Solon the reformer.

“although he could have become a tyrant by joining whichever side he chose he preferred to antagonise both sides by saving his native land and passing the best laws” An assessment of Solon’s work as a reformer, taking into account both the conditions prevailing at Athens in late 6^th century and the general reaction of the people to Solon’s laws.

 

When Kylon had set the scene. When his failed attempt at tyranny had been put down by Athenian notables and the troops of the city, his attempt and life ended. This cleared the way for Dracon and his law codes. Solon himself describes these laws. “Dracon had written these laws not in ink, but in blood.” (Plut. Solon 17.2). Which is an accurate summation of the harshness of these laws. These were widely seen as harsh, and disliked. This led the way to the next reformer. It is important to understand how Solon came into the picture. He was chosen as a mediator between two striving sides. He was seen as a good compromise by both sides, namely the notables and the citizens themselves. It is with this in mind I will argue that Solon was aware of his ability to become a tyrant if he so wished. But that ultimately, he preferred to do what was both good and just. Kylon’s attempt had failed perhaps because the plight of the citizens was either not as desperate as to place a tyrant in power, or simply dislike for a Megarian backed coup, as suggested by T. Buckley[1]. What is important however is that Solon was chosen to lead the reforms as someone who was genuinely concerned with the evils that he saw in the Athens of his day. So his concern for the opposing factions was therefore not his primary concern, his primary concern was to reform the wrongs he saw in his city.

            One of the clearest examples of his lack of concern for the interest of the opposing sides and his determination to do what was right, and not popular with everyone can be seen in his economic reforms. He entitles these reforms as seisactheia which translates as the shaking off of burdens, appropriate. Solon lays the heavy hand of blame for the political and economic crisis firmly with the wealthy and their greed and general disregard for the welfare of anyone outside of their rank and station namely the common citizenry of Athens. In his reforms he struck out at the wealthy, undermining their over lofty place in society. He cancelled the outstanding debts which many citizens were being held to, banned acquisition of loans with personal freedom as guarantee, arranged for the return of Athenians who had been sold abroad to pay these loans, and set a limit to the land owned by any individual, and prevented the export of Athenian agricultural products to prevent famine conditions for a time. (Solon in Ath. Pol. 12.4). When reading this information it strikes you. The relentlessness and all embracing aspects of his reforms, he was determined to root out the evils he saw in society. Also by passing these reforms, he was able to avoid the immediate threat of revolt. Furthermore, he took considerable influence and power away from the aristocrats of Athens and divided the land among the common citizenry, playing their emotions off each other. This calmed them and with danger averted, and peace in gentle control of the city, Solon turned his attention elsewhere.

            When he had avoided the immediate threat of danger, he saw the need to secure the long-term security of the state. It was at this point he turned his attention to the Athenian constitution. As Buckley describes, his political reforms were radical, the criterion for the holding of power moved from aristocratic status to the wealth a person held. Which opened up the system to all.[2] With Political power now being shared out on the basis of economic status, he was again antagonising both sides. The aristocrats, who had lost land and in this new system and power also as result of these reforms were suffering. The common citizenry were also in smaller numbers discontented with the new political structure as their land ownership was still less then that of higher classes, and therefore less influence over the city. Solon justifies these reforms as follows. “For I gave to the people as much privilege as was sufficient, neither removing nor increasing what was their right” (Solon fr. 5 in Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 12.1). This piece displays for us, how Solon continued to do what was right, and that even at this stage tyranny was never an option for him, this is a pivotal point. With reforming political structure, and the Athenian constitution he easily could have manipulated them both to make himself the Tyrant of Athens. However he did not. But Solon’s logic was solid, and most could find little fault with it. In its simplest terms, the more land you owned the more say you had in the running of the state, it was generally accepted to be fair, especially to the wealthy emerging merchant class of the day who had, had their ambitions for political power satisfied.

            His next turn up the steep hill of his reforms were his changes to the legal system, and which essentially superseded those of Dracon. As aforementioned he banned loans, with personal freedom of borrower as the guarantee. “Secondly, that it was possible for anyone who wanted to prosecute on behalf of those who were wronged; and thirdly, which is said to be the chief power of the people, there was appeal to the ‘dikasterion’”(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 9.1). This was a radical change to the legal system of Athens. Solon had established set certain crimes above others. These were those he felt affected not only personal individuals but also the welfare of the state. “For Solon also gave to all those who wanted it the right of appeal to the people’s court, even the in the cases which he had assigned to the magistrates for them to judge” (Plut. Solon. 18.3). In his legal reforms Solon now made the judges themselves accountable to the state and the citizenry for whatever legal decision they made, and heralded the beginning of Athenian citizen control of the legal system. As a lasting testament to his greatest achievements were his laws, recorded on stone, in public view for many centuries as a testament to his ideal of justice for all citizens, perhaps in his reforms he was least antagonistic to the two sides, as these epitomised his ideals for fairness.

            Solon at all times presented himself as the mediator, he makes reference to himself, that what he did he felt was right. “For what I said, I achieved with the gods’ help, But did nothing in vain, nor with the force of tyranny Did I choose to act, nor that the rich earth of our native land should be equally shared by base and good” (Ath. Pol. 12.3-5. This shows us that he was conscious of how easily he could have descended into tyranny, and how he resisted, doing what was right, and in this case, correctly distributing the land to those who deserved it. Solon’s economic reforms had a foresight to them, it set up a system with the potential to succeed, but if not nurtured correctly the system would again descend into pre-reform crisis. His laws, encouraged farmers to increase the production of valuable exports especially olive oil. Encouraged craftsmen into the city, establishing an industrial base, for employment who lived on less then subsistent agriculture. Solon can be then praised for the success of the future Athenian enterprise in the coming centuries.

            His political reforms had less of an impact then was desired, the class struggle which occurred in the first place and created a need for someone like Solon was never effectively solved as it still left unresolved issues between the sides. Society remained fractionalised, into wealthy aristocrats, wealthy non-nobles, and the common citizenry. It was a fear of tyranny that made the nobles turn towards someone like Solon as mediator, appointed from their ranks he was expected to preserve and maintain their interests, their fear of tyranny was greater then a slight diminution in their existing power base. The fact that in the second quarter of the sixth century society fractionalised, and ultimately led to the tyranny of Peisistratus, means that Solon’s reforms did not permeate to regional divisions. It was not until Cleisthenese reforms did these regional differences which still remained get the attention necessary to resolve the problem. As a reformer in this capacity he failed to prevent further civil unrest.

            As already discussed his legal reforms were unmatched and highly respected by his peers, and generations after, here his triumph was obvious, his laws, tackled all aspects of peoples life experiences. Ultimately he succeeded in preventing civil unrest in his time, but failed to prevent it in the future. He played all the factions off each other and made what he saw as the best choices for the state of Athens. He did not restrain the common citizenry nor did he stop before his reforms affected the upper echelons of society. His own success is best catalogued in his own words.

“While all those who are greater and more powerful

Should praise me and should make me their friend;’ for if another man, he says,

Had achieved this posistion:

“He would not have restrained the people or stopped

Before he had stirred up the milk and taken off the cream.

But I stood between them on neutral ground

Stood like a marker.” (Ath. Pol. 12.5.5-10)

---

Bibliography:

• Buckley, T. (1996), Aspects of Greek History 750 – 323 BC, A source based approach. Oxon.

• Plutarch’s Life of Solon in Scott-Kilvert, I. (1967), The rise and fall of Athens, London.
• Murray, O., (1993) Early Greece, 2^nd Edition, London.
• Rhodes, P.J., (1981) A Commentary on the Aristotelian ‘Athenaion Politeia’, Oxford.

The significance of piracy in European imperial expansion.

Privateers, corsairs, buccaneers, letter's of marque, and of course pirates, some of the many names given to these men of opportunity. The purpose and indeed origin of these different titles represent a number of things. For this essay it is necessary to divide the types of piracy as their individual significance on particular European expansion varies between the European powers.

During our time period the whole concept of piracy was just breaking free from being inherently associated with illegal acts of theft. The word privateering was at the time emerging from a period of obscurity and only beginning to achieve an official legal status. In 16^thcentury England the only way to legally seize a vessel was a general proclamation which included vessels of enemy states, the other way was a Letter of Reprisal, which in time would eventually evolve and become a letter of Mark, then to the universal term of Letter of Marque.

To be a Privateer means you are financially independent and can afford to provision your own vessel, you could be a group of merchants protecting shipping or harassing enemy shipping. You could also be a wealthy individual. All this means your targets are different to that of say a corsair who's quarry was usually that of slave taking and quick raids ashore followed by quicker escapes. A type of vessel typically found in the Mediterranean and along the African Coastline. Essentially it is a private vessel.¹ Your objective as a privateer would be twofold, firstly you need to balance your books and make sure your venture isn't costing you more then you gain. Secondly to make profit, and cause maximum disruption to enemy shipping or indeed competition, it wouldn't be a strange thing for an English Merchant to hire a French privateer to harass competitors for trade. But often was the case that early on in the beginnings of piracy government went as far to support and part finance privateers as a covert method of waging private wars on foreign countries. Many maritime countries recognised the opportunity that privateering presented as a mean of defending coasts and attacking enemy commerce, they would eventually legitimise this with Letter's of Marque.²

A Letter of Marque is a different class of vessel, in that its sanctioned by the State to operate as a “pirate” or private Man-o-War with the restriction only of not being able to attack vessels operating under the countries flag. At the time of our discussion however letter's of marque were not pre dominant it wasn't until the 1770's that they became official requirement. ³ Prior to this they were known mainly as a letter of Reprisal.⁴ Letter's of Marque are quiet similar to privateers in many way's but do have their subtle differences, enough to merit a difference in title. For instance a Letter of Marque was often issued to a captain quite low down the captains list and offered a commission to undertake special works on behalf of the Admiralty such as charting areas of particular interested or even spying. They were often seen as the precursor to a declaration of war, and a common part of naval warfare. Also as their original title suggests, a letter of reprisal, they were issued to merchants, often falsely, who had allegedly lost goods to a foreign vessel and the Admiralty Courts issued a Letter of Marque declaring that the bearer of this letter was allowed seize to the value stated and to recoup any and all losses sustained a the hands of the enemy merchant, this protected the bearer by elevating their situation to that of a diplomatic incident which could not be treated as piracy, that is unless open warfare had been declared, it mattered little then. It is important to note however that privateers required a Letter of Marque to operate, often however this was overlooked and were often issued posthumously as rewards for services rendered. These two titles can be generally classed under a heading of legal piracy. Then you have the illegal piracy.⁵

Corsairs were often considered illegal as they mainly operated out of African or Muslim states and were in the business of enslaving Europeans, but the French also had corsairs as well as the Spanish. Built for speed long distance and rough seas were not their forte. Corsairs were a class of ship which falls between the areas of legal and illegal piracy, in other words depending on which side of the sword you found yourself. As the Barbary States along the North coast of Africa were allies of English, more often then they were not, they were tolerated even though they did sometimes plunder English Shipping. As late as 1720 many merchant ships travelling any distance to the South or West had to carry more men simply as a deterrent or repellent to the large numbers of corsairs or pirates which operated in such areas.⁶

Illegal piracy generally has two titles, that of buccaneers and pirates. Buccaneers were men of opportunity and its a title confined to the area of Spanish American colonies. A title of French origin, it developed this new meaning as men of a buccaneering nature began to operate in the Caribbean and south American coast. ⁷ The buccaneers were originally a collection of mixed non Spaniards who lived in the uninhabited parts of the islands. Living predominantly like hunter gatherers. By the 1640's however they had taken up a more active role of raiding Spanish towns. Some buccaneers were also pirates but there is an important distinction between the two trades as most buccaneers were not seaman and were raiding mainly from another nearby position on land, they did however use ships as a means to get to towns and to transport their goods around the islands.⁸ Pirates then were simply an evolutionary progression of the buccaneers. As the deeds they engaged in became known as piracy they in turn became known as pirates, as the term pirates became a ubiquitous term for all those engaging in the illegal appropriation of goods not their own. This piracy, the predominant form, will be the main part of this discussion alongside legal piracy as this too was a major influence on the expansion of European colonies.

Piracy had been around for many centuries with records from Greek texts of Piracy as testimony to this from the day ships went to sea piracy has existed. But as this period doesn't have any bearing on our subject of discussion we shall pass over it. Our period can roughly be assigned to 1544 when Henry VIII issued a proclamation declaring that his citizens could now freely engage in piracy. Quickly the trade of the old enemy France was attacked but these new pirates also looked further afield, to Spain and her increasingly affluent seaborne trade, it proved a tempting opportunity for many, and the Spanish suffered badly.⁹ Since 1520 however English raiders had been making a modest impact on the Spanish Empire in the West Indies. The Scots and Huguenots were however by far superior and were definitely the ones with control in the area.

By the 1570's Spanish rule had been established in the Carribbean with many towns and settlements scattered around. The greatest catalyst to piracy in the new world was the Spanish Treasure Ships. It had been the object of nearly every pirates heart for many years. To attack, seize and bring a Spanish treasure ship home. However the Spanish flotilla system was an outstanding success overall and in three hundred years of operations lost only 2.6 per cent of its shipping 0.5per cent to enemy attacks.¹⁰ Seizing part of a cargo destined for a Spanish Treasure Ship on land was to be the method for Francis Drakes rise to fame and wealth. A Pirate who had succeeded where others had not, although what he stole was only a fraction of what was ultimately destined for the Flotilla it had a great moral effect on the Spaniards and indeed the English. It showed that the Spanish territory was not as strong as had been initially thought. This followed a hundred years during which time piracy became established in the new world as a legitimate alternative to open warfare. The precedent had been set by the newly knighted Sir Francis Drake. It came about that English Naval policy became inherently linked to that of piracy as those involved with the English Navy also had their own private interests afloat and used their influence to blur the distinction between piracy and crown operations which were occurring all over the the world from the western, eastern Atlantic coasts and African coasts.

Piracy was rampant all over the world now. With large numbers of French pirates preying on Spanish and Portuguese shipping on both sides of the Atlantic Spanish trade began to suffer. The English and Dutch too began to make their presence felt in the area of the Carribean while the French in the earlier part of the 17^th century had been mainly operating off the coast of Brazil. Social unrest was also the target for many of the early privateer expeditionary force. Attempting to destabilise Spanish power so their own interests could be served by providing for a lull in Spanish vigilance allowing the English and French to establish their colonies. Once these settlements were founded these privateers or pirates increasingly stood as the only obstacle between Spanish aggression and their safety. They quickly became the method to engage in secondary warfare locally. In other words private wars contained within the Caribbean. English and French tactics were to become friendly with the native population from whom they built up a substantial quantity of local geographical and maritime knowledge giving them advantages over the Spanish forces in the region. The years that followed would prove to be a baptism of fire for the new settlers in this new world.

For new English settlement times were difficult as Spanish policy at the time was hostile to anyone non Castilian in the area west of Santa Domingo. Even if they were at peace back in Europe with the power in question everyone was fair game in the Caribbean. N. A. M. Rodger's puts it best when referring to the Americas, “...all foreign ships were excluded by Spanish and Portuguese law, so that even if an English ship intended peaceful trade she had perforce to come armed and ready to fight...”¹¹ To the Spaniards in particular there was 'no peace beyond the line' as it were and regarded all attempted trade by foreign powers as potential smuggling, interloping, as well as much more which all fell under the heading of “piracy”.

For the recently founded English Colonies in New England, Virginia and even more recently Port Royal in Jamaica. The Spanish threat remained ever present and loomed over them. In the case of Port Royal, had it not been for piracy this particular English settlement would most certainly have succumb to the ever present and threatening Spanish presence. As in its early days it struggled to feed its citizens and had little prospect of turning a profit, and initially indeed promised to be more trouble then it was worth. However Port Royal enjoyed the favour of fortune. The buccaneers we earlier spoke of now began to use Port Royal as their base. Throughout the following years many governors would legitimise their activities by granting privateering licenses against the Spanish, and Port Royal flourished under this buccaneering activity. ¹²

An important point to be drawn here must be made obvious however, although the English Authorities legalised the obvious piracy and ignored that which was less so, it was however still piracy. Piracy after all by its definition is the illegal appropriation of goods not your own by means which were more often then not violent, fatal and brutal. The Spanish in particular felt that this so called legitimate piracy was still wholly and entirely illegal and more importantly in breach of the Treaty of Tordesillas. They saw the English Colonies grow fat off Spanish industry and burned with indignity and raged at the insolence. For the foundation of English Colonies in the Caribbean Piracy and Buccaneers were an essential part of of the defence and as relations remained cool in the 1660's the Spanish still indignantly held to their claim that all this new territory was theirs. The Buccaneers and Pirates as a result continued with their stance in relation to the Spanish, Lord Windsor puts it as follows in 1662, “unwillingly constrained to reduce them to a better understanding by the open and just practises of force.¹³ It is an entirely English attitude to the situation in the Caribbean, but it was not just the English who felt cheated at this so called Treaty of Tordesillas, increasingly the Dutch and the French were seen frequenting the Atlantic in search of what they saw also as fair game.

Although initially French and in particular Dutch presence in the Atlantic was as a predatory force. The Dutch in particular made their presence in the Atlantic felt to all the European powers. They attacked Spanish, Portuguese, English and French ships indiscriminately.¹⁴ This Dutch predation proved to be quite detrimental to English and French colonial expansion as the already limited and newly emerging seaborne commerce of the English and French suffered badly at their hands. This point is important because during the Anglo-Dutch war of 1674 the Dutch, although seizing the insignificant number of vessels which stood at three hundred and sixty a figure partially mentioned in a number of documents from the day, provoked a violent response in the Caribbean from the threatened colonists there.¹⁵ It was not merely the Anglo-Dutch war that provoked aggressive war in the Caribbean but the fact that the French and Dutch Navies as well as privateer forces were heavily active in the area. The English Buccaneers were active throughout the war and continuing long after with privateering a major part of the campaign in the West Indies due to lack of a sufficient crown navy in the area.¹⁶

By the 1660's European piracy was reaching its climactic golden age. With thousands of buccaneers and pirates based around the Caribbean archipelago rewards were initially very high but due to repeated and sustained attacks on Spanish territory in the area the rewards began steadily to become exhausted. By the 1670's piracy had entered a new phase. When in 1668 the Treaty of Madrid was signed under the supervision of Lord Sandwich piracy in the West Indies began a steady transition. Due to the conditions contained within the Treaty English colonies in the Caribbean would be recognised by the Spanish rendering a defence force in the area negligible on the scale it had been operating previously. Trade now too became regulated due to this recognition as now it would be allowed to continue, but it would now be confined to the limitations of the Treaty, in that they were not allowed trade in each others respective colonies, but otherwise had free access. There was also a further clause in the Treaty, a joint effort to suppress the pirates and buccaneers in the Caribbean.¹⁷ For their part the English did their best to suppress this piracy in a number of ways. However for the most part piracy continued regardless except now due to this new opposition pirates had a justification for targeting indiscriminately, the English shipping however escaped much of the pirates retribution and good relations continued to be shared after the treaty. So much so that in 1669 the Spanish government broke the Treaty of Madrid and a declaration of local warfare was again declared in Caribbean waters as the activities of local buccaneers were reaching new levels.¹⁸

An important figure who is worth a brief aide was the man known as Henry Morgan. He cuts an impressive figure who knew what he was about and from quite early on emerged as a leading figure in the buccaneering trade, indeed he rose to be their chief on the death of one Edward Mansfield. He had an auspicious rise in Jamaica quickly becoming the most important figure involved in buccaneering in the area. Indeed he became the local English Colonial Authorities most reliable personality and often connived with local government in the sack and raiding of Spanish territory.¹⁹ Which ultimately provoked the re-declaration of war by the Spaniards in in 1669. That same month the Spaniards announced their declaration of war Henry Morgan destroyed the Spanish Caribbean Squadron in Lake Maracaibo.²⁰During 1670's English and Spanish fighting broke out and Morgan was recruited into the English forces. He was pardoned for all previous crimes and went on to infamously destroy the Spanish city of Panama with huge repercussions for the Spanish interest in the Caribbean. He would later be arrested due to pressure the Spaniards were placing on Charles II. When brought to court in London he was freed and all charges dropped. He was then knighted and made deputy Governor of Jamaica. This is important because it is an example of English laissez faire attitude towards piracy and they went as far as rewarding these pirates.

In the 1680's Piracy began to move into a new phase. This was due to a number of causes, but mainly due to the exhausted supply of wealth in the West Indies. Interest in the area was beginning to move away from deeds of piracy and plantations of sugar cane and tobacco soon became the means to make ones fortune in the new world. This new colonial attitude encouraged the Pirates to disperse and find new wealth elsewhere. This they did with gusto. Levels of piracy elsewhere around the Atlantic and indeed the Pacific Ocean began to increase and reports began to trickle in of new sources of colonial wealth to be pillaged circulated. These bolder spirits who ventured out of the Caribbean went beyond the old limitations of buccaneering and became pirates truer to the sense of the word. Indiscriminately plundering international shipping at the time in all the seas and oceans of the world.²¹

Piracy had meant many things for many countries. In particular the Spaniards saw it as an invasion of their rights as per the Treaty of Tordesillas. From the beginnings of their imperial designs the Spaniards and indeed the Portuguese too faced much competition not on land but by sea. Although not yet official policy for the French, Dutch and English they were well aware of the wealth of the new world. Initially all three were content to prey on Iberian enterprise. It is strange because from a careful study of the period there is a very obvious turning of the tables going on during the 16^th and 17th centuries. Initially it was due to Spanish and Portuguese industry determination and enterprise which had got them to these new lands. It would also be this that would bring them to conquer and control such vast tracks of land which they would later exploit to a seamlessly endless supply of wealth. It would be this new wealthy which would turn the tables on the roles. This reliance on new world wealth meant that the Spanish and Portuguese turned away from other pursuits and began to rely heavily on the incoming wealth. The English and Dutch now took this opportunity to exploit this vulnerability selling everything imaginable to the outward looking Iberian peninsula resulting in a double dependency on the American gold and English and Dutch goods. This is worth noting because of this change in values Spanish and Portuguese interests in the Americas suffered as their economy became reliant on this annual wealth. As a piracy flourished around Spanish colonies which naturally followed as a result of the high level of trade which was necessary to fill the gaps in Spanish Industry. All this served to stunt their expansion in the Americas.

With a stagnated Spain the other European powers who had been trying to muscle in on the trade now found an opportunity. As Spanish military presence in the West Indies steadily declined the door was left open for French, English and Dutch settlers keen to get in on the act. Privateers, buccaneering and piracy would be the means to their ends. For these European powers it was an essential part of their effort in establishing themselves. Many of these countries openly approved of such efforts from their citizens. The English in particular went to great lengths to legitimatise their involvement in piracy. The levels of piracy would remain threateningly high for many years to come until a combined effort from the European powers was made to eradicate them once and for all. It would prove to be a determined effort on their part, and would ultimately be the ruin of these men of opportunity. They could not face a such a sustained, determined and more formidable force and hope to last long. Many merely turned themselves in and turned their hand to more legitimate pursuits and were more often then not found to be on the right side of the law although many still engaged secretly in less obvious and risky ventures. Piracy, even to this day, could not have been eliminated totally and many pockets remained around the world attacking and seizing shipping for as long as there was a market for what they could provide pirates would undoubtedly be a part of life at sea.

So in the cessation of this discussion of the significance of piracy to European imperial expansion a number of conclusions can be drawn. For the Spanish piracy would prove to be the bane to its imperial intentions anywhere in the Americas and indeed it was not until the 18^thcentury that an vestige of freedom from piracy was achieved. Pirates of course remained but in these later times would prove less effective generally in comparison to their predecessors. The Spanish were also those worse affected by this age of piracy as the most prominent and obvious target, Spain and her wealth suffered extensively. The cost of human life was also vast, the sacking of Panama alone had resulted in the slaughter of over ten thousand people. The English generally benefited more often then not at the hands of piracy. The main cause for complaint the English had was due to Spanish and Dutch privateers. With the French in particular only increasing their takings as the 18^th century rolled in. It was however having little impact on English Shipping as the increasing numbers of new ships were quickly replacing earlier lost trade. Many English settlements encouraged and indeed grew rich due to their handling of the piracy issue in the Caribbean choosing instead to benefit then suffer from. It would prove to be a winning formula as English presence in North America was ever increasing due their initially strong foothold in the Caribbean. The French and the Dutch were less fortunate losing many of their colonies in the new world to the buccaneers who were supported by English authority in the area. It would prove to be a sore point in the end for both countries as both lost substantial territory and wealth at the hands of English sanctioned privateers. So it can be seen that piracy and European expansion went hand in hand with one another. It did not however treat all fairly. Indeed had it not been for piracy the balance of Power in the Americas and indeed Europe might have been very different. Its significance can neither be underestimated nor fully understood without taking the above discussion into consideration and balancing it against the end results of a history of the birth of European Imperialism without initial aid from piracy.

Bibliography:

- Earle, Peter, Sailors, English Merchant Seamen 1650-1775, (London 1998)

- Exquemelin, A.O., The Buccaneers of America translated by Alexis Brown, (Great Britain 1969)

- Goodman, David, Spanish Naval Power, 1589-1665, (Cambridge 1997).

- Harding, Richard, Seapower and Naval Warfare 1650-1830, (London 1999)

- Mahan, A.T., The influence of seapower upon history, 1660-1783, ( New York 1987).

- Norwich, John Julius., The Middle Sea, A History of the Mediterranean. (Great Britain 2006)

- Padfield, Peter, Maritime Supremacy, and the opening of the western mind, (London 1999)

- Rodger, N.A.M., The Command of the Ocean, a Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815, (London 2004)

- Rodger, N.A.M., The Safeguard of the Sea, A Naval History of Britain, 660-1649 (London 1997)

- Starkey, David J., English Privateering Enterprise, (Exeter 1990)

Footnotes:

1Starkey, David J., English Privateering Enterprise, Introduction, pg 13

2Goodman, David, Spanish Naval Power, 1589-1665 Reconstruction and defeat, Introduction: The rise and fall of Spanish Naval power, pg 13

3Starkey, David J., English Privateering Enterprise, Chap. 2 Private Men-of-War and 'Letters of Marque'

4Rodger, N.A.M., The Safeguard of the Sea, A Naval History of Britain, 660-1649, The Flower of England's Garland: Operations pg 199

5Harding, Richard, Seapower and Naval Warfare 1650-1830, The establishment of the battlefleet.

6Earle, Peter, Sailors, English Merchant Seamen 1650-1775, The sailor and his World pg8

7Exquemelin, A.O., The Buccaneers of America translated by Alexis Brown, Introduction pg8

8Rodger, N.A.M., The Command of the Ocean, a Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815, Cromwell's hooves, operations 1654-1659, pg 24

9Rodger, N.A.M., The Safeguard of the Sea, A Naval History of Britain, 660-1649, Precarious Isolation, Operations 1523-1550, pg182

10Rodger, N.A.M., The Safeguard of the Sea, A Naval History of Britain, 660-1649, The Spanish War, Operations 1572-1587, pg 242

11Rodger, N.A.M., The Safeguard of the Sea, A Naval History of Britain, 660-1649, The Flower of England's Garland: Operations pg 200

12Rodger, N.A.M., The Command of the Ocean, a Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815, Cromwell's hooves, operations 1654-1659, pg 24

13Rodger, N.A.M., The Command of the Ocean, a Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815, Operations 1660-1668, Terrible, Obstinate and Bloody War, pg 79

14Harding, Richard, Seapower and Naval Warfare 1650-1830, The establishment of the battlefleet 1650 – 88 pg105

15Earle, Peter, Sailors, English Merchant Seamen 1650-1775, The perils of the sea, pg120

16Rodger, N.A.M., The Command of the Ocean, a Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815, Operations 1660-1668, Terrible, Obstinate and Bloody War, pg 79

17Exquemelin, A.O., The Buccaneers of America translated by Alexis Brown, Introduction pg14

18Rodger, N.A.M., The Command of the Ocean, a Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815, Operations 1660-1668, Terrible, Obstinate and Bloody War, pg 79

19Exquemelin, A.O., The Buccaneers of America translated by Alexis Brown, Introduction pg14

20Rodger, N.A.M., The Command of the Ocean, a Naval History of Britain, 1649-1815, Operations 1660-1668, Terrible, Obstinate and Bloody War, pg 79

21Earle, Peter, Sailors, English Merchant Seamen 1650-1775, The perils of the sea, pg118-119

"Remembrance of me in good works, that is how I should like to be remembered." - Lord Denning

Alfred Thompson Denning was born on the 23rd of January in 1899. He would become one of Britain's most well known and one could argue most influential judges of the last century. Born in Whitechurch in Hampshire, Denning was the fourth son in a large family. His father, Charles Denning, was a draper and his mother, Clara,  a school teacher. He led an uneventful childhood ultimately making his way to Magdalen College in Oxford beginning first with a 1st Class Degree in Mathematics, which after the initial year he suspended and entered the war and at the end of service was a 2nd Lieutenant in the 151st Field Company of the Royal Engineers. After a number of years teaching mathematics he returned to Magdalen College to study law. He was later made an honorary fellow for his achievements. It could be said that the straightforward, direct decisions for which Denning would later become famous can be attributed, in part, to his initial degree. Mathematics has a certain way of focusing the mind which must have reflected in his obvious intelligence and analytical mind. His judgements were often described as calculated, searching, and even once as unparalleled. He was known as "the people's judge" for his willingness to override precedent to do what he saw as justice and for his simply-worded judgments delivered in his then famous Hampshire Burr. 

 

In 1923 Denning was then called to the bar and led a distunguised career until when in 1938 he "took silk" and became a King's Council where he attracted the attention of the then Lord Chancellor John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon during the case of United Australia Ltd. Vs. Barclays Bank Ltd.  And was then Knighted and appointed a High Court Judge.

 

As the son of a draper, Lord Denning came from unusually humble beginnings for such a senior judge of his time. Especially at a time when the strong regional accent he possessed was seen as an obvious disqualification for the corridors of high judiciary, but when it was his skill, intelligence and obvious talent which took him to the High Court bench at only 45 years of age.

 

As a High Court Judge he became well known for his judgement, which frequently pushed the law in novel directions. Even in his early career his decision in the now world renowned High Trees Case brought him to the forefront of judicial reasoning for his innovative approach to legal reasoning when he developed the principle of equitable estoppel or promissory estoppel as applied to contractual law. However, Denning's doctrine as described above has been criticised by some legal academics, who argue that he had acted with little regard to the existing law of the country and that his ruling was a result of a resolution of his notion of justice and what is commonly conceived as justice. Many more have jumped to his defence claiming that his ruling had in fact many previous legal precedents. Drawn

 

 in particular from a number of 19 Century cases and decisions made by the House of Lords. Whichever side of the fence you sit an undeniable fact remains, Denning's Doctrine has been applied throughout the worlds common law systems.

 

Fours years later he was made Lord Justice of Appeal and as a Privy Councillor. Then after a distinguished posting and ruling on a number of landmark cases he was made a Law Lord, and took his seat in the house of Lords in 1957. In the House of Lords Denning frequently came into conflict with the other judges and often delivered dissenting opinions. He came into public conflict with Viscount Simonds when citing cases not mentioned by counsel or other courts and received a magisterial rebuke for his unorthodox behaviour. Later, however, on a point of law where Denning stated that a state cannot cite sovereign immunity as a defence when engaged in commerce overruling Viscounts Simonds initial ruling. Baron Denning would sit for five years in the House of Lords before stepping down to the more influential position of Master of the Rolls. Denning joked of his stepping down - "To most lawyers on the bench, the House of Lords is like Heaven, You want to get there someday -  but not while there is any life in you."

 

Denning requested to go back to the Court of Appeal in 1962, where he served until 1982 as the Master of the Rolls. Court of Appeal judges sit in threes, and the Lords in fives (or more), so it was suggested that to get his way in the Court of Appeal Denning only had to persuade one other judge whereas in the House of Lords it was at least two. The other 'benefit' of the Court of Appeal is that it hears more cases than the House of Lords, and so has a greater effect on the law. During his twenty years as Master of the Rolls, Denning could choose both which cases he heard, and the judges with whom he sat. Therefore, on most issues, he effectively had the last word; comparatively few cases went on to the House of Lords, Britain's highest court of law.

 

In 1963, Denning was appointed by then Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to look into the role of the police and security services in the Profumo affair. However, much of his report was devoted to an investigation of Stephen Ward, a man whom Denning alleged had catered for the "perverted tastes" of others. However, Ward was a relatively minor player in the affair. His only relation to it was in introducing the then Secretary of State for War John Profumo to Christine Keeler, with whom Profumo subsequently became intimately involved. When the scandal broke Lord Denning was asked to inquire into security aspects of the affair. He sat alone and in private, even sending the women shorthand-writers out because he thought some of the evidence was so disgusting. As Lord Denning himself remarked, his report was a best-seller. More than 100,000 people bought copies. It also put him firmly in the public eye. In an age when judges shunned publicity, Lord Denning became the one judicial figure everybody had heard of.                                                

Even in rather mundane cases, Denning was able to see matters from a realistic or as some put it a common-sense perspective, often that of the man-on-the-street, which gave his opinions a "real-world" application. For instance, in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, the plaintiff drove to the defendant's car park and was given a ticket by an automatic machine, which stated that it was issued subject to conditions displayed inside the car park. The conditions inside the car park were in small print, and one of them excluded liability for damages to vehicles or injury to customers. The plaintiff was injured due partly to the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff was not held to be bound by the notice displayed inside the premises, as its existence was not made aware to the defendant prior to paying. Denning also stated that this particular clause was so wide and destructive of rights that, "In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling."

Lord Denning was more than simply a learned and gifted jurist. His judgments were sharp, pithy and full of mischief. Perhaps his most famous case was Miller v. Jackson or as it is far better known, The Cricket Case, with its well-known lyrical opening to Lord Denning's judgment, the first paragraph of which reads:

“In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.”         

    Notwithstanding the practical progression of the law reflected in Denning's decisions, his judicial activism has led to severe criticism in some quarters, largely on the basis that such refusal to follow precedent undermined the rule of law and produced uncertainty in the legal system. Although he was the last serving British judge not bound by a mandatory retirement age, Denning retired in 1982. He had written a book that year entitled What Next in the Law. In it, he seemed to suggest some members of the black community were unsuitable to serve on juries, and that immigrant groups may have had different moral standards to native Englishmen. His remarks followed a trial over the St Pauls riot in Bristol. Two jurors on the case threatened to sue him. Lord Denning was forced to back down and avoided further conflict by apologising. He then announced he would be retiring. Later editions of the book asserted Denning's commitment to representative juries and diversity.

But in seeking justice Lord Denning, considered himself entitled to get round - or even change - any rule of law that stood in his way. There was no need to wait for legislation. "Parliament does it too late," he argued. "It may take years and years before a statute can be passed to amend a bad law. "The judge ... should make the law correspond with the justice that the case requires." But Lord Denning's critics said his willingness to overturn decided cases made for uncertainty in the law. Although he saw himself as champion of the underdog - the ordinary citizen, the consumer, the deserted wife - he supported employers against trade unions, education authorities against students, and the Home Office against immigrants. Even in retirement he remained busy. He continued writing, including the books Landmarks in Law and Leaves from my Library.

But his comments in retirement added nothing to his reputation. Another apology followed his claim that the Guildford Four, acquitted on appeal after being jailed for an IRA bombing, were probably guilty of murder all along.

Lord Denning's prejudices demonstrated the risks of letting one man dispense justice. But they should not detract from a judicial career unique in our time. Tom Denning stood firm for freedom under the law, a phrase he coined. His whole life was devoted to justice. His creativity was immense and his legacy will last for as long as the law itself. His mind remained razor sharp despite old age. And as his epitaph he chose: "Remembrance of me in good works, that is how I should like to be remembered."

But in saying all this his legacy cannot be ignore. Lord Denning's approach was considered by some to be ground-breaking and he was not afraid to reconsider or depart from an established precedent. Creatively using his flexible approach and eloquent prose he shaped appellate law whilst following his primary interest: justice. He delivered over 2000 reported judgments and gave more lectures than any other judge. He became immensely popular among lawyers for his judgments, which often bent the law into interesting directions, and his unusual prose style in giving judgment in a broad Hampshire accent.

Many of Denning's persistent and resilient efforts to change the law were ultimately vindicated by the passage of time. In particular, he is famous for his inventive efforts in contract, negligence and the contentious balance between equity and common law. He tried to establish an abandoned wives' equity, protecting the rights of married women: He was initially disregarded, perhaps embarrassingly, but was only years later respectfully vindicated by Parliament in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. He also affirmatively opposed the use of small print exemption clauses, negligent mis-statements and was a pro-active mediator in situations of inequality of bargaining power. The well-respected scholar was also not afraid of invoking liability on established public authorities and he was, all the while, a pioneer and huge influence in the new-age world of promissory estoppel and the creative art of contractual interpretation

Admiral of the Fleet John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent GCB PC RN

Many of my friends have often asked of me what, or rather who, is the Earl of St. Vincent that frequents my online persona and email addresses. Put simply he is Sir John Jervis, Knight Grand  Cross of the Order of Bath, Admiral of the Fleet, and the First Earl of St. Vincent, and member of Historic Members Privy Council. Your right, that isn't quite as simply put as you may have expected. But in my opinion it is a list of titles which reflects the character of the man, once described as saint, once as tyrant. 

Upon inspection he holds the bearing of a man of great arrogance and contempt, and of this I would be inclined to agree but only with the knowledge of his accomplishment can a true interpretation be made. It also shows a thou

ghtfulness not often shared by many naval portraits of the great leaders.

For me Lord St. Vincent will remain my greatest hero of the historical past. A titan amongst his counterparts such as Sir George Rodney, Lord Hood and Lord Melville. As the First Lord of the Admiralty he oversaw unparalleled reforms in the Royal Navy, the likes of which would not be seen again until Lord Fisher took the helm of the Admiralty in the early 20th Century nearly one hundred years later. The success of these reforms cannot be underestimated. It is commonly thought that one infamous Lord Nelson was the reason the British Empire came out the victor in the twenty year struggle with first revolutionary then Napoleonic France, by defeating and therefore removing the naval threat of invasion at Trafalgar, it was not. Another commonly unknown fact is that Lord Nelson was the protégé of Lord St. Vincent. One could argue that Lord Nelson owed this selfless man everything, including his legacy. 

It was during Lord St. Vincent's reign as the First Lord of the Admiralty that the blundering bureaucracy and festering corruption that was the naval dockyards of the empire came under intense scrutiny. Lord St. Vincent exposed massive corruption within the naval dockyard systems that had been delaying the efficiency and risking the safety 

of the ships of the Royal Navy's fleets at sea. Shoddy workmanship, immoral pursers and corruption at every level is what faced Lord St. Vincent and he methodically and relentlessly went about his reform of the naval dockyards, and without going into too much detail created a massive public scandal in his exposure of high ranking officials involved in the 

corruption. It was a breath of fresh air sweeping through the worlds largest and wealthiest organisations in the world. Nelson is credited with his victory at Trafalgar. Had it not been for Lord St. Vincents patronage of this headstrong often arrogant officer Nelson may not have been at Trafalgar. But more importantly had it not been for Lord St. Vincents reforms the Royal Navy would not have been ready for the combined Franco-Spanish Fleets that met them at Trafalgar. 

Lord St. Vincents reforms left his public reputation in tatters in many ways, he had his friends and supporters of course. But his enemies were vocal in their condemnation the

n his friends were and until his death he was a character often viewed with contempt, but only the men at sea truly appreciated the changes he made. The ultimate testament to his reforms was that his personal flagship the HMS Victory, over 27 years old at the time,  was infighting condition when Lord Nelson sailed her in the line of battle at Trafalgar. He allowed Nelson to exercise his tactical brilliance, he also prevented Napoleon from invading the British isles, his is a life of his duty, as he saw it it, before everything else, in defence of his country and for the improvement of the Royal Navy. 

Why an officer and a gentleman?

When setting out to write this particular blog I faced two major problems, either portraying myself in such a light as to somehow come across as being utterly insane, self centered or that I would seem a tad pedantic. However, these are not the aims of this post. Or rather I'll endeavour to not to allow them to become the aims.

Essentially what I'm trying to get across is that modern society lacks many things, namely honour and chivalrous behavior. Both old an antiquated ways of thinking one would assume and in many respects they are. But the principles and morals they represent can have a modern, and indeed relevant, application to modern society.

For example the word honour, represents a sense of high respect, esteem, adherence to what is right or to a good standard of conduct these are not only applicaple to ones self which is important but in their application to others it creates a sense of dignity and mutual respect from both parties. Sadly this human dignity and mutual respect is often lost in the fast paced modern society we live in. 

I have always toyed with the idea of honourable conduct. The many conclusions I've come up with have had many implications for me, namely that by no stretch of the imagination am I an honourable man. I hold myself by such concepts yes, or certainly I try to. Ultimately the good intentions rarely translate into deeds. Until the removal of the Royal Navy as a potential career option I would have considered that a relatively selfless act, honourable in many ways. I have also done a tremendous amount at a local level to such a point my health suffered a great deal. But I ultimately felt that what I was doing was right, and that was enough for me and I was happy.

But once a friend attributed a quote from the eminent Roman senator Cicero to me, which ultimately defines me as person - "In men of the highest character and noblest genius there is to be found an insatiable desire for honour, command, power, and glory." Initial reading of such a quotation leaves one a little critical, sceptical certainly but upon closer inspection I have always deemed it to be a criticism, unintentional on the part of my friend I imagine, but a criticism none the less. It shows that despite an illusion of intelligence and a noble character there remains a thirst for honour, command, power and of glory. These are things I unashamedly want out of life for myself, at whatever cost. So despite my facade of honour I'm not better then much of this modern society. Did not Kipling say  - "Nature left a tincture in every mans blood, that he would be a tyrant if he could.". Not a truer word may have been spoken, ultimately I am courteous, polite and mannerly in my social dealings with people. I know how to behave and what to say in the lofty circles I find myself frequenting. I know who to use and when to use them to advance personal interest, I am that person you love to hate. But know this there is a distinct possibility I also hate you... but you might also be my greatest friend, that is the fickle nature of the society we live in, and why I believe there are very few left in the world with a true sense of honour.

For clarity, I do not count myself among them.