts, MS 162. Petitions Collection, MS 13657.

The National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh (NLS). Colonel Leven’s Darien Papers, 1699–1700, Adv.MS 83/7/3. Darien Papers, Vols.1–3, Adv MS.83/7/4-Adv.MS 83/7/6. Spottiswood Papers, MS 2936.

National Records of Scotland, Edinburgh (NRS). Acts of Parliament, 1466–1706, PA 2/37. Correspondence of the Earl of Mar, GD 124. Correspondence of the Duke of Hamilton, GD 406. Papers of the Bruce Family of Kinross: Letters of Francis Scott, GD 29. Papers of Clerk family of Penicuik, GD 18.

245

Papers of the Earl of Morton, GD 150. Privy Council Papers, PC 12/1704. Seafield Correspondence, GD 248.

New York Historical Society, New York City, NY (NYHS). Bayard Family Collection, 1673–1899. Richard Coote, Earl of Bellomont Collection, 1690–1700. De Peyster Papers, 1690–1709: Dutch Letter Translations. De Peyster Papers, 1665–1887: Abraham De Peyster English Letters. Documents Relating to the New York-Connecticut Border. Jacob Leisler Papers (microfilm). New York Assembly Journal 1698–1705. Nicholas Bayard Papers: Trial Documents, 1698–1708.

New York State Archive, Albany, NY (NYSA). Transcripts of Council Minutes, 1674–1742, MS A4406.

Parliamentary Archives, London (PA). House of Lords Papers 23 November to 3 December 1695, HL/PO/JO/10/1/525/1486.

Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, RI (RIHS). New England Yearly Meeting Records: Registers of Visitors, Vol.1. Gabriel Bernon Papers, 1652–1946, MS 294. Miscellaneous Colonial Letters.

Rhode Island State Archives, Providence, RI (RISA). Proceedings of the General Assembly, 1649–1723, Vol.1.

Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College, Philadelphia, PA (SCQC) Documents Relating to the Keithian Schism.

Senate House Library Special Collections, London (SHL). Papers of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, 1696–1707, MS 63.

Trinity Church Archive, New York City, NY (TCA). The Vestry Book of Trinity Church, Vol.1.

Trinity College Dublin Special Collections, Dublin (TCD). Clark Correspondence, Vols.3, 10–12, MS 749. King-Lyon Papers, MS 1995. The Papers of Robert Southwell, MS 1180.

246

Trinity Hall Special Collections, Cambridge (TH). Miscellany on Admiralty and Maritime Law, MS 43.1.

The British National Archives, London (TNA). Admiralty Board: Captain’s Letters: L, ADM/1/2033. Admiralty Board: In Letters, Captains W–Y, ADM 106/532. Admiralty Board: In Letters from Ireland, 1691–1701, ADM 1/3988. Board of Trade Records: Foreign Trade A, CO 388/6. Board of Trade Records: General Correspondence, CO 323/2. Board of Trade Records: Ireland A, CO 388/85. Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Correspondence, 1694–1695, CO 137/1. Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Correspondence, 1693–1695, CO 137/3. Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Correspondence, 1696–1699, CO 137/4. Board of Trade Records: Jamaica Entry Books, 1696–1700, CO 138/9. Board of Trade Records: New Hampshire Correspondence, 1692–1737, CO 5/931. Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1697–1698, CO 5/1040. Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1698, CO 5/1041. Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1699, CO 5/1042. Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1699–1700, CO 5/1043. Board of Trade Records: New York Correspondence, 1700–1701, CO 5/1044. Board of Trade Records: Proprieties B, CO 5/1257. Board of Trade Records: Proprieties C, CO 5/1258. Board of Trade Records: Proprieties E, CO 5/1260. Board of Trade Records: Proprieties G, CO 5/1261. Board of Trade Records: Journal 1697, CO 391/91. Board of Trade Records: Journal 1698, CO/391/10. High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Examinations of Pirates and Other Criminals, 1683–1694, HCA 1/52. High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Examinations of Pirates and Other Criminals, 1694–1710, HCA 1/53. High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Indictments and Monitions, 1674–1687, HCA 1/28. High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Indictments and Proceedings Filed, 1692–1696, HCA 1/13. High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Indictments and Proceedings Filed, 1696–1700, HCA 1/14. High Court of Admiralty Court of Oyer and Terminar: Papers Relating to Samuel Burgess, 1694–1699, HCA 1/98. 247

State Papers: Charles Hedges Letterbook, 1703–1706, SP 44/105. State Papers: Domestic, Letters and Papers, 1686–1687, SP 31/3. State Papers: Domestic, Papers and Petitions to James II, 1685–1688, SP 31/5. State Papers: Entry Books, Earl of Sunderland’s Letters, 1679–1688, SP 44/56. State Papers: Entry Books, Warrants and Passes, 1686–1688, SP 44/337. State Papers: Ireland, 1689–1690, SP 63/352. State Papers: Ireland, 1690–1691, SP 63/353. State Papers: Ireland, 1692, SP 63/354. State Papers: Ireland, 1693, SP 63/355. State Papers: Ireland, 1694, SP 63/356. State Papers: Ireland, 1695, SP 63/357. State Papers: Ireland Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, 1705, SP 63/365. State Papers: Military Correspondence, Commissions and Warrants, SP 44/168. State Papers: Scotland, 1688–1706, SP 54/1.

The Beinecke Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT (YBL). Dr. Oldish’s plea for some seamen who were condemn’d as pyrates for fighting under K. James’s commission, circa 1693, MS Osborn 185b. Osborn Manuscripts, MS OSB 2.

Primary Sources (Printed, Contemporary)

A Collection of Charters and Statutes Relating to the East India Company (1817). Adams, John, A sermon preach’d at St. Clement-Danes (1700). An Account of the Proceedings of the Parliament of Scotland, which met at Edinburgh, May 6 1703 (1704). An Act for preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade (1696). An Act for the more Effectuall Suppressions of Piracy (1700). An Act Ratifying and Approving Treaty of Union of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England (1707). Anon., A letter from Duke Schomberge’s camp, giving an account of the condition of the English and Irish army (1689). Anon. A letter from Scotland, To a Friend in London: Containing A particular Narrative of the whole Proceedings against the Worcester and her Crew (1705). Anon., A letter to a member of the Honourable House of Commons in answer to three queries (1697). Anon., A letter, written to a member of Parliament, concerning the East-India trade (1693).

248

Anon., A journal of several remarkable passages, before the Honourable House of Commons, and the Right Honourable the Lords of Their Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council: relating to the East- India trade (1693). Anon., A petition against the East-India Company To the Honourable the Commons of England in Parliament assembled (1691). Anon., A Seasonable prospect for the view and consideration of Christians being a brief representation of the lives and conversations of infidels and heathens (1691). Anon., A trip lately to Scotland. With a true character of the country and people: Also Reflections on their Proceedings to disturb the present Reign (1705). Anon., A True and Impartial Account of the Proceedings against Capt Green and his Crew, together with the Confessions of severals of them under Sentence of Death (1705). Anon., An account of the tryals of Captain J. Golden. Thomas Jones. John Gold. Lawrance Maliene. Patrick Whitley. John Slaughter. Const. D’Heaity. Richard Shewers. Darby Collins. John Ryon. Dennis Cockram. John Walsh (1694). Anon., An Apology for the English Nation (1691). Anon., An Elegy on the Much Lamented Death of Captain Thomas Green (1705). Anon., An English Ointment for the Scotch Mange: or, a Short Memorandum of the Scots Cruelty to Captain Thomas Green (1705). Anon., An essay towards a scheme or model for erecting a National East-India joynt-stock or company more generally diffused and enlarged for the restoring, establishing, and better carrying on that most important trade (1691). Anon., Allegations Against Proprietary Governments Considered and their Merit and Benefit to the Crown Observed (1701). Anon., Certain propositions relating to the Scots plantation of Caledonia (1700). Anon., Companies in joynt-stock unnecessary and inconvenient. Free trade to India in a regulated company, the interest of England (1691). Anon., Considerations humbly offered to the honourable House of Commons assembled in Parliament, concerning prohibiting the exportation of wooll (1689). Anon., The right way to make money more plentiful: or, Considerations relating to the Act for preventing exportation of silver and encouraging its importation and coinage (1690). Anon., Free regulated trade, particularly to India the interest of England: being the true, natural means, to promote the navigation and riches of this nation (1691). Anon., Hereditary Succession in the Protestant Line Unalterable, in Answer to the Scots Bill of Security (1704). Anon., Nero gallicanus, or, The true pourtraicture of Lewis XIV wherein the present war with France is justified (1690).

249

Anon., Observations made in England, on the trial of Capt. Green, and the speech at his death (1705). Anon., Reflections on the Printed Case of William Penn, Esq. (1702). Anon., Remarks upon the tryal of Capt. Thomas Green and his crew: Lately printed in Scotland and re- printed here in London (1705). Anon., The case of the marriners which served the East-India Company in their wars in the East-Indies (1690). Anon., The consequences of tolerating gold and silver to be exported out of this kingdom, discovered; and the manner how the coin of this nation has been destroy’d (1692). Anon., The East-India and Guinny-trade, as novv under a joynt-stock, considered and proved prejudicial to the kingdom’s interest (1690). Anon., The linnen and woollen manufactory discoursed with the nature of companies and trade in general: and particularly, that of the company's for the linnen manufactory of England and Ireland. With some reflections how the trade of Ireland hath formerly, and may now affect England (1691). Anon., The Late K. James’s commission to his privateers to ravage, plunder, burn, sink, and destroy all the ships and goods of the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1692). Anon., The present state of Jamaica with the life of the great Columbus the first discoverer: to which is added an exact account of Sir Hen. Morgan’s voyage (1683). Anon., The Pretended Yearly Meeting of the Quakers, their nameless bull of excommunication given forth against George Keith (1695). Anon., The true causes of the present scarcity of money: and the proper remedies for it (1690). Bacon, Francis, A letter of advice written by Sr. Francis Bacon to the Duke of Buckingham, when he became favourite to King James (1661). Barclay, Robert, The Anarchy of the Ranters and Other Libertines (1676). Barnabe, Richard, A new description of Ireland wherein is described the disposition of the Irish whereunto they are inclined (1610). Beveridge, William, A sermon Preach’d before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1707). Bisse, Phillip, A Sermon Preach’d Before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1718). Bohun, Edmund, The Character of Queen Elizabeth, or, A full and clear account of her policies, and the methods of her government both in church and state (1693). Boothby, Richard, A briefe discovery or description of the most famous island of Madagascar or St. Laurence in Asia neare unto East-India (1647). Borland, Francis, The History of Darien (1779). Bowrey, Thomas, The case of the owners and freighters of the ship Worcester (1705). Bowrey, Thomas, The innocency of Capt. Green, and his crew, vindicated, from the murther of Capt. Drummond. Published by order of the owners of the ship Worcester (1705). Bradford, William, Bradford’s history of “Plimoth plantation” (1899).

250

Bray, Thomas, A Letter from Dr. Bray, to such as have Contributed Towards the Propagating Christian Knowledge in the Plantations (1700). Bray, Thomas, An essay towards promoting all necessary and useful knowledge, both divine and human in all parts of His Majesty’s dominions, both at home and abroad (1697). Bray, Thomas, Bibliotheca parochialis: or, A scheme of such theological heads both general and particular, as are more peculiarly requisite to be well studied by every pastor of a parish (1697). Bray, Thomas, Proposals for the Encouragement and Promoting of Religion and Learning in the Foreign Plantations (1695). Brewster, Francis, Essays on trade and navigation in five parts (1695). Buchanan, George, The history of Scotland written in Latin by George Buchanan ; faithfully rendered into English (1690). Budd, Thomas, The great doctrines of the gospel of Christ owned, believed and asserted in several declarations or sermons preached in London (1694). Bugg, Francis, A bomb thrown amongst the Quakers in Norwich (1702). Bugg, Francis, A narrative of the conference at Sleeford in Lincolnshire (1702). Bugg, Francis, The Quakers Set in their True Light (1696). Bugg, Francis, A Second Summons to the City of Abel (1695). Bugg, Francis, New Rome arraigned And out of her own mouth condemned. Containing a farther discovery of the dangerous errors, and pernicious principles of the leaders and teachers of the Foxonian Quakers (1693). Bugg, Francis, Battering rams against New Rome containing a farther discovery of the grand hypocrisie of the leaders and teachers of the people called Quakers (1691). Bugg, Francis, The painted-harlot both stript and whipt, or, The second part of Naked truth containing a further discovery of the mischief of imposition among the people called Quakers (1683). Burling, Elias, A call to back-sliding Israel and may be as a necessary word of caution and admonition to the inhabitants of East and West-Jarsey, Pennsilvania (1694). Burnet, Gilbert, Of the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. A Sermon Preach’d at St. Mary-le- Bow, Feb 18 1703/4 Before the Society Incorporated for that Purpose, Exhorting All Persons in their Stations, to Assist so Glorious a Design (1704). Burnet, Gilbert, A sermon preached before the King and Queen at White-Hall on the 19th day of October, 1690 (1690). By the Lords Justices, a proclamation whereas we formerly received information that one Henry Every, commander of this ship called the Phansie ... committed several acts of piracy (1696). Burnet, Gilbert, Of the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. A Sermon Preach’d at St. Mary-le- Bow, Feb 18 1703/4 Before the Society Incorporated for that Purpose, Exhorting All Persons in their Stations, to Assist so Glorious a Design (1704). Burnet, Gilbert, A sermon preached before the King and Queen at White-Hall on the 19th day of October, 1690 (1690).

251

Bury, Jacob, Advice to the Commons within all His Majesties realms and dominions written by Jacob Bury (1685). Cary, John, A discourse concerning the trade of Ireland and Scotland, as they stand in competition with the trade of England (1695). Charles I, By the King a proclamation for the well manning and arming of the ships (1625). Charter granted by Queen Elizabeth to the East India Company (1600). Clement, Simon, A Dialogue between a countrey gentleman and a merchant concerning the falling of guinea’s (1696). Clement, Simon, A Discourse of the General Notions of Money, Trade, and Exchanges (1695). Company of Scotland, The Petition of the Scots East-India and African Company, for Reprisal of the Ship Worcester (1705). Company of Scotland, To His Grace John Marquess of Tweeddale, Her Majesty’s high commissioner, and the Right Honourable Estates of Parliament. The petition of the Court of Directors (1704). Company of Scotland, A Full and exact collection of all the considerable addresses, memorials, petitions, answers, proclamations, declarations, letters, and other public papers relating to the Company of Scotland trading to Africa and the Indies (1700). Company of Scotland, The Representation and Petition of the Council-General of the Indian and African Company to the Parliament (1700). Coke, Roger, A detection of the court and state of England during the four last reigns and the interregnum consisting of private memoirs (1697). Crisp, Thomas, A Just and Lawful Tryal of the Foxonian Chief Priests (1697). Crisp, Thomas, The discovery of the accursed thing in the Foxonian Quakers camp, englarged [sic] (1695). D’Avenant, William, Madagascar with other poems (1638). Dampier, William, A new voyage round the world describing particularly the isthmus of America (1697). Davies, John, A Discovery of the True Causes why Ireland was Never Entirely Subdued, nor Brought Under Obedience of the Crowne of England (1612). Dawes, William, A sermon Preach’d before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1709). Defoe, Daniel, The General History of the Pyrates, ed. Manuel Schonhorn (1999). Defoe, Daniel, Madagascar, or Robert Drury’s Journal, during Fifteen Years Captivity on that Island (1729). Defoe, Daniel, The Life, Adventures & Piracies of the Famous Captain Singleton (1720). Defoe, Daniel, The History of the Union between England and Scotland (1709). Defoe, Daniel, An Essay Upon Projects (1697). Edmonson, William, A journal of the life, travels, sufferings, and labour of love in the work of the ministry, of that worthy elder, and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, William Edmundson (1715). Ellis, Clement, The folly of atheism demonstrated to the capacity of the most unlearned reader (1692).

252

Exquemelin, Alexandre Olivier, Bucaniers of America, or, A true account of the most remarkable assaults committed of late years upon the coasts of the West-Indies by the bucaniers of Jamaica and Tortuga (1684). Fleetwood, William, A Sermon Preach’d Before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1711). Fletcher, Andrew A short and impartial view of the manner and occasion of the Scots colony’s coming away from Darien in a letter to a person of quality (1699). Forbes, William, A Pill for Pork-Eaters or a Scots Lancet for an English Swelling (1705). Fortrey, Samuel, England’s interest and improvement. Consisting in the increase of the store, and trade of this kingdom (1663). Foyer, Archibald, A Defence of the Scots Settlement at Darien with an Answer to the Spanish Memorial Against it (1699). Godwyn, Morgan, Trade Preferr’d Before Religion and Christ Made to Give Way to Mammon (1685). Godwyn, Morgan, The Negro’s & Indians Advocate, Suing for their Admission to the Church, or, A persuasive to the instructing and baptizing of the Negro's and Indians in our plantations shewing that as the compliance therewith can prejudice no mans just interest, so the wilful neglecting and opposing of it, is no less than a manifest apostacy from the Christian faith (1680). Green, Thomas, The case of Capt. Tho. Green, Commander of the Ship Worcester, and his crew, Tried and Condemned for Pyracy & Murther, in the High Court of Admiralty of Scotland (1705). Green, Thomas, The Tryal of Capt. Thomas Green and his Crew, before the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of Scotland (1705). Hamilton, John, A Speech in Parliament on the 10. Day of January 1701, by the Lord Belhaven, on the Affair of the Indian and African Company (1701). Hamond, Walter, A paradox prooving that the inhabitants of the isle called Madagascar, or St. Laurence (in temporall things) are the happiest people in the world (1640). Harris, Walter, Remarks on the affairs and trade of England and Ireland wherein is set down the antient charge of Ireland (1691). High Court of Admiralty, The Arraignment, Tryal, and Condemnation of Captain William Kidd, for Murther and Piracy, upon Six Several Indictments, At the Admiralty-Sessions (1701). High Court of Admiralty, The Tryal and Condemnation of Capt. Thomas Vaughan for High Treason in Adhering to the French-King and for endeavouring the destruction of His Majesties ships (1697). High Court of Admiralty, The Tryals of Joseph Dawson, Edward Forseith, William May, [brace] William Bishop, James Lewis, and John Sparkes for several piracies and robberies by them committed in the company of Every the grand pirate (1696). His Excellency the Earl of Bellomont’s Speech to the Council and House of Representatives, Convened in Generall Assembly, at Boston, 2nd June 1699 (1699). His Majesties Most Gracious Letter to the Parliament of Scotland. Together with the Lord High Commissioner and Lord High Chancellors Speeches (1700). 253

Hodges, James, A Defence of the Scots abdicating Darien including an answer to the defence of the Scots settlement there (1700). Hough, John, A Sermon Preach’d Before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (1705). Hodges, William, An humble representation of the seamens misery in the loss and abuse of them in their payment (1694). Hull, John, ‘The Diaries of John Hull, Mint-Master and Treasurer of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay’, Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society, Vol.3 (1857), pp.109–318. Hunt, Robert, The Island of Assada, neere Madagascar Impartially Defined (1650). Jennings, Samuel, The State of the Case (1694). Johnson, Charles, A General History of the Pyrates, from their First Rise and Settlement in the Island of Providence, to the Present Time (1724). Journal of the House of Lords, 64 Vols. (1767–1830). Keith, George A journal of travels from New-Hampshire to Caratuck (1706). Keith, George, Some brief remarks upon a late book, entituled, George Keith once more brought to the test (1704). Keith, George, An account of an occasional conference (1701). Keith, George, George Keith’s Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-hall (1700). Keith, George, A fourth narrative of the proceedings at Turner’s Hall (1699). Keith, George, A third narrative of the proceedings at Turner’s Hall (1698). Keith, George, A just vindication of my earnest expostulation, added to my book, called The Antichrists and Sadduces detected (1696). Keith, George, An exact narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, the 11 of the month called June, 1696 (1696). Keith, George, The anti-Christs and Sadduces detected among a sort of Quakers, or, Caleb Pusie of Pensilvania and John Pennington (1696). Keith, George, A further discovery of the spirit of falshood & persecution in Sam. Jennings, and his party that joyned with him in Pensilvania (1694). Keith, George, A Farther account of the great divisions among the Quakers in Pensilvania, &c. as appears by another of their books lately come over from thence (1693). Keith, George, The Tryals of Peter Boss, George Keith, Thomas Budd, and William Bradford (1693). Keith, George, An account of the great divisions, amongst the Quakers, in Pensilvania, &c. as appears by their own book, here following (1692). Keith, George, Some Reasons and Causes of the Late Separation Here at Philadelphia (1692). Keith, George, The plea of the innocent against the false judgment of the guilty being a vindication of George Keith and his friends (1692). Keith, George, A plain short catechism for children & youth (1690). Keith, George, An Appeal from the twenty eight judges to the spirit of truth & true judgment in all faithful Friends (1692).

254

Kennett, White, The Lets and Impediments in Planting and Propagating the Gospel of Christ. A Sermon Preach’d before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1712). Le Vassor, Michel, Letters Written by a French Gentleman, Giving a Faithful and Particular Account of the Transactions at the Court of France (1695). Leslie, Charles, The Snake in the grass: or, Satan transform’d into an angel of light (1696). Locke, John, Further considerations concerning raising the value of money wherein Mr. Lowndes’s arguments for it in his late Report concerning an essay for the amendment of the silver coins, are particularly examined (1695). Lowndes, William, A report containing an essay for the amendment of the silver coins (1695). Mackenzie, Roderick, Some cursory remarks on a late printed paper, called, The last speeches and dying- words of Captain Thomas Green (1705). Marston, Edward, A sermon of simony & sacriledge (1699). Marx, Karl, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, X Vols. (1867). Mather, Increase, A further account of the tryals of the New-England witches with the observations of a person who was upon the place several days when the suspected witches were first taken into examination (1693). Mather, Increase, Cases of conscience concerning evil spirits personating men, witchcrafts, infallible proofs of guilt in such as are accused with that crime (1693). Meriton, John, An antidote against the venom of Quakerism, or, Some observations, on a little pamphlet, stiled, The Christianity of the people commonly called Quakers (1699). Molyneux, William, The case of Ireland’s being bound by acts of Parliament in England (1698). Mun, Thomas, England’s treasure by forraign trade. or, the ballance of our forraign trade is the rule of our treasure (1664). Mun, Thomas, A Discourse of Trade, from England unto the East-Indies answering the diverse objections which are unusually made against the same (1621). Noyes, Nicholas, New-Englands duty and interest to be an habitation of justice and mountain of holiness (1698). Overbury, Thomas, Sir Thomas Ouerburie his wife with new elegies vpon his (now knowne) vntimely death (1616), Pennington, Edward, A modest detection of George Keith’s (miscalled) Just vindication of his earnest expostulation (1696). Petty, William, An essay concerning the multiplication of mankind: together with another essay in political arithmetick, concerning the growth of the city of London (1698). Petty, William, Sir William Petty his Quantulumcunque concerning money to the Lord Marquess of Halyfax (1695). Petty, William, Political arithmetick, or, A discourse concerning the extent and value of lands, people, buildings, husbandry, manufacture, commerce, fishery, artizans, seamen (1691). Petty, William, The Political Anatomy of Ireland (1691).

255

Petty, William, Political arithmetick, or, A discourse concerning the extent and value of lands, people, buildings ... as the same relates to every country in general (1690). Petty, William, Some of the observations made by W. P. upon the trade of Irish cattel (1673). Petty, William, A treatise of taxes and contributions shewing the nature and measures of crown-lands, assessments, customs, poll-moneys, lotteries, benevolence, penalties, monopolies, offices, tythes, raising of coins, harth-money, excize, &c. (1662). Philo-Caledonian, Scotland’s present duty, or, A call to the nobility, gentry, ministry and commonalty of this land to be duely affected with, and vigorously to act for, our common concern in Caledonia, as a mean to enlarge Christ’s kingdom, to benefit our selves, and do good to all Protestant churches (1700). Pollexfen, John, Discourse of trade, coyn, and paper credit, and of ways and means to gain, and retain riches (1697). Pollexfen, John, England and East-India inconsistent in their manufactures being an answer to a treatise intituled, An essay on the East-India trade by the author of, The essay of wayes and means. (1697). Potter, Elisha R., Memoir concerning the French settlements and French settlers in the colony of Rhode Island (1879). Prideaux, Humphrey, A Letter to the Deists (1696). Ridpath, George, The Reducing of Scotland by Arms, and Annexing it to England as a Province Considered (1705). Ridpath, George, An Enquiry into the causes of the miscarriage of the Scots colony at Darien, or, An answer to a libel entituled, A defence of the Scots abdicating Darien submitted to the consideration of the good people of England (1700). Scott, John, Practical Discourses upon Several Subjects (1697). Scott, Walter, The Pirate (1822). Seton, William, A short speech prepared to be spoken by a worthy member in Parliament: concerning the present state of the nation (1700). Seton, William, The Interest of Scotland in Three Essays (1700). Shewen, William, William Penn and the Quakers either Imposters or Apostates (1696). Shields, Alexander, A proper project for Scotland To startle fools, and frighten knaves, but to make wise- men happy. Being a safe and easy remedy to cure our fears, and ease our minds, with the undoubted causes of God’s wrath, and of the present national calamities (1699). Stanhope, George, The Early Conversion of Islanders, a Wise Expedient for Propagating Christianity. A Sermon Preached before the Incorporated Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1714). Stevenson, Robert Louis, Treasure Island (1883). Taylor, John, An Account of Some of the Labours, Exercises, Travels and Perils, by Sea and Land, of John Taylor (1710). The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1699).

256

The humble address of the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, 13 December 1695 (1695). Trepidantium Melleus, A Snake in the grass, caught and crusht, or, A third and last epistle to a now furious deacon in the Church of England, the Reverend Mr. George Keith (1700). Trepidantium Malleus, The foxonian Quakers dunces lyars and slanderers, proved out of George Fox’s journal, and other scriblers (1697). Tindal, Matthew, An essay concerning the laws of nations, and the rights of soveraigns with an account of what was said at the council-board by the civilians (1694). Tindal, Matthew, Laws of Nations (1692). Trimnell, Charles, A Sermon Preach’d Before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1710). Underhill, John, Nevves from America; or, A new and experimentall discoverie of New England containing, a true relation of their war-like proceedings these two yeares last past (1638). White, George, An account of the trade to the East Indies together with the state of the present company (1691). Whitehead, George, The Power of Christ Vindicated Against the Magick of Apostacy: in Answer to George Keith’s Book... (1708). William, James, England’s interest: or, Means to promote the consumption of English wooll (1689). Willis, Richard, A sermon preach’d before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1702). Woodward, Josiah, An account of the progress of the reformation of manners, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and other parts of Europe and America (1704). Woodward, Josiah, An Account of the Progress of the Reformation of Manners: In England & Ireland, and Other Parts of the World (1701). Wyeth, Joseph, An answer to A letter from Dr. Bray Directed to Such as Have Contributed Towards the Propagating Christian Knowledge in the Plantations (1700).

Primary Sources (Printed, Modern Collections)

Armstrong, Edward (ed.), Correspondence Between William Penn and James Logan, Secretary of the Province of Pennsylvania, and Others, 1700–1750, 2 Vols. (1870–1872). Barck, Dorothy C. (ed.), Papers of the Lloyd family of the manor of Queens Village, Lloyd’s Neck, Long Island, New York, 1654–1826, 2 Vols. (1927). Batchellor, Albert Stillman (ed.), Documents Relating to the Masonian Patent, 1630–1846 (1896). Bickley, F. and S.C. Lomas (eds.), Report on the Manuscripts of Allan George Finch, 5 Vols. (1913– 1965). Bridenbaugh, Carl (ed.), The Pynchon Papers, 2 Vols. (1982).

257

Brodhead, John Romeyn, (ed.), Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 15 Vols. (1853–1887). Brown, William Hand (ed.), Archives of Maryland, 864 vols. (1883–2014). Christoph, Peter R. and Florence A. (eds.), The Andros Papers: Files of the Provincial Secretary of New York during the Administration of Governor Sir Edmund Andros, 1674–1676, trans. Charles Gehring, 3 vols. (1989–1991). Christoph, Peter R. and Florence A. (eds.), Book of General Entries of the Colony of New York 1674–1688 (1982). Cooper, Thomas W. (ed.), The Records of the Court of Sessions of Suffolk County in the Province of New York, 1670–1688 (1993). Coxe, William (ed.), Private and Original Correspondence of Charles Talbot Duke of Shrewsbury (1821). De Beer, E.S. (ed.), The Correspondence of John Locke, 8 Vols. (1976–1989). DeWitt Freeland, Mary (ed.) The records of Oxford, Mass.; including chapters of Nipmuck, Huguenot and English History from the earliest date, 1630 (1894). Dods, Marcus (ed.), The City of God (2009). Donnan Elizabeth (ed.), Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, 4 Vols. (1930–1935). Durrant Cooper, William (ed.), Lists of Foreign Protestants and Aliens Resident in England, 1618–1688 (1862). Elton, G.R. (ed.), The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary, 2nd ed. (1982). Feenstra, Robert (ed.), Hugo Grotius: Mare Liberum, 1609–2009 (2009). Fortescue, J.W. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, 45 Vols. (1860– 1994). Franklin Jameson, J. (ed.), Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period, Illustrative Documents (1923). Franklin Jameson, J. (ed.), Johnson’s Wonder-Working Providence 1628–1651 (1910). Fraser, William and Scott, W. (eds.), The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, 2 Vols. (1897–1903). Gardiner Davenport, Francis (ed.), European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies (1929). Goldie, Mark (ed.), Locke: Political Essays (1997). Goldie, Mark (ed.), Two Treatises of Government (1993). Greenwood, L.H.G. (ed.), Cicero: The Verrine Orations, 2 Vols. (1935). Gwynn, Aubrey (ed.), ‘The Blake Family in the West Indies’ in ‘Documents Relating to the Irish in the West Indies’, Analecta Hibernica, No.4 (1932), pp.273–278. Hair, P.E.H. (ed.), To Defend Your Empire and the Faith (1990). Hardy, William John (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: William III, 5 Vols. (1913–1937). Hardy, William John (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: William and Mary, 6 Vols. (1895–1908). Hastings, Hugh (ed.), Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York, 7 Vols. (1901–1916). 258

Hazard, Samuel (ed.), Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, 16 Vols. (1831–1853). Hedges, Henry P. et al. (eds.), Records of the Town of Southampton, Long Island, N.Y., with other ancient documents of historic value, 8 Vols. (1874–1930). Hill Burton, John (ed.), The Darien Papers: Being a Selection of Original Letters and Official Documents Relating to the Establishment of a Colony At Darien by the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, 1695–1700 (1849). Hoadly, Charles J. and J.H. Trumbull (eds.), The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 15 Vols. (1850–1890). Hoadly, Charles J. (ed.), Records of the Colony and Plantation of New-Haven, from 1638 to 1649 (1857). Hosmer, James Kendell (ed.), Winthrop’s Journal, “History of New England”, 1630–1649, 2 Vols. (1908). Howell, T.B. (ed.), A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783, 34 Vols. (1816–1828). Hull, Charles Henry (ed.), The Economic Writings of William Petty, together with Observations Upon the Bills of Mortality, More Probably by Captain John Graunt, 2 Vols. (1899). Insh, George Pratt (ed.), Papers Relating to the Ships and Voyages of the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies 1696–1707 (1924). Janisch, Hudson Ralph (ed.), Extracts from the St Helena Records (1885). ‘Instructions to Francis Nicholson’, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol.4, No.1 (1896), pp.49–54. Kelly, James and Mary Ann Lyons (eds.), The Proclamations of Ireland 1660–1820 (2014). Laslett, Peter (ed.), John Locke: Two Treatises of Government, student ed. (1988). Law, Robin (ed.), The English in West Africa: The Local Correspondence of the Royal African Company of England, 1681–1699, 3 Vols. (1997–2006). Locker Lampson, Godfrey (ed.), The Quaker Post Bag: Letters of Sir John Rodes of Barlbrough Hall, in the County of Derby, Baronet and to John Gratton of Monyash, 1693–1742 (1910). MacLeod, Walter (ed.), Journal of the Hon. John Erskine of Carnock, 1683–1687 (1893). Manwaring, Charles William (ed.) A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records, 2 Vols. (1904). ‘Marriage license granted to Thomas Stillwell and Ellice Throgmorton, April 9, 1703’ in Collections of the New York Historical Society, Vol.25 (1892), pp.369–374. Massachusetts Historical Society (ed.), Diary of Cotton Mather, 1681–1724, 2 Vols. (1911–1912). Massachusetts Historical Society (ed.), The Winthrop Papers, 5 Vols. (1929–1947). Massachusetts Historical Society (ed.), Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1674–1729, 3 Vols. (1878–1882). McCormick, Joseph (ed.), State-Papers and Letters Addressed to William Carstares (1774). McClure, Edmund (ed.), A Chapter in English Church History: Being the Minutes of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge for the Years 1698–1704 (1888). ‘Memorial of Sir Henry Ashurst, undated’, Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Ser.6, Vol.5 (1892), p.92.

259

Miller, Walter (ed.), Cicero: De Officiis (1913). ‘Nathaniel Sylvester to John Wynthrop, Jr.’, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.4 (1887–1889), pp.270–275. New York Historical Society (ed.), ‘Tax Lists for the City of New York, 1695–1699’ in Collections of the New York Historical Society, Vol.43 (1910), pp.1–34. New York Historical Society (ed.), ‘The Burghers of New Amsterdam and Freemen of New York 1675– 1886’ in Collections of the New York Historical Society, Vol.18 (1885). O’Callaghan, E. B. (ed.), Calendar of Historical Manuscripts in the Office of the Secretary of State, 2 Vols. (1865–1866). O’Callaghan, E.B. (ed.), The Documentary History of the State of New-York, 4 Vols. (1849–1851). Parsons, Henry (ed.), Records of the Town of East Hampton, Long Island (1887). Paterson, William, ‘A Proposal to Plant a Colony in Darien’ in Saxe Bannister (ed.), The Writings of William Paterson (1859) Penn, William, ‘William Penn to James Logan, 28d 5mo 1702’, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol.36, No.3 (1912), pp.303–308. Penny, Norman (ed.), The Journal of George Fox (1924). Perry, William Stevens (ed.), Papers Relating to the History of the Church in Pennsylvania, AD 1680– 1778 (1871). Petty-FitzMaurice, Henry (ed.), The Petty-Southwell Correspondence, 1676–1687 (1928). Pocock, J.G.A. (ed.), James Harrington: ‘The Commonwealth of Oceana’ and ‘A System of Politics’ (1992). Preston, Howard W. (ed.), The letter book of Peleg Sanford of Newport, Merchant (later Governour of Rhode Island), 1666–1668 (1928). Purple, Samuel S (ed.)., Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam and New York (1890). Raithby, John (ed.), Statutes of the Realm, 11 Vols. (1810–1828). Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission: the Manuscripts of his Grace the Duke of Portland, Preserved at Welbeck Abbey, 10 Vols. (1891–1931). Sainsbury, Ethel Bruce, William Foster, and W.T. Ottewill (eds.), A Calendar of the Court Minutes, Etc., of the East India Company, 11 Vols. (1907–1938). Sainsbury, W. Noel (ed.), Calendar of State Papers East Indies, China and Japan, 8 Vols. (1862–1892). Samuel Fortrey, England’s interest and improvement. Consisting in the increase of the store, and trade of this kingdom (1663). Samuel Lee (ed.), The Travels of Ibn Batūta (1829). ‘Samuel Maverick to John Winthrop Jr.’, Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol.7, 4th Series (1865), pp.307–320. Shurtleff, Nathaniel B. (ed.), Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England, 5 Vols. (1854).

260

Spenser, J.J. (ed.), ‘Some Darien Letters’ in Scottish Historical Review, Vol.11, No.44 (1914), pp.407– 408. State Papers and Letters Addressed to William Carstares (1774). Stock, Leo (ed.), Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments Respecting North America, 6 Vols. (1924–1987). Stokes, I.N. Phelps (ed.), The Iconography of Manhattan Island 1498–1909, 6 Vols. (1967). Toppan, Robert Noxon (ed.), Edward Randolph: Including his Letters and Official Papers, 7 Vols. (1898– 1909). The Essex Institue (ed.), Town Records of Salem. Volume I, 1634–1659 (1868). Van Deman Magoffin, Ralph (ed.), The Freedom of the Seas or the Right which Belongs to the Dutch to take part in the East Indian trade (2001). Van Ittersum, Martine Julia (ed.), Hugo Grotius, Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty (2006). Ward Dean, John (ed.), Maverick’s Description of New England (1885). Whitmore, William H. and Appleton, William S. (eds.), Boston Town Records, 1660–1701 (1881). Williams, Gwaladys L. and Walter H. Zeydel (eds.), De Iure Praedae Commentarius (1950). Winthrop, Robert C. (ed.), Letters of John, Lord Cutts to Colonel Joseph Dudley: then Lieutenant- Governor of the Isle of Wight, Afterwards Governor of Massachusetts, 1693–1700 (1886).

Secondary Sources

Abu-Lughod, Janet L., Before European Hegemony: The World-System, A.D. 1250–1350 (1989). Abulafia, David, The Discovery of Mankind: Atlantic Encounters in the Age of Columbus (2008). Akenson, Donald H., If the Irish Ran the World: Montserrat, 1630–1730 (1997). Allen, Richard B., ‘Satisfying the “Want for Labouring People”: European Slave Trading in the Indian Ocean, 1500–1850’, Journal of World History, Vol.21, No.1 (2010), pp.45–73. Alpers, Edward A., The Indian Ocean in World History (2014). Anderson, J.L., ‘Piracy and World History: An Economic Perspective on Maritime Predation’, Journal of World History, Vol.6, No.2 (1995), pp.175–199. Anderson, Olive, ‘British Governments and Rebellion at Sea’, The Historical Journal, Vol.3, No.1 (1960). Anderson, Sonia P., ‘Rycaut, Sir Paul (1629–1700)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/24392, accessed 15 Dec 2016]. Andrews, Kenneth R., The Spanish Caribbean: Trade and Plunder 1530–1630 (1978). Andrews, Kenneth R. Elizabethan Privateering: English Privateering During the Spanish War 1585–1603 (1966). Appleby, John C., ‘Pirates, Privateers and Buccaneers: The Changing Face of English Piracy from the 1650s to the 1720s in Cheryl A. Fury (ed.), The Social History of English Seamen, 1650–1815 (2017), pp.213–230

261

Appleby, John C., ‘The Problem of Piracy in Ireland, 1570–1630’ in Claire Jowitt (ed.), Pirates? The Politics of Plunder, 1550–1650 (2007), pp.41–55. Appleby, John C., ‘A Nursery of Pirates: The English Pirate Community in Ireland in the Early Seventeenth Century’, International Journey of Maritime History, Vol.2, No.1 (1990), pp.1–27. Appleby, John C., Women and English Piracy, 1540–1720: Partners and Victims of Crime (2013). Archer, Richard, Fissures in the Rock: New England in the Seventeenth Century (2001). Armitage, David, ‘Paterson, William (1658–1719)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Sept 2010 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21538, accessed 14 Dec 2016]. Armitage, David, ‘John Locke, Carolina and the Two Treatises of Government’, Political Theory, Vol.32 No.5 (2004), pp.602–627. Armitage, David, ‘Greater Britain: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis?’, The American Historical Review, Vol.104, No.2 (1999), pp.427–445. Armitage, David, ‘Making the Empire British: Scotland in the Atlantic World, 1542–1707’, Past and Present, Vol.155, No.1 (1997), pp.34–63. Armitage, David and Michael J. Braddick, ‘Introduction’ in David Armitage and Michael J. Braddick (eds.), The British Atlantic World, 1500–1800 (2002), pp.1–10. Armstrong, James C., ‘Madagascar and the Slave Trade in the Seventeenth Century’, Omaly Sy Anio, Vol.17 (1983–1984), pp.211–233. Armstrong, Robert, ‘Establishing a Confessional Ireland, 1641–1691’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.220–245. Arnade, Peter J., Beggars, Iconoclasts, and Civic Patriots: The Political Culture of the Dutch Revolt (2009). Arneil, Barbara, John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism (1996). Aspromourgos, Tony, ‘The Invention of the Concept of Social Surplus: Petty in the Hartlib Circle’, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol.12, No.1 (2005), pp.1–24. Atwell, William S, ’Another Look at Silver Imports into China, ca 1635–1644" in Journal of World History, Vol.16, No.4 (2005): pp.467- 489. Backman, Clifford R., The Decline and Fall of Medieval Sicily: Politics, Religion, and Economy in the Reign of Frederick III, 1296–1337 (1995). Bahlman, Dudley W.R., The Moral Revolution of 1688 (1957). Bailyn, Bernard, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (1955). Bannister, Saxe, William Paterson, the Merchant, Statesman and Founder of the Bank of England (1858). Barandse, R. J., The Arabian Seas: The Indian Ocean World of the Seventeenth Century (2002). Barber, Sarah, ‘“Let him be an Englishman”: Irish and Scottish Clergy in the Caribbean Church of England 1610–1720’ in Allan MacInnes and Douglas Hamilton (eds.), Jacobitism, Enlightenment and Empire, 1680–1820 (2014), pp.75–92. Barbour, Hugh and J. William Frost, The Quakers (1988). Barkey, Karen, Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective (2008). 262

Barnard, Toby, Improving Ireland? Projectors, Prophets and Profiteers, 1641–1786 (2008). Barnard, Toby, ‘Interests in Ireland: the ‘fanatic zeal and irregular ambition’ of Richard Lawrence’ in Ciaran Brady and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), British Interventions in Early Modern Ireland (2005), pp.299– 314. Barnard, Toby, ‘Petty, Sir William (1623–1687)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Sept 2013 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22069, accessed 17 April 2017]. Barnard, Toby, ‘Sir William Petty, Irish Landowner’ in Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Valerie Pearl and Blair Worden (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H.R. Trevor-Roper (1981), pp.201–217. Barrio-Gozalo, Maximiliano, Esclavos y Cautivos: Conflicto Entre la Cristiandad y el Islam en el Siglo XVIII (2006). Barth, Jonathan, ‘Reconstructing Mercantilism: Consensus and Conflict in British Imperial Economy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.73, No.2 (2016), pp.257–290. Bartlett, Thomas, The Fall and Rise of the Irish Nation: The Catholics Question, 1690–1830 (1992). Bayly, Christopher A., The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914: Global Connections and Comparisons (2004). Beckles, Hilary, ‘The “Hub of Empire”: The Caribbean and Britain in the Seventeenth Century’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol.1 (1998), pp.218–240. Beckles, Hilary, ‘A “riotous and unruly lot”: Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen in the English West Indies, 1644–1713’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.47, No.4 (1990), pp.503–522. Beiler, Rosalind J., ‘Dissenting Religious Communication Networks and European Migration, 1660– 1710’ in Bernard Bailyn, Patricia L. Denault (eds.), Soundings in Atlantic History: Latent Structures and Intellectual Currents, 1500–1830 (2009), pp.210–236. Bell, James B., Empire, Religion and Revolution in Early Virginia, 1607–1786 (2013). Bell, James B., The Imperial Origins of the King’s Church in Early America, 1607–1783 (2004). Benedict, Philip, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed. A Social History of Calvinism (2002). Benedict, Philip, ‘The Dynamics of Protestant Militancy: France, 1555–1563’ in Philip Benedict et al. (eds.), Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands 1555–1585 (1997), pp.35–50. Benton, Lauren, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (2010). Benton, Lauren, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (2002). Bergsma, Wiebe, ‘The Low Countries’ in Robert Scribner, Roy Porter, Mikulas Teich (eds.), The Reformation in National Context (1994), pp.67–79. Bialuschewski, Arne, ‘Greed, Fraud, and Popular Culture: John Breholt’s Madagascar Schemes of the Early Eighteenth Century’ in Charles Ivar McGrath, Christopher J. Fauske (eds.), Money, Power, and Print: Interdisciplinary Studies on the Financial Revolution in the British Isles (2008), pp.104–114. Bialuschewski, Arne, ‘Pirates, Slavers, and the Indigenous Population in Madagascar, c.1690–1715’, The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol.38, No.3 (2005), pp.401–425.

263

Bigelow, Bruce M., ‘The Walter Newbury Shipping Book’, Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, Vol.24, No.2 (1921), pp.76–91. Bjork, David K., ‘Piracy in the Baltic, 1375–1398’, Speculum, Vol.18, No.1 (1943), pp.39–68. Black, Jeremy, ‘Warfare, Crisis and Absolutism’ in Euan Cameron (ed.), Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History (2001), pp.206–233. Blackburn, Robin, The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492–1800 (1997). Blake, John, ‘Transportation from Ireland to America, 1653–60’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol.3 (1943), pp.267–81. Bliss, Robert M., Revolution and Empire: English Politics and the American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (1981). Block, Kristen and Jenny Shaw, ‘Subjects Without an Empire: The Irish in the Early Modern Caribbean’, Past and Present, Vol.210, No.1 (2011), pp.33–60. Block, Kristen, ‘Cultivating Inner and Outer Plantations: Property, Industry, and Slavery in Early Quaker Migration to the New World’, Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol.8.No.3 (2010), pp.515–548. Bocher, J. F., ‘Huguenot Merchants and the Protestant International in the Seventeenth Century’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.52, No.1 (1995), pp.77–102. Bohun, James, ‘Protecting Prerogative: William III and the East India Trade Debate, 1689–1698’, Past Imperfect, Vol.2 (1993), pp.63–86. Bok Kim, Sung, Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: Manorial Society, 1664–1775 (1978). Bolton, S. Charles, Southern Anglicanism: The Church of England in Colonial South Carolina (1982). Bonomi, Patricia U., Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion Society and Politics in Colonial America, updated ed. (2003). Bonomi, Patricia U., A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (1971). Borschburg, Peter, Hugo Grotius, the Portuguese and Free Trade in the East Indies (2011). Borschberg, Peter, ‘The Johor-VOC Alliance and the Twelve Years’ Truce: Factionalism, Intrigue and International Diplomacy 1606–13’, Institute of International Law and Justice Working Papers, Vol.8 (2009), pp.1–64. Borschberg, Peter, ‘The Seizure of the Sta. Catarina off Singapore: Dutch Freebooting, the Portuguese Empire and Intra-Asian Trade at the Dawn of the Seventeenth Century’, Revista de Cultura, Vol.11 (2004), pp.11–25. Borschberg, Peter, ‘The Seizure of the Sta. Catarina Revisited: The Portuguese Empire in Asia, VOC Politics and the Origins of the Dutch-Johor Alliance (1602-c.1616)’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol.33, No.1 (2002), pp.31–62. Bosher, J.F., ‘Success and Failure in Trade to New France, 1660–1760’, French Historical Studies, Vol.15, No.3 (1988), pp.444–461.

264

Bottigheimer, Karl S., ‘The Restoration Land Settlement in Ireland: A Structural View’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol.18, No.69 (1972), pp.1–21. Boucher, Philip P., France and the American Tropics to 1700: Tropics of Discontent? (2008). Bowen, H.V., Elites, Enterprise and the Making of the British Overseas Empire, 1688–1775 (1996). Bowie, Karin, Scottish Public Opinion and the Anglo-Scottish Union, 1699–1707 (2007). Bradburn, Douglas M., ‘Smoke and Mirrors: Reinterpreting the Society and Economy of the Seventeenth- Century Chesapeake’, Atlantic Studies, Vol.3, No.2 (2006), pp.131–157. Bradburn, Douglas, ‘The Visible Fist: The Chesapeake Tobacco Trade in War and the Purpose of Empire’, WMQ, vol.68, no.3 (2011). Braddick, Michael J., ‘Prayer Book and Protestation: Anti-Popery, Anti-Puritanism and the Outbreak of the English Civil War’ in Charles W.A. Prior and Glenn Burgess (eds.), England’s Wars of Religion, Revisited (2011), pp.125–145. Braddick, Michael J., State Formation in Early Modern England, c.1550–1700 (2000) Brading, D.A., The First America: The Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots and the Liberal State, 1492– 1867 (1991). Bradshaw, Brendan, ‘Nationalism and Historical Scholarship in Modern Ireland’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol.26, No.104 (1989) Brady, Ciarán, ‘Comparable Histories? : Tudor Reform in Wales and Ireland’ in Stephen G. Ellis, Conquest and Union: Fashioning a British State, 1485–1725 (1995) Bragdon, Kathleen Joan, Native Peoples of Southern New England, 1500–1650 (1996). Braudel, Fernand, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Ages of Philip II, 2 Vols., trans. Siân Reynolds (1972). Breen, T. H., Transgressing the Bounds: Subversive Enterprises amongst the Puritan Elite in Massachusetts, 1630–1692 (2001). Bremer, Francis J., Building a New Jerusalem: John Davenport, a Puritan in Three Worlds (2012). Brenner, Robert, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (2003). Brewer, Anthony, ‘The Irish Connection and the Birth of Political Economy: Petty and Cantillon’ in Thomas Boylan, Renee Prendergast and John D. Turner (eds.), A History of Irish Economic Thought (2011), pp.17–31. Brewer, John, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783 (1989). Brindenbaugh, Carl, Fat Mutton and Liberty of Conscience: Society in Rhode Island, 1636–1690 (1974). Brindenbaugh, Carl, Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities and Politics, 1689– 1775 (1962). Bromley, J.S., ‘Outlaws at Sea, 1660–1720: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity Among the Caribbean Freebooters’ in J.S. Bromley, Corsairs and Navies, 1660–1760 (1987), pp.1–20. Bromley, J.S., ‘The Jacobite Privateers and the Nine Years War’ in J.S. Bromley, Corsairs and Navies, 1660–1760 (1987), pp.139–166.

265

Bronner, Edwin B., ‘Quaker Discipline and Order, 1680–1720: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and London Yearly Meeting’ in Richard S. Dunn and Mary Maples Dunn (eds.), The World of William Penn (1986), pp.323–336. Brotton, Jerry, This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World (2016). Burg, B.R., Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth-Century Caribbean, 2nd ed. (1995). Burgess, Douglas R., The Politics of Piracy: Crime and Civil Disobedience in Colonial America (2014). Burgess, Glenn (ed.), The New British History: Founding a Modern State, 1603–1715 (1999). Burke, Thomas E. Jr., ‘Leisler’s Rebellion at Schenectady, New York, 1689–1710’, New York History, Vol.70, No.4 (1989), pp.405–430. Burnard, Trevor, Planters, Merchants, and Slaves: Plantation Societies in British America, 1650–1820 (2015). Burnard, Trevor, Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite 1691–1776 (2002). Burnard, Trevor, ‘Making a Whig Empire Work: Transatlantic Politics and the Imperial Economy in Britain and British America’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.69, No.1 (2012), pp.51–56. Bushman, Richard L., King and People in Provincial Massachusetts (1985). Butler, Jon, Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People (1990). Butler, Jon, The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in the New World (1983). Butler, Jon, ‘Into Pennsylvania’s Spiritual Abyss: The Rise and Fall of the Later Keithians, 1693–1703’, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol.101, No.2 (1977), pp.151–170. Butler, Jon, ‘“Gospel Order Improved”: The Keithian Schism and the Exercise of Quaker Ministerial Authority in Pennsylvania’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.31, No.3 (1974), pp.431–452. Calanca, Paola, ‘Piracy and Coastal Security in Southeastern China, 1600–1780’ in Robert J. Antony (ed.), Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas (2010), pp.85–98. Cameron, Euan, The European Reformation, 2nd ed. (2012). Cañizares-Esguerra, Jorge, Puritan Conquistadors: Iberianizing the Atlantic 1550–1700 (2006). Cañizares-Esguerra, Jorge, ‘Introduction’ in Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra (ed.), Entangled Empires: The Anglo-Iberian Atlantic, 1500–1830 (2018), pp.1–16. Canny, Nicholas, Kingdom and Colony: Ireland in the Atlantic World, 1560–1800 (1988). Canny, Nicholas, Making Ireland British, 1580–1650 (2001). Canny, Nicholas, ‘Ireland and Continental Europe c.1600- c.1750’ in Alvin Jackson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History (2014), pp.333–353.

266

Canny, Nicholas, ‘The Origins of Empire: An Introduction’, in Nicholas Canny (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol.1 (1998), pp.1–33. Canny, Nicholas, ‘The Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland to America’ in The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.30 (1973), pp.575–598. Canny, Nicholas, ‘The Irish Colony in Bordeaux, 1757: a Representative Sample of Irish Communities Abroad?’ in Thomas Truxes (ed.), Ireland, France, and the Atlantic in a Time of War: Reflections on the Bordeaux-Dublin Letters, 1757 (2017) Canny, Nicholas and Philip Morgan, ‘Introduction: The Making and Unmaking of an Atlantic World’ in Nicholas Canny and Philip Morgan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook to the Atlantic World, c.1450–1850 (2011), pp.1–17. Canny, Nicholas, ‘Revising the Revisionist’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol.118 (1996). Carroll, Kenneth L., ‘Maryland Quakers in the Seventeenth Century’, Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol.47 (1952), pp.297–313. Carp, Benjamin L., ‘“Fix’d almost amongst Strangers”: Charleston’s Quaker Merchants and the Limits of Cosmopolitanism’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.74, No.1 (2017), pp.77–108. Castro Shannon, Silvia, ‘Religious Struggle in France and Colonial Failure in Brazil, 1555–1615’, French Colonial History, Vol.1 (2002), pp.51–62. Chaudhuri, K.N., Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750 (1985). Chaudhuri, K.N., ‘The English East India Company’s Shipping (c.1660–1760)’ in Jaap R. Bruijn and Femme S. Gaastra (eds.), Ships, Sailors and Spices: East India Companies and their Shipping in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries (1993), pp.1–208. Clark, J.C.D., The Language of Liberty 1660–1832: Political Discourse and Social Dynamics in the Anglo-American World (1994). Clark, Richard, ‘ “The Gangreen of Quakerism”: An Anti-Quaker Anglican Offensive in England after the Glorious Revolution’, Journal of Religious History, Vol.11, No.3 (1981), pp.404–429. Clarke, Aiden, ‘The Irish Economy, 1600–60’ in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), A New History of Ireland, Vol.3 (1976), pp.168–186. Coleman, D.C., ‘An Innovation and Its Diffusion: The “New Draperies”’, The Economic History Review, Vol.22, No.3 (1969), pp.417–429. Conforti, Joseph A., Saints and Strangers: New England in British North America (2006). Connolly, S.J., Contested Island: Ireland 1460–1630 (2007). Corcoran, Paul, ‘John Locke on the possession of land: native title vs. the “principle” of vacuum domicilium’, Proceedings, Australasian Political Studies Association Annual Conference (2007), pp.1– 21. Corfield, Penelope J., “An Age of Infidelity’: Secularization in Eighteenth-Century England, Social History, Vol.39, No.2 (2014), pp.229–247. Costello, Kevin, The Court of Admiralty of Ireland, 1575–1893 (2011). 267

Costello, Kevin, ‘Sir William Petty and the Court of Admiralty in Restoration Ireland’ in Paul Brand, Kevin Costello and W.N. Osborough (eds.), Adventures of the Law: Proceedings of the Sixteenth British Legal History Conference, Dublin (2003), pp.106–138. Cruickshanks, Eveline, ‘Religion and Royal Succession: The Rage of Party’ in Clyve Jones (ed.), Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680–1750: Essays Presented to Geoffrey Holmes (1987), pp.19–44. Cruz Barney, Oscar, El Combate a la Piratería en Indias, 1555–1700 (1999). Cullen, Karen J., Famine in Scotland: The ‘Ill Years’ of the 1690s (2010). Cullen, Louis, ‘The Irish Diaspora of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), Europeans on the Move: Studies on European Migration 1500–1800 (1994), pp.113–149. Cullen, Louis, ‘Economic Trends, 1660–91’ in T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F.J. Byrne (eds.), Early Modern Ireland, 1534–1691, 3rd ed. (1991) pp.387–407. Cullen, Louis, ‘Galway Merchants in the Outside World’ in Diarmaid Ó Cearbhaill (ed.), Galway Town and Gown (1984), pp.63–89. Cummins Ramsay, Jack, ‘The Darien Scheme and the Church of Scotland’, unpublished PhD dissertation (1949). Cunningham, John, Conquest and Land in Ireland: The Transplantation to Connacht, 1649–1680 (2011). Curtin, Nancy J., ‘“Varieties of Irishness”: Historical Revisionism, Irish Style’, Journal of British Studies, Vol.35, No.2 (1996) D’Alòs-Moner, Andreu Martínez, ‘Conquistadores, Mercenaries, and Missionaries: The Failed Portuguese Dominion of the Red Sea’, Northeast African Studies, Vol.12, No.1 (2012), pp.1–28. Dale, Susan, ‘Sir William Petty’s “Ten Tooles”: A Programme for the Transformation of England and Ireland During the Reign of James II/VII’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2011). Daniell, Jere R., Colonial New Hampshire: A History (1981). Daniels, Bruce C., Dissent and Conformity on Narragansett Bay: The Colonial Rhode Island Town (1982). Daniels, Bruce C., The Connecticut Town: Growth and Development, 1635–1790 (1979). Daniels, Christine and Kennedy, Michael V., (eds.), Negotiated Empires: Centers and Peripheries in the Americas, 1500–1820 (2002). Daniels, George F., The Huguenots in the Nipmuck Country or Oxford Prior to 1713 (1880). Das Gupta, Ashin, The World of the Indian Ocean Merchant 1500–1800: Collected Essays by Ashin Das Gupta, comp. by Uma Das Gupta (2001). Davies, Catharine, A Religion of the Word: The Defence of the Reformation in the Reign of Edward VI (2002). Davis, Robert C., Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500–1800 (2003). Dayan, Nomi, Whaling on Long Island (2016). De Meij, J.C.H., De Watergeuzen en de Nederlanden 1568–1572 (1972).

268

De Sousa Pinto, Paulo Jorge, The Portuguese and the Straits of Melaka, 1575–1619: Power, Trade and Diplomacy (2012). De Souza, Phillip, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (1999). De Souza, Teotónio R., ‘Portuguese Impact Upon Goa: Lusotopic, Lusophonic, Lusophilic?’ in Philip J. Havik and Malyn Newitt (eds.), Creole Societies in the Portuguese Colonial Empire (2015), pp.198– 211. Delaney, Enda, ‘Migration and Diaspora’ in Alvin Jackson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History (2014) Den Heijer, Henk, ‘The Dutch West India Company, 1621–1791’ in Johannes Postma and Victor Enthoven, Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping, 1585–1817 (2003), pp.77–112. Den Heijer, Henk, ‘The West African Trade of the Dutch West India Company, 1674–1740’ in Johannes Postma and Victor Enthoven, Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping, 1585–1817 (2003), pp.139–169. Deagan, Kathleen, ‘Dynamics of Imperial Adjustment in Spanish America: Ideology and Social Integration’ in Susan E. Alcock et al. (eds.), Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History (2001), pp.179–195. Devine, T.M., Scotland’s Empire: The Origins of a Global Diaspora (2003). Disney, Anthony, ‘Portuguese Expansion, 1400–1800: Encounters, Negotiations, and Interactions’ in Francisco Bethencourt and Diogo Ramada Curto (eds.), Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400–1800 (2007), pp.283–213. Ditchburn, David, ‘Bremen Piracy and Scottish Periphery: The North Sea World in the 1440s’ in Allan MacInnes, T. Riis and F.G. Pedersen (eds.), Ships, Guns and Bibles in the North Sea and Baltic States, c.1350-c.1700 (2000), pp.1–29. Dobson, David, Scottish Emigration to Colonial America, 1607–1785 (2004). Donnelly, Mark P. and Daniel Diehl, Pirates of Virginia: Plunder and High Adventure on the Old Dominion Coastline (2012). Drayton, Richard and David Motadel, ‘Discussion: the Futures of Global History’, Journal of Global History, Vol.13, No.1 (2018), pp.1–21. Dunn, Richard S., Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624–1713 (1972). Dunn, Richard S., ‘The Glorious Revolution and America’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol.1 (1998), pp.445–466. Durston, Gregory, The Admiralty Sessions, 1536–1834: Maritime Crime and the Silver Oar (2017). Duvall, Ralph G., The History of Shelter Island, from its Settlement in 1652 to the Present Time (1932). Earle, Peter, The Pirate Wars (2003).

269

Earle, Peter, ‘English Sailors, 1570–1775’ in Paul C. van Royen, Jaap R. Bruijn and Jan Lucassen (eds.), “Those Emblems of Hell”? European Sailors and the Maritime Labour Market, 1570–1870 (1997), pp.73–92. Edwards, David, ‘Political Change and Social Transformation, 1603–1641’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.48–71. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L., The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe (2012). Elliott, Derek L., ‘Pirates, Polities and Companies: Global Politics on the Konkan Littoral, c.1690–1756’, Economic History Working Papers, No.136/10 (2010), pp.1–43. Elliott, John H., Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830 (2006). Ellis, Steven G., Ireland in the Age of the Tudors, 1447–1603: English Expansion and the End of Gaelic Rule (2014). Ellis, Steven G, ‘Writing Irish History: Revisionism, Colonialism, and the British Isles’, The Irish Review, No.19 (1996) Erickson, Emily, Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600–1757 (2014). Evans, R.W., The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550–1700: An Interpretation (1979). Falkner, James, The War of Spanish Succession, 1701–1714 (2015). Fancy, Hussein, The Mercenary Mediterranean: Sovereignty, Religion, and Violence in the Medieval Crown of Aragon (2016). Fisher, Godfrey, Barbary Legend: War, Trade and Piracy in North Africa 1415–1830 (1957). Fisher, John R., The Economic Aspects of Spanish Imperialism in America, 1492–1810 (1997). Fitzgerald, Patrick and Lambkin, Brian, Migration in Irish History, 1607–2007 (2008) Flynn, Dennis O. and Giráldez, Arturo, ‘Cycles of Silver: Global Economic Unity through the Mid- Eighteenth Century’, Journal of World History, Vol.13, No.2 (2002), pp.391–427 Flynn, Dennis O., ‘Silver in a Global Context’ in Jerry H. Bentley, Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks (eds.), The Cambridge World History, Vol.6, Part 2 (2015), pp.213–239. Forbes, Allan and Paul F. Cadman, Boston and Some Noted Émigrés (1938). Forbes, Suzanne, Print and Party Politics in Ireland, 1689–1714 (2018). Ford, Alan, The Protestant Reformation in Ireland, 1590–1641 (1985). Forkan, Kevin, ‘Ulster Scots and the Engagement’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol.35, No.140 (2007), pp.455–476. Forrester, Andrew, The Man Who Saw the Future: William Paterson’s Vision of Free Trade (2004). Foster, W., ‘An English Settlement in Madagascar in 1645–6’, The English Historical Review, Vol.27, No.106 (1912), pp.239–250. Fox, Adam, ‘Sir William Petty, Ireland, and the Making of a Political Economist, 1653–87’, The Economic History Review, Vol.62, No.2 (2009), pp.388–404. Foxley, Rachel, ‘Oliver Cromwell on Religion and Resistance’ in Charles W.A. Prior and Glenn Burgess (eds.), England’s Wars of Religion, Revisited (2011), pp.209–230. 270

Freist, Dagmar, ‘A Global Microhistory of the Early Modern Period. Social Sites and the Interconnectedness of Human Lives’, Quaderni Storici, No.2 (2017), pp.537–556. Fry, Michael, The Union: England, Scotland and the Treaty of 1707 (2007). Frykman, Niklas, ‘Pirates and Smugglers: Political Economy in the Red Atlantic’ in Philip J. Stern and Carl Wennerlind (eds.), Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and its Empire (2014), pp.218–239. Fuchs, Barbara, Mimesis and Empire: The New World, Islam, and European Identities (2001). Fuchs, Barbara, ‘Religion and National Distinction in the Early Modern Atlantic’ in Linda Gregerson and Susan Juster (eds.), Empires of God: Religious Encounters in the Early Modern Atlantic (2011), pp.58– 86. Fuentes-Crispín, Nara, Periplos Ilustrados, Piratas y Ladrones por el Caribe Colonial (2013). Galenson, David W., ‘White Servitude and the Growth of Black Slavery in Colonial America’, The Journal of Economic History, Vol.41, No.1 (1981), pp.39–47. Gallup-Díaz, Ignacio, The Door of the Seas and Key to the Universe: Indian Politics and Imperial Rivalry in the Darién 1640–1750 (2002). Games, Alison, The Web of Empire: Cosmopolitans in an Age of Expansion 1560–1660 (2008). Gamsa, Mark, ‘Biography and (Global) Microhistory’, New Global Studies, Vol.11, No.3 (2017), pp.231– 241. Gauci, Perry, ‘Papillon, Thomas (1623–1702)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21247, accessed 13 May 2018]. Gause, Artemis, ‘Gentili, Alberico (1552–1608)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10522, accessed 11 May 2017]. Gavatt, Patricia, ‘Rereading Theodore De Bry’s Black Legend’ in Margaret R. Greer, Walter D. Mignolo and Maureen Quilligan (eds.), Rereading the Black Legend: The Discourses of Religious and Racial Difference in the Renaissance Empires (2008), pp.225–243. Gelderblom, Oscar, The Political Economy of the Dutch Republic (2016). Gelfand, Noah L., ‘A Transatlantic Approach to Understanding the Formation of a Jewish Community in

New Netherland and New York’, New York History, Vol.89, No.4 (2008), pp.375–395. Gerassi-Navarro, Nina, Pirate Novels: Fictions of Nation Building in Spanish America (1999). Gilbert Olson, Alison, Making the Empire Work: London and American Interest Groups, 1690–1790 (1992). Gildrie, Richard P., The Profane, the Civil, and the Godly: The Reformation of Manners in Orthodox New England, 1679–1749 (1994). Gillespie, Raymond, ‘Economic Life, 1550–1730’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.531–554. 271

Gillespie, Raymond, ‘War and the Irish Town: the Early Modern Experience’ in Pádraig Lenihan (ed.), Conquest and Resistance: War in Seventeenth-Century Ireland (2001), pp.293–316. Glasson, Travis, Mastering Christianity: Missionary Anglicanism and Slavery in the Atlantic World (2012). Glickman, Gabriel, ‘Political Conflict and the Memory of the Revolution in England 1689-c.1745’ in Tim Harris and Stephen Taylor (eds.), The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy: The Revolutions of 1688–91 in their British, Atlantic and European Contexts (2013), pp.243–272. Glickman, Gabriel, ‘Protestantism, Colonisation, and the New England Company in Restoration Politics’, The Historical Journal, Vol.59, No.2 (2016) Goldie, Mark and Clare Jackson, ‘Williamite Tyranny and the Whig Jacobites’, in Esther Mijers and David Onnekink (eds.), Redefining William III: The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (2007), pp.177–199. Goodfriend, Joyce, Before the Melting Pot: Society and Culture in Colonial New York City, 1664–1730 (1992). Goodman, Jennifer Robin, Chivalry and Exploration, 1298–1630 (1998). Goodwin, Gordon, ‘Harley, Edward (1664–1735)’, rev. David Whitehead, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12336, accessed 11 May 2017]. Goslinga, Cornelius, The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580–1680 (1971). Gould, Eliga H., ‘Entangled Atlantic Histories: A Response from the Anglo-American Periphery’, The American Historical Review, Vol.112, No.5 (2007), pp.1415–1422. Gould, Eliga H., ‘Entangled Histories, Entangled Worlds: The English-Speaking Atlantic as a Spanish Periphery’, American Historical Review, Vol.112, No.3 (2007), pp.764–786. Graf, Tobias P., The Sultan’s Renegades: Christian-European Converts to Islam and the Making of the Ottoman Elite, 1575–1610 (2017). Gragg, Larry Dale, The Quaker Community on Barbados: Challenging the Culture of the Planter Class (2009). Graham, Michael J., ‘Meetinghouse and Chapel: Religion and Community in Seventeenth-Century Maryland’ in Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B. Russo (eds.), Colonial Chesapeake Society (1988), pp.242–274. Grassby, Richard, ‘Child, Sir Josiah, first baronet (bap.1631-d.1699)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5290, accessed 3 Sep 2018]. Greaves, Richard L., ‘A Colonial Fifth Monarchist?: John Clarke of Rhode Island’, Rhode Island History, Vol.50, No.2 (1981), pp.40–47. Green, L.C., and Olive Patricia Dickason, The Law of Nations and the New World (1993). Greene Arnold Samuel, The History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 2 Vols. (1859–1860). 272

Greene, Jack P., Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities of the British Empire and United States, 1607–1788 (1986). Greene, Molly, Catholic Pirates and Greek Merchants: A Maritime History of the Early Modern Mediterranean (2010). Greengrass, Mark, The French Reformation (1987). Gregory, Brad S., Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (1999). Gregory, Jeremy, ‘“Establishment” and “Dissent” in British North America’ in Stephen Forster (ed.), British North America in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (2013), pp.136–168. Gunn, Geoffrey C., History Without Borders: The Making of an Asian World Region, 1000–1800 (2011). Gwyn, Douglas, ‘Quakers, Eschatology and Time’ in Stephen W. Angell and Ben Pink Dandelion (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies (2013), pp.202–217. Gwyn, Robin, ‘The Huguenots in Britain, the “Protestant International” and the Defeat of Louis XIV’ in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (2001), pp.412–424. Hamilton, Marsha L., Social and Economic Networks in Early Massachusetts: Atlantic Connections (2009). Hamilton, Marsha L., ‘Commerce around the Edges: Atlantic Trade Networks among Boston’s Scottish Merchants’, International Journal of Maritime History, Vol.23, No.2 (2011), pp.301–326. Hamm, Thomas D., The Quakers in America (2003). Hanna, Mark G., Pirate Nests and the Rise of the British Empire, 1570–1740 (2015). Hale Pulsipher, Jane, Subjects unto the Same King: Indians, English, and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England (2005). Hall, Kenneth R., ‘European Southeast Asia Encounters with Islamic Expansionism, circa 1500–1700: Comparative Case Studies of Banten, Ayutthaya, and Banjarmasin in the Wider Indian Ocean Context’, Journal of World History, Vol.25, No.2/3 (2014), pp.229–262. Hall, Kenneth R., ‘Ports-of-Trade, Maritime Diasporas, and Networks of Trade and Cultural Integration in the Bay of Bengal Region of the Indian Ocean: c. 1300–1500’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol.53, No.1/2 (2010), pp.109–145. Hämäläinen, Pekka and Samuel Truett, ‘On Borderlands’, The Journal of American History, Vol.98, No.2 (2011), pp.338–361. Hardyman, J. T., ‘Outline of the Maritime History of St Augustine’s Bay (Madagascar)’, Studia, Vol.11 (1963), pp.315–341. Harris, Tim, Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720 (2007). Harris, Tim, ‘Incompatible revolutions?: the Established Church and the revolutions of 1688–9 in Ireland, England and Scotland’ in Allan I. MacInnes and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century: Awkward Neighbours (2002), pp.204–225. Harris, Tim, ‘The People, the Law, and the Constitution in Scotland and England: A Comparative Approach to the Glorious Revolution’, Journal of British Studies, Vol.38, No.1 (1999), pp.28–58.

273

Hart, Francis Russell, The Disaster of Darien; The Story of the Scots Settlement and the Causes of its Failure, 1699–1701 (1929). Hatfield, April Lee, Atlantic Virginia: Intercolonial Networks in the Seventeenth Century (2007). Hayes, Richard Francis, Old Irish Links with France: Some Echoes of Exiled Ireland (1940). Hayton, David W., Eveline Cruickshanks and Sean Handley (eds.), The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690–1715, 5 Vols. (2002). Hayton, David W., ‘Anglo-Irish Attitudes: Shifting Perceptions of National Identity’ in David W. Hayton (ed.), The Anglo-Irish Experience, 1680–1730: Religion, Identity and Patriotism (2012), pp.25–48. Hayton, David, ‘From Barbarian to Burlesque: The Changing Stereotype of the Irish’ in David Hayton (ed.), The Anglo-Irish Experience, 1680–1730: Religion, Identity and Patriotism (2012), pp.1–24. Headley, John M., ‘The Habsburg World Empire and the Revival of Ghibellinism’ in David Armitage (ed.), Theories of Empire, 1450–1800 (1998), pp.37–79. Heebøll-Holm, Thomas K., Ports, Piracy and Maritime War: Piracy in the English Channel and the Atlantic, c.1280-c.1330 (2013). Heller-Roazen, Daniel, The Enemy of All: Piracy and the Law of Nations (2009). Hempton, David, ‘Protestant Migrations: Narratives of the Rise and Decline of Religion in the North Atlantic World c. 1650–1950’ in Callum G. Brown and Michael Francis Snape (eds.), Secularisation in the Christian World: Essays in Honour of Hugh Mcloed (2010), pp.41–56 Herzog, Tamar, Defining Nations: Immigrants and Citizens in Early Modern Spain and Spanish America (2003). Heywood Linda M., and John K. Thornton, Central Africans, Atlantic Creoles, and the Foundation of the Americas, 1585–1660 (2007). Higman, Francis M., ‘French Speaking Regions, 1520–62’ in Jean-François Gilmont, The Reformation and the Book, trans. Karin Maag (1998), pp.104–153. Hill, Christopher, ‘Radical Pirates?’ in Christopher Hill, Collected Essays of Christopher Hill. Volume 3: People and Ideas in 17th Century England (1986), pp.161–187. Hirst, Derek, England in Conflict 1603–1660: Kingdom, Community, Commonwealth (1999). Hoad, T. (ed.), ‘Pirate’ in T. Hoad (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1996); online edn, 2003. Hodgson, Louise, Res Publica and the Roman Republic. ‘Without Body Or Form’ (2017). Höfele, Andreas, and Werner von Koppenfels, ‘Introduction’ in Andreas Höfele and Werner von Koppenfels (eds.), Renaissance Go-Betweens: Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe (2005), pp.1–17. Holt, Mack P., The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629, 2nd ed. (2005). Hooper, Jane, Feeding Globalization: Madagascar and the Provisioning Trade, 1600–1800 (2017). Hooper, Jane, ‘Pirates and Kings: Power on the Shores of Early Modern Madagascar and the Indian Ocean’, Journal of World History, Vol.22, No.2 (2011), pp.215–242.

274

Horton, Mark, ‘“To Transmit to Posterity the Virtue, Lustre and Glory of their Ancestors’: Scottish Pioneers in Darien, Panama’ in Caroline A. Williams (ed.), Bridging the Early Modern Atlantic World: People, Products, and Practices on the Move (2009), pp.131–150. Houston, R.A., The Population History of Britain and Ireland 1500–1750 (1992). Howlett Hayes, Katherine, Slavery Before Race: Europeans, Africans, and Indians at Long Island’s Sylvester Manor Plantation, 1651–1884 (2013). Hoyle, R.W., ‘Rural Economies Under Stress: “A World so Altered”’ in Susan Doran and Norman Jones (eds.), The Elizabethan World (2011), pp.439–457. Hudson, Benjamin T., Viking Pirates and Christian Princes: Dynasty, Religion, and Empire in the North Atlantic (2005). Hull, William Isaac, William Penn and the Dutch Quaker Migration to Pennsylvania (1935). Ilias, M.H., ‘Mappila Muslims and the Cultural Content of Trading Arab Diaspora on the Malabar Coast’, Asian Journal of Social Science, Vol.35, No.4 (2007), pp.434–456. Innes, Stephen, Creating the Commonwealth: The Economic Culture of Puritan New England (1995). Irwin, Raymond D., ‘Cast out from the “City upon a hill”: Antinomian Exiles in Rhode Island, 1638– 1650’ in Rhode Island History, Vol.52, No.1 (1994), pp.3–19. Isom-Verhaaren, Christine, Allies with the Infidel: The Ottoman and French Alliance in the Sixteenth Century (2011). Jacobs, Jaap, New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America (2005). Jackson, Alvin, The Two Unions: Ireland, Scotland, and the Survival of the United Kingdom, 1707–2007 (2012). Jackson, Clare, ‘The Later Stuart Church as “National Church” in Scotland and Ireland’ in Grant Tapsell (ed.), The Later Stuart Church, 1660–1714 (2012), pp.127–149. James, Alan, The Navy and Government in Early Modern France, 1572–1661 (2004). James, Sydney V., The Colonial Metamorphoses in Rhode Island: A Study of Institutions in Change (2000). Jamieson, Alan G., Lords of the Sea: A History of the Barbary Corsairs (2012). Jara, René, and Nicholas Spadaccini, ‘The Construction of a Colonial Imaginary: Columbus’s Signature’ in René Jara and Nicholas Spadaccini (eds.), Amerindian Images and the Legacy of Columbus (1992), pp.1–95. Jinkins, Michael, ‘Shields, Alexander (1659/60–1700)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25302, accessed 4 Jan 2017]. Johnson, Richard R., Adjustment to Empire: The New England Colonies, 1675–1715 (1981). Johnson, Richard R., ‘The Revolution of 1688–9 in the American Colonies’ in Jonathan I. Israel (ed.), The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact (1991), pp.215–240. Johnson, Rossiter, A History of the French War Ending in the Conquest of Canada, with a Preliminary Account of the Early Attempts at Colonization and Struggles for the Possession of the Continent (1882). Jones, Rufus M., The Quakers in the American Colonies (1911).

275

Jones, Stephanie, ‘Literature, Geography, Law: the Life and Adventures of Captain John Avery (Circa 1709)’. Cultural Geographies, Vol.19, No.1, pp.71–86 Jordan, David W., ‘“Gods Candle” within Government: Quakers and Politics in Early Maryland’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.39, No.4 (1982), pp.628–654. Jowitt, Claire, The Culture of Piracy, 1580–1630: English Literature and Seaborne Crime (2010). Juarez-Moreno, Juan, Corsarios y Piratas en Veracruz y Campeche (1972). Kaiser, Wolfgang and Calafat, Guillaume, ‘The Economy of Ransoming in the Early Modern Mediterranean’ in Francesca Trivellato, Leor Halevi and Cátia Antunes (eds.), Religion and Trade: Cross-Cultural Exchanges in World History, 1000–1900 (2014), pp.108–130. Kamil, Neil, Fortress of the Soul: Violence, Metaphysics, and Material Life in the Huguenots’ New World, 1517–1751 (2005). Kammen, Michael, Colonial New York: A History (1975) Kammen, Michael, ‘Virginia at the Close of the Seventeenth Century: An Appraisal by James Blair and John Locke’, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol.74, No.2 (1966), pp.141–169. Kaps, Klemens and Komlosy, Andrea, ‘Centers and Peripheries Revisited: Polycentric Connections or Entangled Hierarchies?’, Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol.36, No. 3–4 (2013), pp.237–264. Karr, Ronald Dale, ‘“Why Should You Be So Furious?”: The Violence of the Pequot War’, The Journal of American History, Vol.85, No.3 (1998), pp.876–909. Kaushik, Roy, Military Transition in Early Modern Asia, 1400–1750: Cavalry, Guns, Governments and Ships (2014). Kay, Richard S., The Glorious Revolution and the Continuity of Law (2014). Keene, Edward, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics (2002). Keith, Henry H., ‘New World Interlopers: The Portuguese in the Spanish West Indies, from the Discovery to 1640’, The Americas, Vol.12, No.2 (1969), pp.360–371. Kellaway, William, The New England Company, 1649–1776 (1961). Kelly, James, ‘Disappointing the Boundless Ambition of France’: Irish Protestants and the Fear of Invasion, 1661-1815, Studia Hibernica, no.37 (2011). Kelsey, Sean, ‘Robert Rich, second earl of Warwick (1587–1658)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23494, accessed 29 Jan 2017]. Kempe, Michael, ‘Beyond the Law: The Image of Piracy in the Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius’ in Hans W. Blom (ed.), Property, Piracy and Punishment: Hugo Grotius on War and Booty in De iure praedae - Concepts and Contexts (2009), pp.379–395. Kerrigan, Paul M., ‘Ireland in Naval Strategy, 1641–1691’ in Pádraig Lenihan, Conquest and Resistance: Irish War in Seventeenth-Century Ireland (2001), pp.151–176. Kim, Nanny and Nagase-Reimer, Keiko (eds.), Mining Monies, and Culture in Early Modern Societies: East Asian and Global Perspectives (2014).

276

Kingdon, Robert M., ‘Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550–1580’ in J. H. Burns and Mark Goldie (eds.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (1991), pp.193–218. Kirby, Ethyn Williams, George Keith (1638–1716) (1942). Klooster, Wim, ‘The Northern European Atlantic World’ in Nicholas Canny and Philip Morgan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Atlantic World: 1450–1850 (2012), pp.165–180. Klooster, Wim, ‘Inter-Imperial Smuggling in the Americas, 1600–1800’ in Bernard Bailyn and Patricia L. Denault (eds.), Soundings in Atlantic History: Latent Structures and Intellectual Currents, 1500–1830 (2009), pp.141–180. Klooster, Wim, ‘The Jews in Suriname and Curaçao’ in Paolo Bernardini and Norman Fiering (eds.), The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West 1450–1800 (2001), pp.350–368. Koot, Christian J., Empire at the Periphery: British Colonists, Anglo-Dutch Trade, and the Development of the British Atlantic, 1621–1713 (2011). Koot, Christian J., ‘Anglo-Dutch Trade in the Chesapeake and the British Caribbean, 1621–1733’ in Jessica V. Roitman and Gert Oostindie (eds.), Dutch Atlantic Connections, 1680–1800: Linking Empires, Bridging Borders (2014), pp.72–99. Kupperman, Karen O., Providence Island, 1630–1641: The Other Puritan Colony (1995). Kupperman, Karen O., ‘Errand to the Indies: Puritan Colonization from Providence Island through the Western Design’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.45, No.1 (1988), pp.70–99. Lachenicht, Susanne, ‘The Huguenots’ Maritime Networks, Sixteenth-Eighteenth Centuries’ in Dagmar Freist and Susanne Lachenicht (eds.), Connecting Worlds and People: Early Modern Diasporas (2017), pp.31–44. Lake, Peter, ‘Anti-Popery, the Structure of a Prejudice’ in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes (eds.), Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–1642 (1989), pp.72–106. Lamotte, Mélanie, ‘Colour Prejudice in the Early Modern French Empire, 1635–1767’ (2016), unpublished PhD dissertation Landes, Jordan, London Quakers in the Trans-Atlantic World: The Creation of an Early Modern Community (2015). Landsman, Ned C., Scotland and its First American Colony, 1683–1765 (1985). Landsman, Ned C., ‘Nation, Migration and the Province in the First British Empire: Scotland and the Americas, 1600–1800’, The American Historical Review, Vol.104, No.2 (1999), pp.463–475. Landsman, Ned C., ‘The Middle Colonies: New Opportunities for Settlement 1660–1700’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol.1 (1998), pp.351–374. Lane, Kris, Pillaging the Empire: Global Piracy on the High Seas, 1500–1750, 2nd ed. (2016). Lapham Butler, Ruth, A Checklist of Manuscripts in the Edward E. Ayer Collection (1937). Larson, Rebecca, Daughters of Light: Quaker Women Preaching and Prophesying in the Colonies and Abroad, 1700–1775 (1999). Latimer, Jon, Buccaneers of the Caribbean: How Piracy Forged an Empire 1607–1697 (2009).

277

Laugher, Charles T., Thomas Bray’s grand design; libraries of the Church of England in America, 1695– 1785 (1973). Lavery, Brian, Shield of Empire: The Royal Navy and Scotland (2007). Leder, Lawrence H., Robert Livingston and the Politics of Colonial New York, 1654–1728 (1961). Lenihan, Pádraig, ‘Coote, Sir Charles, first baronet (d. 1642)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6239, accessed 10 Feb 2018]. Levillain, Charles-Edouard, ‘Cromwell Redivivus? William III as Military Dictator: Myth and Reality’ in Esther Mijers and David Onnekink (eds.), Redefining William III: The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (2007), pp.159–176. Levy, Barry, Quakers and the American Family: British Settlement in the Delaware Valley (1988). Lieberman, Victor, ‘Protected Rimlands and Exposed Zones: Reconfiguring Premodern Eurasia’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.50, No.3 (2008), pp.692–723. Lima Cruz, Maria Augusta, ‘Notes on Portuguese Relations with Vijayanagara, 1500–1565’ in Sanjay Subrahmanyam (ed.), Saints and Sinners: The Successors of Vasco da Gama (1998), pp.13–39. Lincoln, Margarette, British Pirates and Society, 1680–1730 (2014). Lincoln, Margarette, ‘Henry Every and the Creation of the Pirate Myth in Early Modern Britain’ in David Head (ed.), The Golden Age of Piracy: The Rise, Fall, and Enduring Popularity of Pirates (2018), pp.167–182. Linebaugh, Peter and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic (2000). Little, Patrick, ‘Coote, Charles, first earl of Mountrath (c. 1610–1661)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6240, accessed 10 Feb 2018] . Little, Patrick, ‘The First Unionists? Irish Protestant Attitudes to Union with England, 1653–9’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol.32, No.125 (2000), pp.44–58. Lock, Peter, The Franks in the Aegean: 1204–1500 (1995). Locklin, Nancy, Women’s Work and Identity in Eighteenth-Century Brittany (2007). Lorimer, Joyce, English and Irish Settlement on the River Amazon 1550–1646 (1989). Lunsford, Virginia, Piracy and Privateering in the Golden Age Netherlands (2005). Lustig, Mary Lou, The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714 (2002). Lustig, Mary Lou, Privilege and Prerogative: New York’s Provincial Elite, 1710–1776 (1995). Lyons, Mary Ann, ‘The Emergence of an Irish Community in Saint-Malo, 1550–1710’ in Thomas O’Connor (ed.), The Irish in Europe 1580–1815 (2001), pp.107–126. MacCarthy-Morrogh, Michael, The Munster Plantation: English Migration to Southern Ireland 1583– 1641 (1986). MacInnes, Allan, Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707 (2007). MacInnes, Allan, The British Revolution, 1629–1660 (2005). MacInnes, Allan and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Stuart Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century: Awkward Neighbours (2002).

278

MacInnes, Allan, ‘William of Orange - Disaster for Scotland?’, in Esther Mijers and David Onnekink (eds.), Redefining William III: The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context (2007), pp.201–223. MacIntosh, Gillian H., The Scottish Parliament under Charles II, 1660–1685 (2007). Mackillop, Andrew, ‘A North Europe World of Tea: Scotland and the Tea Trade, c.1690 to c.1790’ in Maxine Berg et al. (eds.), Goods from the East, 1600–1800: Trading Eurasia (2015), pp.294–308. Mackillop, Andrew, ‘Accessing Empire: Scotland, Europe, Britain, and the Asia Trade, 1695-c.1750’, Itinerario, Vol.29, No.3 (2005), pp.7–30. MacLeod, Murdo J., ‘Spain and America: The Atlantic Trade 1692–1720’ in L. Bethell (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America. Volume 1: Colonial Latin America (1984), pp.341–388. MacRaild, Donald M. and Smith, Malcolm, ‘Migration and Emigration, 1600–1945’ in Liam Kennedy and Philip Ollerenshaw (eds.), Ulster Society Since 1600: Politics, Economy and Society (2013) Malekandathil, Pius, Maritime India: Trade, Religion and Polity in the Indian Ocean (2010). Maltby, William S., The Black Legend in England: The Development of Anti-Spanish Sentiment, 1558– 1660 (1971). Mancke, Elizabeth, ‘Negotiating and Empire: Britain and its Overseas Peripheries, c.1550–1780’ in Christine Daniels and Michael V. Kennedy (eds.), Negotiated Empires: Centers and Peripheries in the Americas, 1500–1820 (2002), pp.235–265. Margariti, Roxani Eleni, ‘Mercantile Networks, Port Cities, and “Pirate” States: Conflict and Competition in the Indian Ocean World of Trade before the Sixteenth Century’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol.51, No.4 (2008), pp.543–577. Margey, Annaleigh, ‘Plantations, 1550–1641’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.555–583. Marnef, Guido, ‘The Dynamics of Reformed Religious Militancy: The Netherlands, 1566–1585’ in Philip Benedict et al., Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands, 1555–1585 (1999), pp.51–68. Marshall, P.J., ‘The English in Asia to 1700’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol.1 (1998), pp.264–285. Martin, Clare J.L., ‘Controversy and division in post-restoration Quakerism: the Hat, Wilkinson-Story and Keithian controversies and comparisons with the internal divisions of other seventeenth-century non- conformist groups’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2003). Martin, John Frederick, Profits in the Wilderness: Entrepreneurship and the Founding of New England Towns in the Seventeenth Century (1991). Massue, Melville Henry, The Jacobite Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Grants of Honour (1903). Mathias Gough, Deborah, Christ Church, Philadelphia: The Nation’s Church in a Changing City (1995). Matson, Cathy, Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (2002). McConville, Brendan, The King’s Three Faces: The Rise & Fall of Royal America, 1688-1776 (2006) McCormick, Ted, William Petty and the Ambitions of Political Arithmetic (2009).

279

McCormick, Ted, ‘Restoration Politics, 1660–1691’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.96–119. McCormick, Ted, ‘“A Proportionable Mixture”: William Petty, Political Arithmetic, and the Transmutation of the Irish’ in Coleman A. Dennehy (ed.), Restoration Ireland: Always Settling and Never Settled (2008), pp.123–139. McCusker, John J., Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Part 2 (1975). McCusker, John J., ‘The Demise of Distance: the Business Press and the Origins of the Information Revolution in the Early Modern Atlantic World’, The American Historical Review, Vol.110, No.2 (2005), pp.295–321. McCusker, John J., ‘Colonial Statistics’ in Susan B. Carter et al. (eds.), Historical Statistics of the United States. Volume 5: Governance and International Relations (2006), pp.627–772. McDonald, Kevin P., Pirates, Merchants, Settlers and Slaves: Colonial America in the Indo-Atlantic World (2015). McGrath, Charles Ivar, ‘Politics, 1692–1730’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.120–143. McGrath, Charles Ivar, ‘Wyche, Sir Cyril (c.1632–1707)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30117, accessed 26 April 2017]. McGrath, John T., The French in Early Florida: In the Eye of the Hurricane (2000). McKee, Jane, ‘The Integration of the Huguenots into the Irish Church: the Case of Peter Drelincourt’, in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (2001), pp.442–450. McLoughlin, William G., Rhode Island: A Bicentennial History (1978). McLoughlin, William G., New England Dissent 1630–1833, 2 Vols. (1971). McWilliams, James E., Building the Bay Colony: Local Economy and Culture in Early Massachusetts (2007). Medick, Hans, ‘Turning Global? Microhistory in Extension’, Historische Anthropologie, Vol.24, No.2 (2016), pp.241–252. Meier, Dirk, Seafarers, Merchants and Pirates in the Middle Ages (2006). Menta, John, The Quinnipiac: Cultural Conflict in Southern New England (2003). Meuwese, Mark, ‘The Dutch Connection: New Netherland, the Pequots, and the Puritans in Southern New England, 1620–1638’, Early American Studies, Vol.9, No.2 (2011), pp.295–323. Middell, Matthias and Katja Naumann, ‘Global History and the Spatial Turn: from the Impact of Area Studies to the Study of Critical Junctures of Globalization’, Journal of Global History, Vol.5, No.1 (2010), pp.149–170.

280

Middleton, Simon, From Privileges to Rights: Work and Politics in Colonial New York City (2006). Mijers, Esther, ‘Between Empires and Cultures: Scots in New Netherland and New York’, Journal of Scottish Historical Studies, Vol.33, No.2 (2013), pp.165–195. Miller, David W., ‘Searching for a New World: The Background and Baggage of Scots-Irish Immigrants’ in Warren R. Hofstra (ed.), Ulster to America: The Scots-Irish Migration Experience, 1680–1830 (2012), pp.1–24. Miller, Joseph C., ‘The Sixteenth Century’ in idem, The Princeton Companion to Atlantic History (2015) Miller, John, ‘Politics in Restoration Britain’ in Barry Coward (ed.), A Companion to Stuart Britain (2003), pp.397–415. Miller, Joseph C. (ed.), The Princeton Companion to Atlantic History (2015). Mohankrishna Rai, K., ‘Portuguese Hegemony over Mangalore’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol.64 (2003), pp.614–621. Morgan, Kenneth, Slavery, Atlantic Trade and the British Economy, 1660–1800 (2001). Morgan, Kenneth, ‘Mercantilism and the British Empire, 1688–1815’ in Donald Winch and Patrick Karl O’Brien (eds.), The Political Economy of British Historical Experience, 1688–1914 (2002), pp.165– 191. Morrill, John, ‘The Religious Context of the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5 Series, Vol.34 (1984), pp.155–178. Morrison, Kenneth M., The Embattled Northeast: The Elusive Ideal of Alliance in Abenaki-Euramerican Relations (1984). Mrozowski, Stephen A., ‘Creole Materialities: Archaeological Explorations of Hybridized Realities on a North American Plantation’, Journal of Historical Sociology, Vol.23, No.1 (2010), pp.16–39. Muldrew, Craig, ‘The “Middling Sort”: An Emergent Cultural Identity’ in Keith Wrightson (ed.), A Social History of England, 1500–1750 (2017), pp.290–309. Murdoch, Steve, The Terror of the Seas? Scottish Maritime Warfare, 1513–1713 (2010). Murdoch, Steve and Mijers, Esther, ‘Migrant Destinations, 1500–1750’ in T.M. Devine and Jenny Wormald (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Scottish History (2012), pp.320–337. Murdock, Graeme, Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europe’s Reformed Churches, c.1540–1620 (2004). Nash, Gary, Quakers and Politics: Pennsylvania, 1681–1726, 2nd ed. (1993). Neff, Stephen C., Hugo Grotius on the Law of War and Peace (2012). Nelson, Louis P., ‘The Diversity of Countries: Anglican Churches in Virginia, South Carolina and Jamaica’ in David S. Shields (ed.), Material Culture in Anglo-America: Regional Identity and Urbanity in the Tidewater, Lowcountry and Caribbean (2009), pp.74–101. Newell, Margaret Ellen, From Dependency to Independence: Economic Revolution in Colonial New England (1998). Nicholls, Kenneth, ‘Worlds Apart? The Ellis Two-Nation Theory on Late Medieval Ireland;, History Ireland, Vol.2, No.2 (1999)

281

Nicholls, Mark and Williams, Penry, ‘Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2015 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23039, accessed 28 Sept 2017]. Novak, Maximillian E., The Age of Projects (2008). Novak, Maximilliam E., Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions, His Life and Ideals (2001). Ó Ciosáin, Éamon, ‘Hidden by 1688 And After: Irish Catholic Migration To France, 1590–1685’ in David Worthington, British and Irish Emigrants in Europe: 1603–1688 (2010), pp.125–138. O Flynn, Dennis, ‘Silver in a Global Context, 1400–1800’ in Jerry H. Bentley, Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, The Cambridge World History, Vol.6 (2015), pp.213–239. Ó hAnnracháin, Tadhg, ‘The Strategic Involvement of Continental Powers in Ireland 1596–1691’ in Pádraig Lenihan, Conquest and Resistance: Irish War in Seventeenth-Century Ireland (2001), pp.25– 52. O’Callaghan, Joseph F., ‘Castile, Portugal and the Canary Islands: Claims and Counterclaims 1344–1479’ in José-Juan López-Portillo (ed.), Spain, Portugal and the Atlantic Frontier of Medieval Europe (2013), pp.169–192. O’Callaghan, Sean, To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland (2000). O’Connor, Daniel, Three Centuries of Mission: the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 1701–2000 (2000). O’Connor, Thomas, Irish Voices from the Spanish Inquisition: Migrants, Converts and Brokers in Early Modern Iberia (2016) O’Malley, Gregory E., ‘Beyond the Middle Passage: Slave Migration from the Caribbean to North America, 1619–1807’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.66, No.1 (2009), pp.125–172. O’Reilly, William, ‘Ireland in the Atlantic World: Migration and Cultural Transfer’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.385–408. O’Reilly, William ‘The Naturalisation Act of 1709 and the Settlement of Germans in Britain, Ireland and the Colonies’ in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens. The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (2001) O’Reilly, William, ‘Working for the Crown: German Migrants and Britain’s Commercial Success in the Early Eighteenth-Century American Colonies’, Journal of Modern European History, Vol.15, No.1 (2017), pp.130–152. O’Reilly, William, ‘Movements in the Atlantic World, 1450–1850’ in Nicholas Canny and Philip Morgan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Atlantic World c.1450-c.1850 (2011), pp.305–322. O’Scea, Ciaran, ‘Special Privileges for the Irish in the Kingdom of Castille (1601–1680): Modern Myth or Contemporary Reality?’ in David Worthington (ed.), British and Irish Emigrants and Exiles in Europe: 1603 - 1688 (2010), pp.107–124. O’Shea, Joe, Murder, Mutiny and Mayhem: The Blackest-Hearted Villains from Irish History (2012). O’Sullivan, Harold, ‘Dynamics of Regional Development: Processes of Assimilation and Division in the Marchland of South-East Ulster in Late Medieval and Early Modern Ireland’ in Ciaran Brady and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), British Interventions in Early Modern Ireland (2005), pp.49–72. 282

Ohlmeyer, Jane, Making Ireland English: The Irish Aristocracy in the Seventeenth Century (2012). Ohlmeyer, Jane, ‘Making Ireland English: the Early Seventeenth Century Irish Peerage’ in Brian Mac Cuarta (ed.), Reshaping Ireland, 1550–1700: Colonization and its Consequences: Essays Presented to Nicholas Canny (2011), pp.131–147. Ohlmeyer, Jane, ‘“Civilizinge of those Rude Partes”: Colonization within Britain and Ireland, 1580s– 1640s’ in Nicholas Canny (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol.1 (1998), pp.124–147. Oka, Rahul C. and Chapurukha M. Kusimba, ‘Siddi as Mercenary or as African Success Story on the West Coast of India’ in John C. Hawley (ed.), India in Africa, Africa in India: Indian Ocean Cosmopolitanisms (2008), pp.203–229. Oliveira e Silva, Paula, ‘The Concept of ius gentium: Some Aspects of Its Doctrinal Development from the “School of Salamanca” to the Universities of Coimbra and Évora’ in Paula Oliveira e Silva, The Concept of Law (lex) in the Moral and Political Thought of the ‘School of Salamanca’ (2016), pp.106– 123. Orr, Julie M., ‘New Caledonia’s Wake: Expanding the Story of Company of Scotland Expeditions to Darien, 1698–1700’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2014). Otterness, Philip, Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York (2006). Padrón, Ricardo, ‘A Sea of Denial: The Early Modern Spanish Invention of the Pacific Rim’, Hispanic Review, Vol.77, No.1 (2009), pp.1–27. Pagden, Anthony, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c.1500–1800 (1995). Pagden, Anthony, The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology (1982). Pagden, Anthony, ‘Defending Empire: The School of Salamanca and the “Affair of the Indies”’ in Anthony Pagden, The Burdens of Empire: 1539 to the Present (2015), pp.45–62. Pagden, Anthony, ‘Identity Formation in Spanish America’ in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds.), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World 1500–1800 (1987), pp.51–93. Pawson, Michael and David Buisseret, Port Royal, Jamaica (1975). Pearl, Valerie, ‘Thompson [Thompson] Maurice (1604–1676)’, rev. Anita McConnell, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/38061, accessed 13 May 2018]. Pearsall, A.W.H., ‘The War at Sea’ in W.A. Maguire (ed.), Kings in Conflict: The Revolutionary War in Ireland and its Aftermath, 1689–1750 (1990), pp.92–105. Pearson, Michael, The Indian Ocean (2003). Pearson, Michael, ‘Islamic Trade, Shipping, Port-States and Merchant Communities in the Indian Ocean, Seventh to Sixteenth centuries’ in David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (eds.), The New Cambridge History of Islam, Vol.3 (2010), pp.315–365. Pemberton, Sarah, Locke’s Political Thought and the Oceans: Pirates, Slaves, and Sailors (2017).

283

Pernau, Margrit, ‘Whither Conceptual History? From National to Entangled Histories’, Contributions to the History of Concepts, Vol.7, No.1 (2012), pp.1–11. Pestana, Carla Gardina, Protestant Empire: Religion and the Marking of the Atlantic World (2009). Pettegree, Andrew, ‘Coming to Terms with Victory: The Upbuilding of a Calvinist Church in Holland, 1572–1590’ in Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke, and Gillian Lewis (eds.), Calvinism in Europe, 1540– 1620 (1994), pp.160–180. Pettigrew, William A., ‘Corporate Constitutionalism and the Dialogue between the Global and Local in Seventeenth-Century English History’, Itinerario, vol.39, no.3 (2015), pp.487-501 Pettigrew, William A., Freedom’s Debt: The Royal African Company and the Politics of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1672–1752 (2013). Pettigrew, William A., ‘Free to Enslave, Politics and the Escalation of Britain’s Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1688–1714’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.64 (2007), pp.3–38. Phelps Kellogg, Louise, ‘The American Colonial Charter’ in Annual Report of the American Historical Association, Vol.1 (1903), pp.185–341. Pincus, Steve, ‘Reconfiguring the British Empire’, WMQ, Vol.69, No.1 (2012), pp.63–70 Pincus, Steve, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2009). Pincus, Steve, ‘Rethinking Mercantilism: Political Economy, the British Empire, and the Atlantic World in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, WMQ, vol.69, no.1 (2012) Pizzoni, Giada, ‘British Catholics’ Commercial Strategies in times of International Warfare (1688–1705)’, The Seventeenth Century, Vol.32, No.1 (2017), pp.81–102. Plank, Geoffrey, ‘Forum: Quakers as Political Players in Early America’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.74, No.1 (2017), pp.35–42. Pocock, J.G.A., ‘British History: A Plea for a New Subject’, The Journal of Modern History, Vol.47, No.4 (1975), pp.601–621. Policante, Amedeo, The Pirate Myth: Genealogies of an Imperial Concept (2015). Pomfret, John E., ‘The First Purchasers of Pennsylvania, 1681–1700’, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol.80, No.2 (1956), pp.137–163. Postma, Johannes, The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1600–1815 (1990). Postma, Johannes, ‘A Reassessment of the Dutch Atlantic Slave Trade’ in Johannes Postma and Victor Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce: Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping, 1585–1817 (2003), pp.115–138. Prange, Sebastian R., ‘A Trade of No Dishonor: Piracy, Commerce, and Community in the Western Indian Ocean, Twelfth to Sixteenth Century’, The American Historical Review, Vol.116, No.5 (2011), pp.1269–1293. Prebble, John, The Darien Disaster (1968). Prendergast, John Patrick, The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland (1865). Price, Jacob M., ‘Gilbert Heathcote, first baronet (1652–1733)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, Oct 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12847, accessed 9 Aug 2018].

284

Prichard, M.J. and D.E.C. Yale (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction (1993). Priddy, Katherine Lee, ‘From Youghco to Black John: Ethnohistory of Sylvester Manor, ca.1600–1735’, Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol.36 (2007), pp.16–33. Probasco, Nate, ‘Catherine de Medici and Huguenot Colonization, 1560–1567’ in Estelle Paranque, Nate Probasco and Claire Jowitt (eds.), Colonization, Piracy and Trade in Early Modern Europe: The Roles of Powerful Women and Queens (2017), pp.41–72. Rabushka, Alvin, Taxation in Colonial America (2008). Raffe, Alasdair, ‘James VII’s Multiconfessional Experiment and the Scottish Revolution of 1688–1690’, History, Vol.100, No.341 (2015), pp.354–373. Raffe, Alasdair, ‘1707, 2007, and the Unionist Turn in Scottish History’, The Historical Journal, Vol.53, No.4 (2010), pp.1071–1083. Rainbolt, John C., ‘The Creation of a Governor and Captain General for the Northern Colonies: The Process of Colonial Policy Formation at the end of the Seventeenth Century’, New York Historical Society Quarterly, Vol.57, No.2 (1973), pp.101–120. Rainbolt, John C., ‘“A Great and Usefull Designe”: Bellomont’s Proposal for New York, 1698–1701’, New York Historical Society Quarterly, Vol.53 (1969), pp.333–351. Randall, Catharine, From a Far Country: Camisards and Huguenots in the Atlantic World (2009). Rath, Richard Cullen, How Early America Sounded (2003). Rayner, Laura, ‘The Tribulations of Everyday Government in Williamite Scotland’ in Sharon Adams and Julian Goodare (eds.), Scotland in the Age of Two Revolutions (2014), pp.193–210. Recio Morales, Óscar, ‘Identity and Loyalty: Irish Traders in Seventeenth Century Iberia’ in David Dickson, Jan Parmentier, Jane H. Ohlmeyer (eds.), Irish and Scottish Mercantile Networks in Europe and Overseas in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (2007), pp.197–210. Rediker, Marcus, Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age (2004). Rediker, Marcus, Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Merchant Seamen, Pirates and the Anglo- American Maritime World, 1700–1750 (1987). Reid, Anthony, ‘Islam in South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean littoral, 1500–1800: Expansion, Polarisation, Synthesis’ in David O. Morgan and Anthony Reid (eds.), The New Cambridge History of Islam, Vol.3 (2010), pp.427–469. Reid, Anthony, ‘Violence at Sea: Unpacking “Piracy” in the Claims of States over Asian Seas’ in Robert J. Antony (ed.), Elusive Pirates, Pervasive Smugglers: Violence and Clandestine Trade in the Greater China Seas (2010), pp.15–26. Richter, Daniel K., Trade, Land, Power The Struggle for Eastern North America (2013). Richter, Daniel K., The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (1992). Riley, P.W.J., The Union of England and Scotland: A Study in Anglo-Scottish Politics of the Eighteenth Century (1978). Rink, Oliver A., Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History of Dutch New York (1986).

285

Risso, Patricia, Merchants and Faith: Muslim Commerce and Culture in the Indian Ocean (1995). Risso, Patricia, ‘Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Piracy: Maritime Violence in the Western Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf Region during a Long Eighteenth Century’, Journal of World History, Vol.12, No.2 (2001), pp.293–319. Ritchie, Robert C., Captain Kidd and the War Against the Pirates (1989). Ritchie, Robert C., The Duke’s Province: A Study of New York Politics and Society, 1664–1691 (1977). Ritchie, Robert C., ‘Samuel Burgess, Pirate’ in W. Pencak and C.E. Wright (eds.), Authority and Resistance in Early New York (1988), pp.114–137. Roberts, Penny, Peace and Authority during the French Religious Wars, c.1560–1600 (2013). Robertson, John, ‘Empire and Union: Two Concepts of the Early Modern European Political Order’ in John Robertson (ed.), A Union for Empire: Political Thought and the British Union of 1707 (1995), pp.3–36. Rodgers, Nini, ‘A Changing Presence: the Irish in the Caribbean in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’ in Evelyn O’Callaghan, Alison Donnell and Maria McGarrity (eds.), Caribbean Irish Connections: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2015), pp.17–32. Romaniello, Matthew P., ‘Trade and the Global Economy’ in Hamish Scott, The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern European History, 1350–1750: Volume II, Cultures and Power (2015), 307–333. Roncaglia, Alessandro, Petty: The Origins of Political Economy (1985). Roper, L.H., Advancing Empire: English Interests and Overseas Expansion, 1613–1688 (2017). Roper, L.H., Conceiving Carolina: Proprietors, Planters, and Plots, 1662–1729 (2004). Rorke, Martin, ‘English and Scottish Overseas Trade, 1300–1600’, The Economic History Review, Vol.59, No.2 (2006), pp.265–288. Rose, Andrew Gordon, ‘The Movement for the Reformation of Manners, 1688–1715’, unpublished PhD dissertation (1980). Rose, Craig, England in the 1690s: Revolution, Religion and War (1999). Rose, Craig, ‘The Origins and Ideals of the SPCK 1699–1716’ in John Walsh, Colin Haydon and Stephen Taylor (eds.), The Church of England c.1689-c.1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (1993), pp.172–190. Rothman, E. Natalie, Brokering Empire: Trans-Imperial Subjects Between Venice and Istanbul (2012). Rubin, Alfred P., The Law of Piracy, 2nd ed. (1998). Rupert, Linda M., Creolization and Contraband: Curacao in the Early Modern Atlantic World (2012). Sacks, David Harris, The Widening Gate: Bristol and the Atlantic Economy 1450–1700 (1991). Salwin, Bert, ‘Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period’, Bruce Trigger (ed.), Handbook of the North American Indians: The Northeast, Vol.15 (1978), pp.160–176. Sanna, Antonio (ed.), Pirates in History and Popular Culture (2018). Saupin, Guy, ‘Les Réseaux Commerciaux Irlandes de Nantes sous la Règne des Louis XIV’ in David Dickson, Jan Parmentier, Jane H. Ohlmeyer (eds.), Irish and Scottish Mercantile Networks in Europe and Overseas in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (2007), pp.115–146.

2 86

Sawyer, Kathryn Rose, ‘True Church, National Church, Minority Church: Episcopacy and Authority in the Restored Church of Ireland’, Church History, Vol.85, No.2 (2016), pp.219–245. Scammell, G.V., ‘European Exiles, Renegades and Outlaws and the Maritime Economy of Asia, c.1500– 1750’, Modern Asian Studies, Vol.26, No.4 (1992), pp.641–661. Scharff, J. Thomas, The History of Westchester County, New York (1886). Schlenther, Boyd Stanley, ‘Religious Faith and Commercial Empire’ in P.J. Marshall (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol.2 (1998), pp.128–149. Schmidt, Benjamin, ‘The Hope of the Netherlands: Menasseh Ben Israel and the Dutch Idea of America’ in Paolo Bernardini and Norman Fiering (eds.), The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West 1450–1800 (2001), pp.86–106. Schmitt, Carl, Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation (1942). Schneider, Pierre, ‘Before the Somali Threat: Piracy in the Ancient Indian Ocean’, Journal of the Hakluyt Society (2014), pp.1–28; online edn [https://www.hakluyt.com/PDF/Schneider_piracy.pdf, accessed 12 Sept 2018]. Schnurmann, Claudia, ‘The “Glorious Revolution” in the Atlantic World, 1688–1697’ in Herman Wellenreuther (ed.), Jacob Leisler’s Atlantic World in the Later Seventeenth Century: Essays on Religion, Militia, Trade and Networks (2009), pp.119–134. Schüller, Karin, ‘Irish Migrant Networks and Rivalries in Spain, 1575–1659’ in Thomas O’Connor and Mary Ann Lyon (eds.), Irish Migrants in Europe After Kinsale, 1602–1820 (2003), pp.88–103. Schwartz, Stuart B., ‘The Iberian Atlantic to 1650’ in Nicholas Canny and Philip Morgan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Atlantic World c.1450-c.1850 (2011), pp.147–164. Scott, Kenneth, Counterfeiting in Colonial America (1953). Seed, John, “Secular’ and ‘Religious’: Historical Perspectives’, Social History, Vol.39, No.1 (2014), pp.3– 13 Seed, Patricia, American Pentimento: The Invention of Indians and the Pursuit of Riches (2001). Shelton, Kenneth Andrew, ‘The way cast up: the Keithian Schism in an English Enlightenment Context’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2009). Shimizu, J., Conflict of Loyalties: Politics and Religion in the Career of Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 1519–1572 (1970). Simbula, Pinuccia Franca, ‘Islands, Privateers, and Pirates in the Medieval Mediterranean’, Médiévales, Vol.47, No.2 (2004), pp.17–30. Siminoff, Faren R., Crossing the Sound: The Rise of Atlantic American Communities in Seventeenth- Century Eastern Long Island (2004). Simms, J.G., The Williamite Confiscation in Ireland, 1690–1703 (1956). Simms, J.G., ‘The Restoration, 1660–85’ in T.W. Moody et al. (eds.), Early Modern Ireland: 1534–1691. A New History of Ireland, Vol.3 (1976), pp.420–453. Sirota, Brent S., The Christian Monitors: The Church of England and the Age of Benevolence, 1680–1730 (2014).

287

Sivasundaram, Sujit, Alison Bashford and David Armitage, ‘Introduction’ in Sujit Sivasundaram, Alison Bashford and David Armitage (eds.), Oceanic Histories (2018), pp.1–28. Skemp, Sheila L., ‘Freedom of Religion in Rhode Island: Aquidneck’s Reluctant Revolutionaries, 1638– 1660’, Rhode Island History, Vol.44, No.1 (1975), pp.3–17. Slack, Paul, ‘Plenty of People’: Perceptions of Population in Early Modern England (2011). Sluiter, Engel, ‘Dutch-Spanish Rivalry in the Caribbean Area, 1594–1609’, The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol.28, No.2 (1948), pp.165–196. Sheriff J. Irvine Smith, ‘The Trial of Captain Green’, Stair Society Miscellany VII, Vol.62 (2015). Smolenski, John, Friends and Strangers: The Making of a Creole Culture in Colonial Pennsylvania (2010). Smout, T. C., Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union, 1660–1707 (1963). Smyth, Jim, ‘“Like amphibious animals”: Irish protestants, ancient Britons, 1691–1707’, The Historical Journal, Vol.36, No.4 (1993), pp.785–797. Soderlund, Jean R., Quakers & Slavery: A Divided Spirit (1985). Somos, Mark ‘Mare Clausum, Leviathan and Oceana: Bible Criticism, Secularisation and Imperialism in Seventeenth-Century English Political and Legal Thought’ in C. L. Crouch and Jonathan Stökl with the assistance of Cat Quine (eds.), In the Name of God: the Bible in the Colonial Discourse of Empire (2014), pp.85–132 Somos, Mark, ‘Secularization in De iure praedae: From Bible Criticism to International Law’ in Hans W. Blom (ed.), Property, Piracy and Punishment: Hugo Grotius on War and Booty in De iure praedae - Concepts and Contexts (2009), pp.147–191. Sonnelitter, Karen, Charity Movements in Eighteenth-Century Ireland: Philanthropy and Improvement (2016). Sonnelitter, Karen, ‘“To unite our temporal and eternal interests”: Sermons and the charity school movement in Ireland, 1689–1740’, Eighteenth-Century Ireland /Iris an dá chultúr, Vol.25 (2010), pp.62–81. Sosin, Jack M., English America and the Revolution of 1688: Royal Administration and the Structure of Provincial Government (1982). Souyri, Pierre François, The World Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society (2001). Sowerby, Scott, Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution (2013). Splendiani, Anna María, Cincuenta Años de Inquisición en el Tribunal de Cartagena de Indias, 4 Vols. (1997). Stanwood, Owen, The Empire Reformed: English America in the Age of the Glorious Revolution (2011). Stanwood, Owen, ‘The Huguenot Refuge and European Imperialism’ in Raymond A. Mentzer and Bertrand Van Ruymbeke (eds.), A Companion to the Huguenots (2016), pp.394–421. Statt, Daniel, Foreigners and Englishmen: The Controversy Over Immigration and Population, 1660– 1760 (1995).

288

Stephen, Jeffrey, Defending the Revolution: The Church of Scotland 1689–1716 (2013). Stern, Philip J., The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India (2011). Stern, Philip J., ‘Introduction’ in Philip J. Stern and Carl Wennerlind (eds.), Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire (2014), pp.3–17. Storrs, Christopher, ‘Disaster at Darien (1698–1700)? The Persistence of Spanish Imperial Power on the Eve of the Demise of the Spanish Habsburgs’, European History Quarterly, Vol.29 No.1 (1999), pp.5– 38. Strachey, Ray and Oliver Strachey, Keigwin’s Rebellion (1683–4): An Episode in History of Bombay (1916). Strong, John A., The Unkechaug Indians of Eastern Long Island: A History (2011). Strong, John A., The Montaukett Indians of Eastern Long Island (2001). Studnicki-Gizbert, Daviken, A Nation upon the Ocean Sea: Portugal’s Atlantic Diaspora and the Crisis of the Spanish Empire, 1492–1640 (2007). Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500–1700: A Political and Economic History, 2nd ed. (2012). Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, Three Ways to Be Alien: Travails and Encounters in the Early Modern World (2011). Subrahmanyam, Sanjay, ‘Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern Eurasia’, Modern Asian Studies, Vol.31, No.3 (1997), pp.735–762. Subramanian, Lakshmi, The Sovereign and the Pirate: Ordering Maritime Subjects in India’s Western Littoral (2016). Subramanian, Lakshmi, ‘Of Pirates and Potentates: Maritime Jurisdiction and the Construction of Piracy in the Indian Ocean’ in Devleena Ghosh and Stephen Muecke (eds.), Cultures of Trade: Indian Ocean Exchanges (2007), pp.19–30. Sutcliffe, Adam, ‘Jewish History in an Age of Atlanticism’ in Richard L. Kagan and Philip D. Morgan (eds.), Atlantic Diasporas: Jews, Conversos, and Crypto-Jews in the Age of Mercantilism, 1500–1800 (2009), pp.18–30. Sutto, Antoinette, Loyal Protestants and Dangerous Papists: Maryland and the Politics of Religion in the English Atlantic, 1630–1690 (2015). Tagliacozzo, Eric, ‘The Hajj by Sea’ in Eric Tagliacozzo and Shawkat M. Toorawa (eds.), The Hajj: Pilgrimage in Islam (2016), pp.113–130. Tait, Clodagh, ‘Society, 1550–1700’ in Jane Ohlmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge History of Ireland, Vol.2 (2018), pp.273–297. Temple, Richard Carnac, New Light on the Mysterious Tragedy of the “Worcester”, 1704–1705. An Episode in the Long Struggle between England and Scotland for Union as Great Britain, 1603–1707 (1930).

289

Todescan, Franco, ‘“Sequuntur Dogmatica De Iure Praedae” Law and Theology In Grotius’s Use Of Sources in De Iure Praedae’ in Hans W. Blom (ed.), Property, Piracy and Punishment: Hugo Grotius on War and Booty in De iure praedae - Concepts and Contexts (2009), pp.281–309. Todt, Kim, ‘Trading between New Netherland and New England, 1624–1664’, Early American Studies, Vol.9, No.2, Special Issue: The Worlds of Lion Gardiner, ca. 1599–1663: Crossings and Boundaries (2011), pp.363–374. Trivellato, Francesca, The Familiarity of Strangers: The Sephardic Diaspora, Livorno, and Cross- Cultural Trade in the Early Modern Period (2009). Trivellato, Francesca, ‘The Organisation of Trade in Europe and Asia, 1400–1800’ in Jerry H. Bentley, Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks (eds.), The Cambridge World History, Vol.6, Part 2 (2015), pp.160–189. Trivellato, Francesca, ‘Is There a Future for Italian Microhistory in the Age of Global History?’, California Italian Studies, Vol.2, No.1 (2011); online edn [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0z94n9hq, accessed 12 September 2018]. Truslow Adams, James, The Founding of New England (1921). Truxes, Thomas M., Irish-American Trade, 1660–1783 (1988). Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (2001). Tulchin, Allan A., ‘Church and State in the French Reformation’, The Journal of Modern History, Vol.86, No.4 (2014), pp.826–861. Tuori, Kaius, ‘The Reception of Ancient Legal Thought in Early Modern International Law’ in Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (2012), pp.1012–1032. Turley, Hans, Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash: Piracy, Sexuality, and Masculine Identity (1999). Turner Main, Jackson, Society and Economy in Colonial Connecticut (1986). Tyacke, Nicholas, Aspects of English Protestantism c.1530–1700 (2001). Tyacke, Nicholas, ‘The Puritan Paradigm of English Politics, 1558–1642’, The Historical Journal (2010), pp.527–550. Ullmer, James H., ‘The Macroeconomic Thought of Sir William Petty’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol.26, No.3 (2004), pp.401–413. Valeri, Mark, Heavenly Merchandize: How Religion Shaped Commerce in Puritan America (2010). Van Ittersum, Martine Julia, Profit and Principles: Hugo Grotius, Natural Rights Theories and the Rise of Dutch Power in the East Indies 1595–1615 (2006). Van Ittersum, Martine Julia, ‘Dating the Manuscript of De Jure Praedae: What Watermarks, Foliation and Quire Divisions Can Tell Us About Hugo Grotius’ Development as a Natural Rights and Natural Law Theorist’, History of European Ideas, Vol.35, No.2 (2009) pp.125–193.

290

Van Ittersum, Martine Julia, ‘Hugo Grotius in Context: Van Heemskerck’s Capture of the Santa Catarina and its Justification in De Jure Praedae (1604–1606)’, Asian Journal of Social Science, Vol.31, No.3 (2003), pp.511–548. Van Ruymbeke, Bertrand, From New Babylon to Eden: The Huguenots and Their Migration to Colonial South Carolina (2006). Van Ruymbeke, Bertrand, ‘From Ethnicity to Assimilation: Huguenots and the American Immigration History Paradigm’ in Randolph Vigne and Charles Littleton (eds.), From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Ireland, and Colonial America, 1550–1750 (2001), pp.332–341. Van Wassenar, Nicholaes, ‘Historisch Verhael’ in J. Franklin Jameson (ed.), Narratives of New Netherland, 1609–1664 (1909), pp.67–96. Veracini, Lorenzo, ‘‘Settler Colonialism’: Career of a Concept’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol.21, No.2 (2013), pp.313–333. Verner, Thomas, ‘East African Travelers and Traders in the Indian Ocean: Swahili Ships, Swahili Mobilities, ca.1500–1800’ in Michael Pearson (ed.), Trade, Circulation and Flow in the Indian Ocean World (2015), pp.167–202. Waddell, Brodie, God, Duty and Community in English Economic Life, 1660–1720 (2012). Walker, Timothy, ‘European Ambitions and Early Contacts: Diverse Styles of Colonization, 1492–1700’ in Louise A. Breen (ed.), Converging Worlds: Communities and Cultures in Colonial America (2012), Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974). Warner, Michael and Zimmermann, Bénédicte, ‘Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity’, History and Theory, Vol.45, No.1 (2006), pp.30–60. Wathen, Bruce, Sir Francis Drake: The Construction of a Hero (2009). Watt, Douglas, The Price of Scotland: Darien, Union and the Wealth of Nations (2007). Weimer, Adrian Chastain, Martyrs’ Mirror: Persecution and Holiness in Early New England (2011). Weimer, Adrian Chastain, ‘Elizabeth Hooton and the lived Politics of Toleration in Massachusetts Bay’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.74, No.1 (2017), pp.43–76. Whatley, Christopher A., The Scots and the Union: Then and Now (2007). Wheeler Carlo, Paula, ‘Huguenot Congregations in Colonial New York and Massachusetts: Reassessing the Paradigm of Anglican Conformity’ in Raymond A. Mentzer and Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, A Companion to the Huguenots (2016), pp.371–393. Whelan, Bernadette, ‘Women and Warfare 1641–1691’, in Pádraig Lenihan, Conquest and Resistance: Irish War in Seventeenth-Century Ireland (2001), pp.317–344. Whelan, Kevin, ‘The Green Atlantic: Radical Reciprocities between Ireland and America in the Long Eighteenth Century’ in Kathleen Wilson (ed.), A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity and Modernity in Britain and the Empire, 1660–1840 (2004), pp.216–238.

291

White, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650– 1815 (1991). Whittle, Jane, ‘Land and People’ in Keith Wrightson (ed.), A Social History of England, 1500–1750 (2017), pp.152–173. Williams, Phillip, Empire and Holy War in the Mediterranean: The Galley and Maritime Conflict between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires (2014). Wilson, David A., Ulster Presbyterians in the Atlantic World: Religion, Politics and Identity (2006). Wilson, Kathleen (ed.), A New Imperial History: Culture, Identity and Modernity in Britain and the Empire, 1660–1840 (2004). Winton, Ruth M., ‘Governor Francis Nicholson’s Relations with the SPG, 1701–1727’, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Vol.17 No.3 (1948), pp.274–286. Withington, Phil, ‘Public Discourse, Corporate Citizenship, and State Formation in Early Modern England’, The American Historical Review, vol.112, no.4 (2007) Withington, Phil, ‘Urbanisation’ in Keith Wrightson (ed.), A Social History of England, 1500–1750 (2017), pp.174–198. Wong, Young-tsu, China’s Conquest of Taiwan in the Seventeenth Century: Victory at Full Moon (2017). Wood, Alfred C., A History of the Levant Company (1964). Worden, Blair, ‘James Harrington and The Commonwealth of Oceana, 1656’ in David Wootton (ed.), Republicanism, Liberty and Commercial Society, 1649–1776 (1994), pp.82–110. Worrall, Arthur J., Quakers in the Colonial Northeast (1980). Wrightson, Keith, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain, 1470–1750 (2002). Wyatt, Ronald J., ‘The Archaic on Long Island’ in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol.288 (1977), pp.400–410. Wykes, David L., ‘So bitterly Censur’d and Revil’d: Religious Dissent and Relations with the Church of England after the Toleration Act’ in Richard Bonney, D. J. B. Trim (eds.), Persecution and Pluralism: Calvinists and Religious Minorities in Early Modern Europe 1550–1700 (2006), pp.295–314. Young, B.W., ‘Tindal, Matthew (bap. 1657, d. 1733)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004); online edn, May 2005 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27462, accessed 11 May 2017]. Zahedieh, Nuala, The Capital and the Colonies: London and the Atlantic Economy 1660–1700 (2010). Zahedieh, Nuala, ‘A Frugal, Prudential, and Hopeful Trade: Privateering in Jamaica, 1655–189’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol.18, No.2 (1990), pp.145–168. Zahedieh, Nuala, ‘The Merchants of Port Royal, Jamaica, and Spanish Contraband Trade, 1655–1689’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol.43 (1986), pp.570–593.

292

Zahedieh, Nuala, ‘Trade, Plunder and Economic Development in Early English Jamaica, 1644–89’, The Economic History Review, Vol.39 (1986), pp.205–222. Zimmerman, Matthew, ‘Married to Faith: the Colonial American Quakers and the Trans-Atlantic Community’, unpublished PhD dissertation (2006).

293