Captain Robert Isted – Gentleman Pirate?

By Kevin Isted (September 2008)

On 1 July 1574, Robert ISTED, gentleman of Hastings and Captain of the warship the Bark of Bulleyn, and 11 of his men, were hung in chains below the high water mark on Leith Sands and left to reflect on what had brought them to this end before what little remained of their lives was flushed away by the rising tide.

Their bodies were left hanging in chains: a feast of flesh served alternately to fish and fowl by successive tides. A warning to others!

The execution of a 13^th man – Peter FISHER, a Scotsman - was deferred pending further ‘examination’ concerning piracy in Scotland. He sang like a canary but was still executed on 22 July 1574.

Following the executions, John HILLS, the husband of Robert’s sister Mary, now in command of the Bark of Bulleyn, captured three Scottish barques, dispensed with the traditional plank and threw 26 men overboard in an act of revenge. This was twice as many as their executed shipmates. Was this number coincidental, or was HILLS sending an unsubtle message to the Scots?

Immediately after this incident the Earl of MORTON, the Scottish Regent, informed the English government through Henry KILLIGREW, England’s representative in Scotland, that he would send ships to apprehend those responsible, ‘if it should not offend Her Majesty’.

Who was Robert ISTED and how did this sorry state of affairs arise? And why did the Scottish Regent seek English approval to apprehend those aboard the Bark of Bulleyn who had killed Scottish sailors, in Scottish ships, in Scottish waters, when he had felt no need to seek approval before executing their captain?

Robert ISTED was the illegitimate son of John ISTED (died 1556/7, Jurat, Bailiff, and Burgess of Hastings) and an unnamed mother. His father acknowledged him, mentioned him in his will and had him raised a gentleman. His date of birth is unknown, but indications are that he was a relatively young man in 1574 and a young child when his father died.

In March 1574, Robert paid £65 to Mr BARONS, one of four masters under the Admiral, for the Bark of Bulleyn, a warship of 40 or 50 tons, which had been taken a prize by one of Her Majesty’s ships. It is not known why he did this. It is possible, if not probable, Robert had been admitted to the Commonality of Hastings - the 37 Freemen who controlled the Cinque Port of Hastings franchise – like his father and half brother Richard; and the warship was in part a contribution towards Hastings’ ship service obligation to the Crown. Unfortunately, apart from the Bailiff and the two or three senior Jurats who attended the annual Cinque Port Brotherhood meetings at Romney, no records remain of the members of the Commonality from this period. Alternatively, the ship may have been sold to Robert in the knowledge that it was intended for use in privateering. What other reasons would there be for a private individual to want to purchase a warship and why else would a Crown official sell him one?

In any event, Robert engaged John HILLS as the ship’s master and a crew of 42. Their first job, commissioned by Mr PARKER, the Admiral’s clerk, was to escort the wool fleet from the headland of ‘Tenet’ (Isle of Thanet, Kent) to ‘Sluys’ (Sluis) in Flanders – an appropriate assignment for a Cinque Port ship.

While in Flanders, Robert ISTED met the captain of another ship – ‘Mr FIELDING’ (Fernando FIELDING, the pirate?) – with whom he went on a run ashore. For landlubbers amongst you, this means going out on the town. This usually involves the consumption of a large quantity of alcohol and sometimes consorting with ladies of somewhat doubtful character. On this run ashore, it was agreed they should join forces, with FIELDING as the Admiral, and meet later in London to share their collective spoils from capturing ships at sea. As someone who also ran away to sea in his youth in search of adventure, and who has been on many a run ashore, I can understand how alcohol fuelled bravado made this seem a good idea at the time. But, what I fail to understand is how it still seemed a good idea in the cold light of morning, when the two captains each exchanged two members of crew to bear witness of the prizes to be taken by each other.

At some stage Robert paid £5 to George DOWNYNG, a Fleming of Ratclf, for a licence (Kaperbrieven) to take victuallers and furnishers of the Duke of ALBA - Governor of the Spanish Netherlands. These Kaperbrieven were issued by the Prince of Orange to the Dutch Waterguezen (Sea Beggars), who had operated out of England before being expelled in 1572 to appease the Spanish. Although it is known that some Englishmen were counted amongst the ‘Sea Beggars’ it is not known whether Robert ISTED was formerly one of them. These licences, however, became tradable commodities and provided some sort of legality for attacking specified shipping.

Three days out of Sluys, heading north, Robert ISTED and the Bark of Bulleyn captured two Dutch hoys (small ships rigged as sloops) laden with rye and textiles that he claimed were of Utrecht (under the control of Spain.) These prizes and their crew were taken to the Queen’s storehouse on the Holy Island of Lindisfarne, off the coast of Northumberland, and some of the cargo was sold on in the nearby Farne Islands. Then for reasons unknown the captured ships and crew were allowed to return to The Netherlands. A flyboat (a Dutch square rigged, flat bottomed cargo vessel) laden with fish was also captured at some point, but the details are unclear.

A number of pirates/privateers, including Jack CHALLIS with a number of the ships under his command, were present at Lindisfarne while Robert and the Bark of Bulleyn were there. It seems that Lindisfarne may have become a haven for English pirates/privateers operating in the North Sea after the suppression of the monastery in 1536 by Henry VIII.

Following their departure from Lindisfarne, Robert and the Bark of Bulleyn took two Dutch ships, one of which was the ‘Forlorne Sone’, and put their crews aboard a Norwegian ship carrying timber. I do not know exactly where this occurred. However, as the Dutch ships were en route to The Netherlands from Danskin (now Gdansk, Poland; then a German Hansiatic port); the reference to the Norwegian ship; and the Bark of Bulleyn next putting into Montrose, I suspect it occurred somewhere at the entrance to the Baltic. Neither do I know why the Bark of Bulleyn and her two prizes put into Montrose on 14 June 1547, but I suspect it was due to a combination of bad weather and being shorthanded to sail all three ships back to England (Lindisfarne?) in the prevailing conditions.

Meanwhile, the Norwegian ship met a Scottish ship, under the command of George PANTOUN, heading from Danskin to Leith (the port of Edinburgh), into which one of the Dutch captains and a merchant – Herman and Cornelius JOHNNESOUN – transferred. By an extraordinary coincidence and piece of bad luck, the Scottish ship was also forced into Montrose due to bad weather, on 15 June 1574. The Dutchmen instantly recognised their ships and assailants and reported the matter to the local authorities. However, the Bark of Bulleyn, under the assumed command of John HILLS, weighed anchor and made for the relative safety of the open sea, leaving the captain, a number of the crew and the prize ships behind.

Robert plus 12 men and 2 boys stranded ashore were arrested by the Baillie of Montrose. They were subject to ‘examination’ at Montrose and then they and their two Dutch accusers were sent to Edinburgh for further examination and a decision on their fate by the Council. Some of the testimony given under ‘examination’ is contradictory. How much of this is the result of lies, honest differences in recollection, the use of torture on the alleged pirates or just the degree of accuracy of the records is a matter of conjecture.

In his testimony, Robert ISTED is recorded as saying he was in part engaged in ‘merchandise’ on his own account and in part was the retainer of Sir John PELHAM; he had authority to search suspected pirates (indeed Cinque Port ships had Royal authority under their Charter to do this anywhere – ‘ infrangentheof and outfrangentheof’ ); and he had a licence from the Prince of Orange to take victuallers and furnishers of the Duke of ALBA. He further implied he had the legal right to seize the Dutch ships which he claimed were from Utrecht (under the control of Spain.) Unfortunately, what proof he may have had of this would have been aboard the Bark of Bulleyn, at sea with John HILLS.

Sir John PELHAM of Laughton, near Eastbourne, was a near neighbour of the ISTEDs who lived at St Clement, Hastings. He was elected to Parliament in 1571. He was also a Commissioner for Piracy, and as such would have had dealings with the Cinque Port of Hastings and its ships regarding the seizure of pirates. He was also in financial difficulty for most of his life and was sent to the notorious Fleet Prison, in London, on at least two occasions. Robert dropping the PELHAM name may not have been universally well received in Leith, as Sir William PELHAM, a relation of Sir John, was the captain of artillery who had bombarded the town when occupied by the French, during the Siege of Leith in 1560.

I then started to think like a Hollywood script writer, first having Robert going undercover to infiltrate a pirate ring, under the orders of Sir John PELHAM; the meeting with FIELDING and the run ashore being no coincidence; the exchange of crew members a ploy to secure first hand evidence against FIELDING; and Robert apparently going out of his way not to kill anyone a testament to him being a good guy on the side of truth and justice. I then, alternatively, had Sir John PELHAM being a pirate catcher turned pirate, in partnership with Robert, in a desperate attempt to solve his financial problems.

I then came across a record of a meeting of the Scottish Privy Council, of 25 June 1574. This indicated that while the Scottish Privy Council may have believed the Dutchmen sufficiently to execute Robert and his captured crew, they did not believe them sufficiently to let them have the captured ships and cargo. Instead they had the ships and cargo sold and the proceeds held in Edinburgh until the Dutch claimants provided proof from The Netherlands. I have found no record that proof was ever forthcoming or that the money was ever released. However, that does not mean to say that it did not happen.

Nevertheless, this made me consider the possibility that: Robert ISTED was entitled to take these ships under his Kaperbrieven; the Dutch seamen lied to the Scots about where they were from and who their cargo was for; and the real pirates may have been the Scottish Privy Council who took the opportunity to execute Robert to get their hands on the prize money. I then wondered whether I might be able to engage a lawyer, on a no win no fee basis, to clear Robert and put in a claim for the return of the prize money with interest. I calculated this money, with a modest 3% compound interest over the 434 intervening years, was now worth in the region of £52 million. I then started to consider what type of luxury yacht I might buy and which supermodels were currently unattached.

However, I regret to say this article was not uploaded to the website via a marine satellite phone, with 9600 bps internet access, from a new Lurssen super-yacht somewhere in the Bahamas. I was, unfortunately, quickly brought down to earth by a Dutch friend, a retired naval captain, who was researching the Dutch end of things for me. He informed me the Prince of Orange had withdrawn the Kaperbrieven in 1572; and the Duke of ALBA had been removed from his position in December 1573, and replaced by the extravagantly named Don Luis de REQUESENS Y ZUNIGA.

I then discovered England and Spain had signed the Convention of Nymegan, in 1573. This stipulated the removal of the Duke of ALBA from The Netherlands, a pardon for Dutch rebels and a promise from England not to issue licences to privateers to attack Spanish ships (and by extension others in Spanish service). Relations between the nations did not remain good for long, which eventually led to the Spanish Armada in 1588. However, it held good long enough for England and Spain to conclude the Treaty of Bristol in August 1574 (a month after Robert ISTED’s execution) that confirmed the Convention of Nymegan and normalised trade between the two nations.

Therefore, if Robert was in possession of a Kaperbrieven, it was out of date and invalid. Of course, in those days without the instant news that we take for granted, he may have been completely unaware of this and the latest diplomatic developments.

So, what was Robert ISTED? -

• An undercover agent of Sir John PELHAM seeking to bring pirates to justice in the spirit of the Convention of Nymegan, in a plan that went disastrously wrong;

• One of the new breed of Elizabethan privateers, like DRAKE and HAWKINS, who helped replenish the coffers of England, by cutting The Queen in on a share of their take. (Was this the reason for Robert’s visit to the Queen’s storehouse on Lindisfarne? But, why then did England not only give approval to the Scottish proposal to send ships to apprehend HILLS, but also despatched English ships to hunt him down, when previous Scottish complaints had gone unheeded. Perhaps Robert ISTED was guilty of the only real offence for such privateers – getting caught; or HILLS overstepped the mark in killing Scottish mariners. Or perhaps they were merely pawns sacrificed in the game of high politics: the ‘great matter’ – ‘getting the boy Stuart’, the future James I sent to England – cryptically referred to in the same correspondence between WALSINGHAM and KILLIGREW [if so, it had no effect]; or a sign of good intent to the Spanish by taking action against privateers ahead of signing the Treaty of Bristol).

• A naïve young man in search of adventure, who fell into bad company (Fernando FIELDING and the ruthless HILLS) and was led astray;

• Someone doing what other Cinque Port men had done: engage in piracy under the protection of their Charter, whereby they could not be prosecuted by Crown officials without warrants being endorsed by the Lord Warden. If so, Robert’s greatest mistake was putting into a Scottish port where he had no such immunity;

• Following a family tradition. On 28 October 1545, Robert’s father, John ISTED and his shipping partners had appeared before the English Privy Council at Windsor to answer a charge of robbery at sea (piracy) committed by the captain of a ship they owned. However, unlike his hapless son, this did John no harm, as he immediately went into an arguably more disreputable occupation - Member of Parliament.

It is not known what happened to HILLS and the Bark of Bulleyn. There is also no subsequent mention of his wife and children in Hastings Parish Registers. Was HILLS captured and killed, or did he make it back to collect his family and make a new life elsewhere?

On a happier note, the two captured boys were returned to their families in England – an act of kindness in a cruel age.

Aaarrgh mateys, it shivers me timbers to think more on it. So I’ll heave to, splice the mainbrace and console meself with a tot o’ grog, while ye makes up yer own minds.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/kids-songs-pirates-popup.htm

References:

Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Edward, Mary and Elizabeth, 1547-80; now available on subscription at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/Default.aspx .

The History of Parliament – The Commons 1509-1558, S. T. Bindof (1982)

Acts of the Privy Council of England, Dasent (1892)

Scottish Privy Council Meeting dated 25 June 1574 – NAS PC1/7

The Port of Leith, Sue Mowat

John Isted’s will 1557 - Prob 11/39