Rex Dyer

Professor McDonald
Hist 4010
4/30/2022

Admirals at Law: An Evaluation of the British Admiralty Courts Prosecution of Pirates

         The Admiralty courts of the Golden Age of Piracy was a system of courts utilized by the

British Empire to bypass corruption and the difficulties of executing justice over an expansive

oceanic empire by utilizing military officers to execute justice against an ineffective colonial

administration; this is the narrative that comes to mind when the admiralty courts are brought up;

however, this ideal is flawed in its view of the courts, their organization, their execution of

justice, and the political conflicts stirred in its reorganization and usage across the British empire.

This paper will examine how the Admiralty Courts defy the ideal of a crisp and clean military

order imposed on the colonies, showing how a reorganized legal system with a focus of anti-

corruption remained heavily affected by the local citizenry in the court system, the political

background that shaped the outcome of trials, and the growth of the British imperial might over

the world in the late 17th century and early 18th century,  and the working of the courts

themselves. The analysis will go in depth to examine if they were able to execute justice in a way

that bypassed any barriers corrupt officials or pirates were able to put up, and act as a fair and

honest system despite not having the ideal circumstances that a force for global suppression of

piracy would prefer to have. The Admiralty court system will be explored in its powerful

metamorphosis starting during the Golden Age as a detached hand of royal might, but will not

ignore the larger international court system utilized many local justices under stronger royal

oversight and how it organized its efforts earlier in the late 1600s to combat piracy than what is
usually expected, and how it worked beyond justice and towards the strengthening of the British

control over the colonial dominion, often to the colonies chagrin.

         While the existence of the admiralty courts reaches back to before the creation of the

British Empire by several centuries, the coverage of this paper will focus on the beginning of a

true international war on pirates and the failures of the previous empire-wide anti-piracy

mandates, and how that shaped future reorganization of British presence amongst colonies and

foreign ports. A significant event in this reorganization came with the deposal of King James II

and his earlier attempts to suppress piracy by his alliance with Spain. Alfred P. Rubin, in his

work, The Law of Piracy, lays out the evolution of piracy law and the growing power of the

admiralty courts within the British empire. The driving force of this debate within the legal

circles of common law and the law on piracy stems from the debate of positivism vs Natural law

from lawyers within the English courts. This shift in legal definition and power can be seen in

the acknowledgment of piracy as robbery under the jurisdiction of the admiralty to a new view of

it as equivalent to political treason1. The further evolutions that occurred during these times of

turbulent conflict would also bring to light the disdain some held for the limits put upon the

Admiralty Courts and how their earlier iterations would be hamstrung according to a heavy

emphasis on the collection of evidence by the rules set by the Magna Carta2 and respect for the

authority of other nations within the process of persecuting pirates. This policy of the Admiralty

Court’s jurisdiction expands to all pirates.

1
Rubin, Alfred P., and Alfred P. Rubin. Essay. In The Law of Piracy, 84. Newport, Rhode
Island: Naval War College Press, 1988.
2
Rubin, Alfred P., and Alfred P. Rubin. Essay. In The Law of Piracy, 84. Newport,
Rhode Island: Naval War College Press, 1988.
  This thought process would be explored more in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution

and the beginning of the 18th century as British lawmakers would plan out how to oppose the

ability of pirates to benefit from their allies within the British Colonies. In his work A

DISCOURS ABOUT PYRATES, WITH PROPER REMEDIES TO SUPPRESS THEM, Edward

Randolph recounts the significant issues with the current system in place to deal with anti-piracy

practices. When addressing this issue, Randolph describes a system like that of the Mafia of the

later 20th century, where pirates would benefit from the patronage of the local merchants and

officials to refit and take part in racketeering. Randolph recounts stories of the pirates gaining

assistance from the locals in the colonies of Jamaica to assist in the robbing and burning of

multiple trading ships coming through the area and the travesties of justice as juries acquitted

these men in other colonies. The pirates also took part in the commercial interests of the era, with

notable concern involving the process of the building of armed sloops, such as can be seen

within his report on their transgressions within the Carolinas3. In his reports on the goings-on in

Boston, he recounted the actions of the colony’s governor in protecting the rights of pirates to

trade and assisting in the armament of ships allegedly prepared for departure to the plantations in

the west indies. Randolph continues to propose multiple solutions to the piracy problem within

the colonies; for this paper, the most prevalent one to the workings of the Admiralty courts

would be his first; No approval of a governor without first gaining a royal council appointment.

While the Admiralty Courts have often been touted as a more natural solution to the courts of the

colonies for a good reason, they were constantly under political pressure at home and abroad that

sometimes heavily affected their decision-making process for the worse.

3
Gosse, Philip, 1879-1959. 1968. The History of Piracy. CH.35 New York: B. Franklin.
         The Admiralty Court also offered a seemingly quite lenient view on repentant pirates and

those who claimed not guilty upon their court trial if they had good backing and claim for their

reasoning. In the analysis of two documents recording the court cases of two different pirate

crews, one belonging to the infamous pirate William Fly who was prosecuted in 1726 in Boston

Massachusetts and the other New Port Rhode Island in 1723 along pirate Charles Harris, we can

see the two vastly different approaches to the prisoners accused of piracy. In the first case we can

see a notably large number of men who were acquitted of the crime of piracy while in service to

William Fly, specifically 12 of the 16 did not face punishment due to the underlying

circumstances. In this case most of them had claimed they were indeed forced into service under

Captain Fly and pressed into committing acts of piracy out of their control, this was helped by

the lack of weaponry these men were equipped with and their heroic actions to take down the

pirate captain to the aid of a ship that was being raided4. In contrast we have the trial of 36

pirates that happened much earlier, upon which 28 were convicted of piracy within the

courtroom. These pirates for the most part were punished for their actions, with the exception for

some members of the crew who were understood to be compelled like the carpenter, found in

abused state in the care of the pirates, The rest were all hung. This system for evaluating the

actions of the overall group and their motivations showcases a less harsh system of legal inquiry

than you would expect from a court system designed to imprison and execute pirates,

showcasing a key difference from the modern image of inconsiderate hangings of pirates without

consideration of situation.

4
Tyley, Samuel 1726. “The Tryals of Sixteen Persons for Piracy, &c. Four of Which Were Found Guilty, and the Rest
Acquitted. At a Special Court of Admiralty for the Tryal of Pirates, Held at Boston within the Province of the
Masachusetts-Bay in New-England, on Monday the Fourth Day of July, Anno Dom. 1726. Pursuant to His Majesty’s
Commission, Founded on an Act of Parliament, Made in the Eleventh and Twelfth Years of the Reign of King
William the Third, Intitled, An Act for the More Effectual Suppression of Piracy. And Made Perpetual by an Act of
the Sixth of King George.” https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;idno=N02376.0001.001
         The Admiralty courts are often portrayed as a purely imperial process outside of the reach

of the usual genteel corruption of the inner colonies; however, through the analysis of the rosters

of court documents across the American colonies, it is clear there was a heavy presence from

colonial administrators and legal officials amongst even the vice-admiralty. The Admiralty

courts were formed with the direct intention of squashing piratical sentiments within the colonies

of the British empire; however, documents in the court trials of pirates following the

establishment of these new systems showed the apparent involvement of colonial officials and

politicians within the court cases themselves. As showcased in the trials of sixteen pirates in

Massachusetts5, I have found evidence of multiple local citizens within the court proceedings,

including Justice Samuel Sewall, a Massachusetts native and justice in the Salem Witch trials. In

Boston, Benjamin Lynde was a court Justice within the Massachusetts supreme court and native

to the territory6. In the Carolinas, the judge of the Vice-Admiralty Nicholas Trott oversaw the

trial of Major Stede Bonnet as the premier justice.7 These documents showcase a different view

5
Tyley, Samuel 1726. “The Tryals of Sixteen Persons for Piracy, &c. Four of Which Were Found Guilty,
and the Rest Acquitted. At a Special Court of Admiralty for the Tryal of Pirates, Held at Boston within the
Province of the Masachusetts-Bay in New-England, on Monday the Fourth Day of July, Anno Dom. 1726.
Pursuant to His Majesty’s Commission, Founded on an Act of Parliament, Made in the Eleventh and
Twelfth Years of the Reign of King William the Third, Intitled, An Act for the More Effectual Suppression of
Piracy. And Made Perpetual by an Act of the Sixth of King George.”
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;idno=N02376.0001.001

6
"The trial of eight pirates at Boston" (Pamphlet, The National Archives, Kew, CO 5/867 Part 1
1718). Accessed [May 03, 2022].
http://www.colonialamerica.amdigital.co.uk/Documents/Details/CO_5_867_PART_1_003
7
Bonnet, Stede, -1718, Peter Force, and South Carolina. Court Of Vice-Admiralty. The tryals of Major
Stede Bonnet and other pirates, viz. Robert Tucker, Edward Robinson, Neal Paterson, William Scot, Job
Bayley, John-William Smith, Thomas Carman, John Thomas, William Morrison, William Livers alias Evis,
Samuel Booth, William Hewet, John Levit, William Eddy alias Nedy, Alexander Annand, George Ross,
George Dunkin, John Ridge, Matthew King, Daniel Perry, Henry Virgin, James Robbins, James Mullet
alias Millet, Thomas Price, John Lopez, Zachariah Long, James Wilson, John Brierly, and Robert Boyd,
who were all condemn'd for piracy: as also, the tryals of Thomas Nicols, Rowland Sharp, Jonathan
Clarke, and Thomas Gerrat for piracy, who were acquitted at the Admiralty Sessions held at Charles-
Town in the province of South Carolina, on Tuesday the 28th of October , and by several adjournments
continued to Wednesday the 12th of November following: to which is prefix'd an account of the taking of
the said Major Bonnet and the rest of the pirates. London: Printed for Benj. Cowse, 1719. Pdf.
https://www.loc.gov/item/33008758/.
of the admiralty courts as an outside force intruding on the colonies, this viewpoint coincided

with a greater colonial input on pushing back the influence of piracy. The works of those in the

Admiralty court who did not fit the typical example of a military-based court system and anti-

piracy actors who did not fill the normal organizational structure of a purely military tribunal.

         The Admiralty Court’s constant conflicts within debates of legality were symptoms of a

more significant issue with these new imperial outreaches, showcasing a disdain for common law

and average colonial authority as showcased by the chafing that occurred in the legal process and

the insult showcased by officers of the admiralty towards any colonial power. One of the earliest

cases pursued against piracy within the Admiralty Courts of the 18th century was that of Captain

Thomas Green. His early defense upon being accused of piracy off of the coast of India was to

attempt to gain trial in a venue within India due to claiming that the Admiralty courts were not

capable of fairly judging them, an attempt that was quickly rebuffed as the court put continued

with the justification that any crime within the maritime sphere of influence automatically

became part of the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Admiralty8 and was, therefore, the judges

were indeed competent enough to oversee this trial. Alongside these tremors that formed against

the overreach of the courts, there was also significant conflict against the navy itself as colonial

authority clashed with the officer corps of the admiralty. In the book Pirate Nests and the Rise of

the British Empire Mark G, Hannah gives an overview of the multiple conflicts inspired by this

overreach of the admiralty into the colonial way of life; Naval officers would snub gubernatorial

authority, incited various mob riots through their actions, and would harm the ability of the

8
Andrew Anderson, -1705, and Scotland. High Court Of Admiralty. The tryal of Captain Thomas Green
and his crew: pursued before the judge of the High Court of Admirality of Scotland, and the assessors
appointed by the lords of Privy Council, at the instance of Mr. Alexander Higgins, advocat, procurator-
fiscal to the said court: for piracy, robbery, & murder: faithfully extracted from the records of the said court,
and other authentick documents. Edinburgh: Printed by the heirs and successors of Andrew Anderson ...,
anno Dom, 1705. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/2005577241/.
colonists to deal with piracy themselves; in one case a Rear Admiral Benbow had halted an

expedition to remove pirates in the area claiming authority over anti-piracy operations within the

site.9 The conflicts that stemmed from Imperial overreach on a population who held high value

for their autonomy, and while the Admiralty courts would remain effective at destroying the

corruption that made heavy use of this autonomy for its purposes; It’d nonetheless alienate many

of the local population leaving the population of the court’s abroad tarnished.

The Admiralty Courts substantially affected their ability to prosecute originally untouchable

swashbucklers and scoundrels within the colonial territory. However, the process did leave much

to be desired and often led to a reliance on unbalanced testimony and was prone to error in many

cases. A significant set of issues was an overreliance on possibly biased or unreliable witnesses

to convict pirates, where people who claimed to have been witnesses to the prisoner’s piracy

would be brought up to testify against the pirate; this had a very negative effect as can be seen in

the case of Thomas Green, alleged pirate captain serving under the English East India trading

company. The background of green’s trial is that he was accused of attacking and looting a

Scottish East India Company ship off the coast of India10. It was alleged that Captain Green met

with Captain Drummond of the ship the Speedy Return led an assault upon the ship near Calcutta

under a flag of truce so that they could trade; after that, Green reportedly slaughtered the crew

and took the ship, and was rightly arrested by the Scottish Admiralty court and hung; However,

while this was the official ruling by the admiralty court, it was later shown that the reasoning

behind the trial was flawed in large part due to the status of the previously dead crew members

9
Pirate Nests and the Rise of the British Empire, 1570-1740, 242. Chapel Hill , NC: University of North
Carolina Press, 2015.
10
Andrew Anderson, -1705, and Scotland. High Court Of Admiralty. The tryal of Captain Thomas Green
and his crew: pursued before the judge of the High Court of Admirality of Scotland, and the assessors
appointed by the lords of Privy Council, at the instance of Mr. Alexander Higgins, advocat, procurator-
fiscal to the said court: for piracy, robbery, & murder: faithfully extracted from the records of the said court,
and other authentick documents.
being found alive, leading to the release of the remaining crew members, with Hanna describing

the trial as a sham. This showcased a truly bleak show of justice, as the only one capable of

giving testimony to this trial was a servant who was being mistreated by the ship’s crew during

the time of the alleged attack. This reliance on witness testimony did however offer salvation to

many prospective pirates in turn, with salvation from the gallows being granted to the alleged

pirate William Atkinson after witnesses testified that not only was Atkinson not armed while

among the crew of famed pirate William Fly, he, in fact, but also took immediate action with

some of his fellows to apprehend the captain when a large number of their fellow pirates split up

to chase another ship11. This reliance on testimony does not fit the image of an elite legal core

dedicated to the squashing of piracy across the empire, however, due to lack of other methods, it

is understandable as to why they utilized it so frequently, or in the case of some poor souls like

Captain Green, not enough.

         In this overview of the Admiralty courts in their evolution from the late 17th to early 18th

century, I have found that the Admiralty courts, while no doubt highly effective at routing out

local piratical sympathizers and ensuring suspected pirates were punished, were not a clear and

precise a system as many make it out to be. The courts were created to deal with a

comprehensive reaching problem in the late 17th century, widespread corruption in the legal

system of the colonies upheld by members of the upper class who, in turn, were trying to enforce

a practice that had been respected and defended as a source of wealth for their people. These

Admiralty courts fulfilled the needs of the British empire to suppress piracy and expand their

control over their colonies with arguably unwarranted resistance as the Royal government

11
Tyley, Samuel 1726. “The Tryals of Sixteen Persons for Piracy, &c. Four of Which Were Found Guilty,
and the Rest Acquitted. At a Special Court of Admiralty for the Tryal of Pirates, Held at Boston within the
Province of the Masachusetts-Bay in New-England, on Monday the Fourth Day of July, Anno Dom. 1726.
Pursuant to His Majesty’s Commission, Founded on an
attempted to rout out pirates. Those who would shelter them; however, these courts were instead

vulnerable to overzealousness in their war against piracy, combined with a court system that

relied heavily on unreliable sources and no jury to rely on, allowed for grievous miscarriages of

justice against those who were likely not guilty of the crimes they were accused. This paper

endeavors to show that the Admiralty courts faced many issues in how they overreached in legal

proceedings, had instances of failure in evaluating evidence, were subject to political pressure

and conflict, and were still intrinsically linked to the original colonial legal system. I believe this

lays the groundwork for an extensive research project into the entire workings of the admiralty

courts, the laws, and protocols it pioneered, and its evolution to its final stages during the zenith

of the British Empire and its connection to the American legal system.

Bibliography

Andrew Anderson, -1705, and Scotland. High Court Of Admiralty. The tryal of Captain Thomas Green and
his crew: pursued before the judge of the High Court of Admirality of Scotland, and the assessors
appointed by the lords of Privy Council, at the instance of Mr. Alexander Higgins, advocat, procurator-
fiscal to the said court: for piracy, robbery, & murder: faithfully extracted from the records of the said
court, and other authentick documents. Edinburgh: Printed by the heirs and successors of Andrew
Anderson ..., anno Dom, 1705. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/2005577241/.

Cowse Benj. -1718, Peter Force, and South Carolina. Court Of Vice-Admiralty. The tryals of Major
Stede Bonnet and other pirates, viz. Robert Tucker, Edward Robinson, Neal Paterson, William Scot,
Job Bayley, John-William Smith, Thomas Carman, John Thomas, William Morrison, William Livers alias
Evis, Samuel Booth, William Hewet, John Levit, William Eddy alias Nedy, Alexander Annand, George
Ross, George Dunkin, John Ridge, Matthew King, Daniel Perry, Henry Virgin, James Robbins, James
Mullet alias Millet, Thomas Price, John Lopez, Zachariah Long, James Wilson, John Brierly, and Robert
Boyd, who were all condemn'd for piracy: as also, the tryals of Thomas Nicols, Rowland Sharp,
Jonathan Clarke, and Thomas Gerrat for piracy, who were acquitted at the Admiralty Sessions held at
Charles-Town in the province of South Carolina, on Tuesday the 28th of October , and by several
adjournments continued to Wednesday the 12th of November following: to which is prefix'd an
account of the taking of the said Major Bonnet and the rest of the pirates. London: Printed for Benj.
Cowse, 1719. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/33008758/.

Gosse, Philip, 1879-1959. 1968. The History of Piracy. CH.35 New York: B. Franklin.

Hanna, Mark Pirate Nests and the Rise of the British Empire, 1570-1740, 242. Chapel Hill , NC: University

of North Carolina Press, 2015

"The trial of eight pirates at Boston" (Pamphlet, The National Archives, Kew, CO 5/867 Part 1

1718). Accessed [May 03, 2022].

http://www.colonialamerica.amdigital.co.uk/Documents/Details/CO_5_867_PART_1_003

Tyley, Samuel 1726. “The Tryals of Sixteen Persons for Piracy, &c. Four of Which Were Found Guilty,

and the Rest Acquitted. At a Special Court of Admiralty for the Tryal of Pirates, Held at Boston within the

Province of the Masachusetts-Bay in New-England, on Monday the Fourth Day of July, Anno Dom. 1726.

Pursuant to His Majesty’s Commission, Founded on an Act of Parliament, Made in the Eleventh and

Twelfth Years of the Reign of King William the Third, Intitled, An Act for the More Effectual Suppression of

Piracy. And Made Perpetual by an Act of the Sixth of King George.”

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;idno=N02376.0001.001
Rubin, Alfred P., and Alfred P. Rubin. Essay. In The Law of Piracy, 84. Newport, Rhode Island:

Naval War College Press, 1988.