MARITIME HISTORY 



registration of ships and men available and the levy of seamen, and the execution of domestic 

 regulations intended to prevent unlawful practices at sea, it was deemed advisable to have round the 

 coast permanent representatives of the Lord Admiral, who should be of higher social standing and 

 armed with greater authority than were the deputies who had hitherto visited each county or district 

 collecting the Lord Admiral's profits or maintaining his rights. The new officers, the vice-admirals of the 

 counties, were in their civil functions the successors historically of the keepers of the coast and the 

 conservators of truces of the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, and there is not one of the duties of 

 the vice-admirals which cannot be paralleled among those performed by the earlier officials. There 

 had been occasional appointments, in some of the counties, of officers who had held posts very 

 similar to those of the vice-admirals, but now instead of acting temporarily and only in one or two 

 districts they became a band of crown officials stationed round the whole coast, backed by the power 

 of the Tudor despotism, and continued without any interruption during which their authority 

 might diminish by intermission. The patents of appointment were from the Lord Admiral, some- 

 times for life and sometimes during pleasure. Each vice-admiral had a miniature admiralty court of 

 his own, and his perquisites were shared with the Lord Admiral. 1 



The scheme did not come into operation simultaneously all over England, but developed out of 

 necessity and according to opportunity. The earliest nomination known by precise date is that for 

 Norfolk and Suffolk; the exact time of the first appointment for Sussex is unknown, but Thomas 

 West, Lord De La Warr, was acting between 1 543 and 1 547. Sussex may have been later than most of 

 the other counties, seeing that its principal ports were already under the jurisdiction of the Lord Warden, 

 and the interminable disputes between him and the Lord Admiral, and between their respective 

 officers, may have been anticipated.* 



The vice-admirals had their work waiting for them in quelling the inclination to piracy 

 fostered by the maritime conditions of the period. In 1546 a Brighton vessel met a Flemish trader 

 in port at Jersey, and ' after much frequentation and familiarity had with the master, factor, and 

 company of the said Flemish ship,' plundered her and then wantonly destroyed her rigging and gear. 3 

 It was to put a stop to such habits as these that one of the duties of the vice-admirals was to take 

 bonds from owners and captains as security for good conduct. A month later a Rye ship, and men 

 of Hastings and Winchelsea, were involved in another case ; but there may have been extenuating 

 circumstances here, for the offenders were given the option of restoring the property or paying for 

 it. One of the incriminated owners, John Juglet, was committed to the Marshalsea prison for 

 'lewd behaviour' to the mayor of Rye. 4 John Huntrye a/iai 'French John ' was another Rye 

 owner whose proceedings brought him into conflict with the law. 6 During the reign of 

 Edward VI recriminations were frequent between the English and French courts concerning the 

 piracies committed by their respective subjects. Seeing that the charges, probably well-founded, 

 against the Lord Admiral, Seymour, in 1549, included accusations of connivance and profit-sharing 

 with pirates and general encouragement of them, it is likely enough that the French complaints 

 were thoroughly justified. 



The reign of Mary sent many of the outlawed and discontented to the refuge of the sea, and 

 the nearly continuous warfare existing in Western Europe during her sister's reign tempted many 

 such men to continue their vocation. Therefore the plague of piracy, and its near analogue 

 privateering, was virulent during the second half of the century, although a number of cases that 

 the sufferers called piracy were really seizures of enemy's goods in neutral ships, and were, justly, 

 questions for the judge of the Admiralty Court. Sussex was not so guilty as some of its neighbours, 

 especially Kent, in the production and support of pirates, but it was not free from the taint. The 

 peace of 1 564, and the protests of the continental powers, forced Elizabeth to more energetic action, 

 and a circular letter to the vice-admirals of counties called their attention to the suggestive fact that 

 although many pirates had been taken not one had been executed. 6 This was followed, the next 

 year, by a sharply- worded letter to the Lord Warden to the effect that the queen was receiving 

 complaints ' daily ' from the French and Spanish ambassadors about pirates ' vehemently to be 

 suspected harboured, victualled, and maintained by some dwelling in the Cinque Ports.' r The 

 great difficulty, now and later, was to deal with the assistance the offenders obtained ashore from 

 persons who bought their plunder, or who sympathized with them, and among these were sometimes 

 people of good social position. The officials themselves were not above suspicion ; among the 

 instructions of 1563 is one that the vice-admirals were to do nothing except in conjunction with 



1 In 1594 the Lord Admiral thought the vice-admiralship of Sussex worth 200 a year to the holder ; 

 others made a much lower estimate (Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. vii, App. 652). The vice-admiral's receipts were 

 953 between Sep. 1627, and June, 1629 (S.P. Dom. Chas. I, cxlv, 20). 



* I am indebted to Mr. R. G. Marsden, to whose learned researches the history of the evolution of the 

 office of vice-admiral is mainly due, for much assistance in this subject. 



" Acti ofP.C. 16 July, 1546. 4 Ibid. I Aug. 1546 ; 10 Jan. 1546-7. 



' Admir. Ct. War. Bks. ii, 9 June, 20 Nov. 1548. ' ActsofP.C. 23 Dec. 1564. ' Ibid, vii, 244. 



47 



