Daniel

There's an entry for the ''Whydah Gally'' (spelled ''Whidaw Gally'' in the database). Most of the details are already on line on Wikipedia or the Whydah Project homepage, and the entry matches up well with those sources: 300 tons, 18 guns, captained by Lawrence Prince at time of capture.

But here are some additional details I don't see in the obvious Internet sources. The Whydah was owned by Roberts George (misprint for George Roberts?), and sailed from London on her last mission. She loaded slaves at Whydah (as you'd expect from her name), and had already unloaded them at Jamaica at some time in 1716. Thus, when Bellamy captured her in late February, 1717, it would have been at least two months after her arrival at Jamaica. Unfortunately, there is no data about the slaves she had been carrying. The database gives a "standardized tonnage for the ''Whydah'' of 343. This is an effort the researchers made to render the various tonnage measures uniform, although they admit it may not be reliable. For pre-1786 voyages, they say the standardized tonnage is an attempt to measure the registered tons.

The database also ahs an entry for the ''Concorde'', which of course became Blackbeard's ''Queen Anne's Revenge'', but I see nothing on it that is not already available at qaronline.org, especially in the excellent essay "A Brief history of Blackbeard & Queen Anne's Revenge." (61 slaves had died in the crossing before Blackbeard seized the ''Concorde'', 31 in her voyage the previous year, and 55 on her 1713 run. Even considering his actions at Charleston and Ocracoke, Blackbeard did humanity a favor by taking that ship).

Just found this: there is an entry in the database for the Onslow's last voyage before Bartholomew Roberts seized her. According to their research, the ''Onslow'' was a South Sea Company ship, not a Royal Africa Company vessel as Johnson's ''General History of the Pyrates'' has it, although Johnson is one of their sources. They give her tonnage as 360, or 268 "standardized tonnage," and suggest she was frigate-built with 26 guns (the tonnage figure differs from Richard Sanders' ''If a Pirate I Must Be'', p. 186). She had left London on June 13, 1721, with a crew of 50 men.

Sources listed are as follows:

CO390/7: The National Archives (Kew, UK) Colonial Office

CO388/25,376,379: The National Archives (Kew, UK) Colonial Office

T70/922,92-7: The National Archives (Kew, UK) Treasury

CO390/7: The National Archives (Kew, UK) Colonial Office

T70/1225,23: The National Archives (Kew, UK) Treasury

HCA1/99,pt3,CapeCoastCastle: The National Archives (Kew, UK) High Court of Admiralty

T70/4,23-4: The National Archives (Kew, UK) Treasury

Defoe,228,229,252: Defoe, Daniel, History of the Pirates (London, [1724] 1814).

Pirate scholars, ahoy!

When you have a chance, go over to http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/database/search.faces. Click on "General Variables," then on "Voyage Outcome," then on "Particular Outcome of Voyage." Then on "Current Query," click "Select," scroll down, and check off all the pirate subcategories; I suggest the four that start "Captured by pirates or privateers," then the ones that say "Captured by pirates - slaves sold in the Americas by another ship," "Some slaves removed by pirates/privateers," "Either shipwrecked or captured by pirates before slaves taken aboard," and "Captured by Algerian pirates." Then click "search."

You will come up with names and dates for 137 slave ships that were captured by pirates or privateers from 1567 to 1830, often showing other data like the victim's tonnage, number of guns, type of rig or hull, although unfortunately there is no similar data on the pirate vessels. Most importantly, a comprehensive list of sources for each capture appears at the bottom of every entry.

If you then go over to "Timeline," and change the variable from the "number of captives disembarked" to "total voyages," you'll see a timeline of pirate attacks on slave ships. 1719 is far and away the peak year, with 13 ships captured by pirates or privateers, with a grand total of 33 taken from 1717 to 1723.

At least as measured by its effect on the slave ships, 1717 to 1723 is the true Golden Age of Piracy. There are other noticeable outbursts of up to 5 ships captured in a year clustered around 1747, 1757, 1818 and 1828. These are presumably associated with privateering in the War of the Austrian Succession (jocularly known as the War of Jenkins' Ear in Britain), the Seven Years' War, and the Latin American wars of independence. Pirates and privateers evidently took a much lesser toll on the slave ships during 1689-97 (War of the Grand Alliance and the Pirate Round): just 5 documented captures from 1689 to 1696. And from 1660-1680, the glory years of Port Royal and Tortuga, not one of the 671 known slaving voyages in the database fell victim to a pirate or privateer.

I don't know how complete the database is, but the amount of data is astounding: almost 35,000 documented slaving voyages. At some point I'd like to cross-reference with Johnson and see how many of the captures he documents are referred to in the database. Dig in, pirate historians, and let the pirate world know what you find!

I want to write an article about the history of the cutlass, or the hanger, as the two seem to be synonymous. The Old Bailey proceedings on line are great for learning about criminal use of the cutlass (mainly on land) from the 1680s onward, but I think the cutlass is at least a hundred years older than that, and I'd like to have more info about earlier cutlasses.

Also, I'd really like to have more info about who made cutlasses and how. Somewhere there must be some records of the Navy Board ordering cutlasses and paying the manufacturers (or maybe a middleman) to get them. Anybody know where to look?

The second most famous pirate flag, after the skull and crossbones, is the bloody flag or pavillon nomme sansquartier. It's well known that it was used by pirates and privateers, but we don't normally associate it with colliers.

Well, I stumbled across the bloody flag in the Proceedings of the Old Bailey (indispensable for any GAoP researcher). In 1768, some collier captains who were sick of waiting for London's dockside coal-heavers to unload their ships ordered their sailors to take the coal ashore themselves. The coal-heavers, who saw their bread and butter being taken away, took rather unkindly to this, and threatened to murder the sailors.

At least one of the collier captains responded by hoisting a red "bloody flag" to his masthead, ostensibly as a signal for the sailors to gather and resist the coal-heavers. The sailors referred to it as the "flag of defiance" as well as the "bloody flag."

For all their fearsome flag, things didn't go very well for the sailors, who were unarmed in the face of the coal-heavers' cutlasses. The coal-heavers tricked some of the sailors ashore, murdered one, and beat several of the others black and blue.

Great episode! Loved it!

I am completely shocked at the outcome of the splinter test. All those splinters, but almost no penetration. And even less splinterage with higher muzzle velocity. Amazing! Many contemporary sources talk about the sailors' fear of splinters, (notably The Seaman's Vade Mecum and Defensive War by Sea), but apparently the danger was much overhyped.

One mistake they made was to test only with pine and oak. In England, oak was legally reserved for the Royal Navy (Joseph Jobe, ed., The Great Age of Sail, p. 75). The popular Jamaica sloop's hull was made of red cedar (Angus Konstam, Pirates: 1660-1730, p. 45). Still, I would guess they'd have got much the same results with cedar as with the other woods.

As for the eyepatch test, I'd say they proved pretty well that it would have worked as advertised to preserve night vision. Of course, that's completely different from proving that pirates ever actually did such a thing. My main reaction, though, is: I wanna do that obstacle course! I wanna, I wanna, I wanna!

It was absolute genius to test the laundry on pitch-stained clothing. Absolutely, working with all those pitch-smeared lines would have got pitch all over your clothes. And amazingly, that dehydrated urine actually would have worked (again, no proof that pirates actually knew that or did that, though). Nix on the orange stains, though. Oranges wouldn't have kept for a week on board a pirate ship. Even lime juice wasn't used until after GAoP.

The sliding down the sail bit was great fun to watch too. I'm amazed they came as close to pulling it off as they did.

So, what other questions should we ask Mythbusters about? How about, can you actually throw a line and grapple onto a yard and swing onto somebody's ship with it? I'd like to see it done. Or how about experimental testing on "Red sky at night, sailor's delight, red sky at morning, sailors take warning"? Or as long as they're brutalizing pig carcasses, is it actually possible to run somebody through with a cutlass (i.e. in the front, out the back) one-handed? Can a person actually float to shore by holding on to two wine casks, as Bartholomeo Portugues reputedly did?

But as for "fancy" clothing... I am not seeing it. I peeled off all the jackets clothes, pants, and breeches from the list, and here is what we get:

1 coat (worn)

1 doublet (worn)

2 pairs breeches (worn)

2 Jasto Corps (justaucorps)

4 stuffe coats for men

2 stuffe vests for boys

2 boys' little coats

2 children's coats

2 scarlet parragon (double camlet) coats

2 children's parragon coats

1 boy's coat

5 coats and breeches for men

2 men's cloaks

From Sea chests

1 demity waist coat

1 old shirt

1 coat

1 pair breeches

1 pair breeches, waistcoat and jacket

1 waistcoat and jacket more

6 men's coats

1 stuffe pair breeches and doublet

3 pairs cloth breeches

1 old doublet

1 pair fustian breeches

Now I am not seeing anything here that shouts (or even whispers) fancy or middle class clothing. It all appears to be the day to day kinds of clothing that we would expects denizens of the late 17th century to have.

I was reading Samuel Pepys' diary and stumbled across relevant evidence that those four double camlet coats were indeed rich clothing, possibly richer than the two justaucorps.

This morning came home my fine Camlett cloak,1 with gold buttons, and a silk suit, which cost me much money, and I pray God to make me able to pay for it.

- - Diary of Samuel Pepys, 1 July 1660.

The annotation mentions that "Camlet was a mixed stuff of wool and silk. It was very expensive, and later Pepys gave 24l. for a suit. (See June 1st, 1664.) " 24 pounds wasn't chump change.

At the very least, a pirate can justify wearing a rich camlet coat, though doubtless such wear would have been reserved for shore visits.

Rhett's job as a South Carolina official could be dangerous; according to this petition, he got shot while doing it.

South Carolina

Filed ye Octob. the 22d . . .

Robert Daniell of Berkley County Esq.was attached to answer William Rhett of Charles Town in the county aforesaid Esq. and Surveyor & Comptroller of His Majesties sufforms [sic] in the said Province in a Plea  Therefore the said Robert Daniell of Charles Town aforesaid in the province aforesaid and in the Jurisdiction of this Court with Force & Arms & on him the said William Rhett (being then & there in the due & faithfull [execution?] of his Office aforesaid) an Assault did make & to him the said William Rhett with a sertain Gunn loaded with a Slugg or Bullett a Wound of the depth of . . . Inches under his left-pap did give & impose (of which said Wound so given as aforesaid the said William Rhett doth now languish & of his life it is greatly despaired) and other Enormities to him did do to the great damage of him the said William & against the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King that now is &c.  And wherefore the said William by Benjamin Whitaker his Attorney complains that the aforesd. Robert Daniell of Charles Town aforesd. in the province & County aforesd.  & within the Jurisdiction aforesaid on the fourth day of July in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred & Sixteen with Force & Arms and upon him the sd. William (being then & there in the due & faithfull [execution?] of his Office aforesd.) an Assault did make & to him the sd. William with a sertain Gunn loaded with a sertain Slugg or Bullett a Wound of the Depth of four Inches under his left pap did give & impose (of which sd. wound so given as aforesd. the said William Rhett did, hitherto hath, & now doth languish so that of his life it is greatly dispaired) & other Enormities to him the said William did then and there bring to the great damage of him the said William & against the peace of our said Sovereign Lord the King that now is  Wherefore he says he is the worse & hath Damages to the value of ffive thousand pounds Currant mony And therefore brings his Suite &c.

Whitaker & Lush

I'm not sure what happened to this case. A warrant was issued for Daniell, the alleged shooter, to be arrested and brought to trial. Daniell defended the case through a lawyer named William Blakeney. Then the record ends. At a wild guess, some settlement was reached and Rhett dropped the case.

I thank you for the interest Coastie, but I had better not go posting the article as yet, as the history magazines I'm dealing with have websites and may want to buy first world electronic rights. As for e-mailing, let me consider for a little while.

Honestly, my article has very little new in it. Other than the stuff I've posted here, which is cool but basically tangential to Bonnet's last battle (I only have one paragraph on Fayrer Hall in the finished article), my article's only original contributions to world scholarship are the tonnage of the Sea Nymph (50 tons, assuming the Sea Nymph later bought by Woodes Rogers is the same one that fought in the battle), and disentangling some of Bonnet's motives for returning to piracy. Ignatius Pell, Bonnet's boatswain, made it clear that up to the very day of the battle of Cape Fear River Bonnet still intended to go privateering in the Caribbean as soon as hurricane season ended, and thus his piracy was clearly intended simply to tide him and his crew over the summer after Blackbeard left them so unexpectedly short of provisions and ready cash.

I also contribute a little to dispelling the notion, once popular, that Rhett was a novice at naval warfare, but that job has largely already been done by Lindley Butler.

Here's the petition where Fayrer Hall sues William Rhett for slandering him as a pirate. It's extremely lengthy, and inexplicably repetitive, so I've taken the liberty of bolding the section where Rhett lays his charges.

South Carolina

William Rhett Esq. [text is smudged] Fayrer Hall, Gentleman, a plea of trespass on the Case & whereupon the said Fayrer by Robert Hume his attorney with that whereas the said Fayrer a true faithfull honest and loyal Subject of our Sovereign Lord the King now is and a true faithfull honest and loyal Subject of our Sovereign Lord the King that now is and of our late Sovereign Lady Queen Anne and of our late Sovereign Lord King William and our late Sovereign Lady Queen Mary from the time of his nativity hath hitherto carried and behaved himself and of good name family behaviour and Conversation on well among his Neighbours and the rest of the faithfull Subjects of the aforesaid Sovereign Lord the King that now is and of the lates Sovereign King and Queens to whom the said Fayrer Hall was with hereon and with whom he kept Company by all the time aforesaid was Esteemed and reported and without any blott of falsity theft Piracy stealing deceipt cheating or any other fault or hurtfull Crime or any Suspition of any of these hitherto contained and . . . hath remained and continued by reason whereof the said Fayrer deservedly got and Obtained the great Credit love and benevolence of his Neighbours and others the faithfull Subjects of our said Sovereign Lord the King that now is and of the aforesaid late King and Queens Nevertheless the aforesaid William not being ignorant of the Premises but designing and Malitiously intending the said Fayrer unjustly to disturb and molest and the good name reputation Credit and fame of him the said Fayrer to distract blacken Spoile and totally destroy and to bring and induce him the said Fayrer into the ignominy hatred and contempt of all the faithfull subjects of our said Lord the King and also in loss of his life as a Pirate and forfeiture of all his goods and Chattells lands and tenements at Charles Town in Berkley County in South Carolina and within the Jurisdiction of this Court the fifteenth day of October Anno Dom one thousand seven hundred twenty having discourse with diverse honest and faithfull Subjects of our said Sovereign Lord the King of and concerning him the said Fayrer then and there in the presence and hearing of many faithfull and honest subjects of our said Lord the King openly and publickly asserted said and Published these false maligned and Scandalous words following [that the aforesaid William would prove the aforesaid Fayrer a Pirate and afterwards the aforesaid William the day Year and place aforesaid said and Published these false and Scandalous words following that he the said William could prove the said Fayrer to be a Pirate  by reason of . . . said over all relations and Publications of the Lugned [?] false and Scandalous words aforesaid the said Fayrer is not only brought into danger of being indicted of felony and Piracy but also hurt and damaged in his good name Credit and reputation and brought into great Scandall disgrace hatred and ignominy so that . . . faithfull and honest Subjects of our said Lord the King being familiar Neighbours and friends of the said Fayrer who before that time used to have commerce Company familiarity and dealings with the said Fayrer refuse to have any further and have withdrawn themselves from the Company of the said Fayrer  Wherefore herewith that he is the worse and hath Damages sustained to the Value of five thousand pounds current money and thereupon he brings his Suite.

Hume.  Juor.

I swear, pleading style in the early 18th century must have been to write everything as one long run-on sentence. I suppose that makes it harder for the judge to interrupt you if you're reading the blasted thing in open court.

Yes, the Darien scheme is what you're looking for.

Bartholomew Roberts was Welsh.

I can't believe I forgot that Kidd was Scottish, originally from Greenock. I just usually think of him as a New Yorker, since he lived there so long.

Cordingly estimates that about 10% of Golden Age pirates were Scots. The transcript of Stede Bonnet's trial shows four Scots out of 29 defendants: Neal Paterson, Willliam Scot, and George Dunkin, all from Aberdeen, and Bonnet's gunner George Ross, from Glasgow. All four were convicted of piracy and sentenced to death.

Note that not all Scots pirates would have been Highlanders; the Scottish Lowlands were much more populous, after all.

And here's the part where Hall finally gets his money, albeit a heck of a lot less than he was asking for. Note that almost half the award is court costs: fair wages was just forty-four pounds and change.

I have no clue who the "aforesaid Edward" is or what is meant by "merger."

May Court, 1719

Judgment entered May 26, 1719.  John Walles, C.L. 6 2.

On which Day before Nicholas Trott Esq. & Chief Justice came on the aforesd Fayrer Hall by Richard Allein his Attorney afores. & the Marshal afores. having made the return of the Writt of January aforesaid and the Jurors thereby legally . . . to the . . . aforesaid to Inquire in afores. hearing found that this aforesd. Fayrer has Sustained Damages on account of the . . . before his Costs and Charges About his Suit in this behalf expended to Forty four pounds & Six[teen?] . . .  Therefore it is Considered that the afores. Fayrer do recover against the aforesaid Richard Tookerman his Damages So Found by the Jurors aforesaid and also Thirty [nine?] pounds and 5 shillings Five [pence?].for his Costs and charges about his Suit in this behalf expended to the said Fayrer have . . . at his request Adjudged which Damages do amount in the whole to Eighty Four pounds two shillings & Eleven pence and the aforesd. Edward in merger.

Recorded in the Book of the records No. 2, p. 182.

Longarm, I got these by e-mail order from the South Carolina state archives (which are in Charleston, I think). The archives are catalogued on line, and I browsed and found the litigation involving Fayrer Hall, then ordered it for the article I was doing (now completed and submitted) on Stede Bonnet's last battle. These are copies from microfilm.

The previous document, for all its legalese, was fairly simple: Fayrer Hall was suing Richard Tookerman for his wages as master of the Sea Nymph.

Below is the judgment in Hall's favor. This is what we would today call a default judgment; Tookerman didn't answer the petition, so Trott pretty well automatically finds in Hall's favor. But Trott won't award any money without a jury trial, so a jury will be summoned to hear the evidence for Hall's damages.

Oddly, though the document is handwritten, it is clearly a form, written out in advance with the names of Hall, Tookerman, and Allein written in the blank spots left for them, in a different hand from the rest of the document.

February Court 1718

Judgment signed the 3d. of March 1718/9*

And now at this Day to witt the Second Tuesday of this instant February to which Day the aforesaid Richard Tookerman had lom as to answer and Plead to the Declaration aforesaid before Nicholas Trott Esq. came the aforesaid Fayrer Hall by Richard Allein his Atturny aforesaid and Demand that the aforesaid Richard Tookerman to his Declaration aforesaid may answer and the aforesaid Richard Tookerman Tho Solemnly Exacted not appearing nor Saying any thing in Barr or preclusion of the Action aforesaid of the aforesaid Fayrer Hall by which the aforesaid Fayrer Hall remain against him undefended by Reason whereof the said Fayrer Hall ought to Recover against the said Richard Tookerman his Damages aforesaid which he has Sustained on Account of the Premises But  because it is Unknown to the Court what Damages the said Fayrer Hall has Sustained in this Behalf Therefore it is Commanded the Marshal of the said Court of Common Pleas that he Summons Thirty Men drawn by Ballot according to the Directions of an Act of General Assembly of this Province in that Case made and Provided personally to be and Appear before Nicholas Trott Esq. Chief Justice aforesaid on the Second Tuesday in May next to enquire what Damage he has Sustained in the said Action and to make a Due and true Return thereof at the said Court . . .  The same day is Given to the aforesaid Richard Tookerman thereat.

Recorded in the Book of the records No. 8, p. 181.

*Under the English Julian-based calendar then in use, the New Year officially fell on March 25th, even though the modern custom of starting the year on January 1st was becoming popular. Thus dates between January 1st and March 24th would sometimes be written with two numbers, the lower, Julian number and the higher, modern number. By our reckoning, this would be the court of February 1719 and the judgment would be signed in March of 1719.

OK, I hoped to do some of this a while ago, but fatherhood and two jobs have interfered. Here's Fayrer Hall's petition. Sections I can't read are indicated by an ellipsis (". . ."). The photocopy is clear at the beginning, then gets progressively harder to read near the bottom.

Filed this 25 us January 1718.

Richard Tookerman Gent was attached to answer Fayrer Hall marr. of a plea of Trespass on the Case and wherefore the said Fayrer Hall by Richard Allein his Attorny Complains that whereas the aforesaid Richard Tookerman this Fifth Day of December Anno Dei One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen at Charles Town in Berkley County and within the Jurisdiction of this Court was indebted to the said Fayrer Hall the sum of Five Hundred and Eighty One pounds Nine Shilling curr. Mony being for Wages due and owing to the said Fayrer Hall as late Ma.S or Comander of the Sloop Sea Nymph belonging to the said Richard Tookerman for his Service on board the Same and for Sundry Expenses of him the said Fayrer Hall . . . the said Service and Employment of him the said Richard Tookerman and for works and Labor by the said Fayrer Hall at the Special Instance and request of the said Richard Tookerman before that time don and performed and also for monyes at the like Special Instance and request of the said Richard Tookerman by the said Fayrer Hall for him the said Richard Tookerman before that time laid out and Expended the particulars of all which are . . . in the amount hereunto Arranged and of which the said Richard Tookerman the Day year and Place abovesaid had no . . . . And being so indebted the said Richard Tookerman in consideration thereof afterwards to witt day, year and place abovesaid did assume upon himself and to the said Fayrer Hall did then and there faithfully promise that he the said Richard Tookerman the aforesaid sum of Five Hundred Eighty One pounds Nine Shillings to the said Fayrer Hall wheresoever he should be the sum so required would well and truly pay and . . . but nevertheless the aforesaid Richard Tookerman his Promise and Assumption aforesaid in . . . regarding but . . . and fraudulently intending the said Fayrer Hall in this behalf to deceive and defraud the aforesaid Sum of Five Hundred and Eighty One Pounds Nine Shillings or any portion thereof to the said Fayrer Hall hath not paid at the . . . the aforesaid Richard Tookerman forwards . . . the Fifth Day of December aforesaid hath been often requested but the sum to pay hath . . . refuse wherefore the said Fayrer Hall . . . hath damage to the value of three hundred pounds and therefore he brings his suit.

[signature illegible, possibly Richard Allein.]

Thank you for the comments.

I am transcribing some of the court documents and may post them here later if anyone wants to see them. Unfortunately, the transcriptions may not be very complete; a lot of this 300-year-old handwriting is pretty darn tough to read!

The story of Stede Bonnet's end will be familiar to many of you. To recap the accepted Charles Johnson story: Bonnet's Royal James is hiding in the Cape Fear River when William Rhett brings two sloops up from Charleston: the Henry (captain Masters) and the Sea Nymph (captain Fayrer Hall). Battle breaks out on 9/27/1718, all three sloops run aground, the Sea Nymph out of range, the Henry wtihin pistol shot and badly exposed. Henry and Royal James then pound each other for five hours, until the tide lifts Henry free, leaving Royal James stuck, and soon after the pirates surrender.

The court records I have received shed a new light on things. Hall, captain of the Sea Nymph that barely got scratched in the fighting, sued Richard Tookerman in early 1719. Tookerman, himself a pirate who consorted once with Bartholomew Roberts, is believed to have assisted Stede Bonnet in his abortive escape attempt in October 1718. The two slaves who were helping Bonnet when he was recaptured both belonged to Tookerman, and I am informed that Tookerman was jailed on suspicion of helping Bonnet. What I have never seen before is this: Fayrer Hall says that Tookerman owned the Sea Nymph. Hall was suing Tookerman for his unpaid wages as theSea Nymph's captain.

Hall asked for the kingly total of 581 pounds, an amount that would have sufficed to buy two average town lots in Charleston and most of a third. The court, presided over by the same Nicholas Trott who hanged Bonnet and his crew, finally granted Hall the much more reasonable sum of 83 pounds for his service as captain.

It gets more interesting. In 1720, Fayrer Hall sued William Rhett himself for slander. What had Rhett said? He had publicly accused Hall himself of being a pirate! Hall moaned that this imputation of piracy had destroyed his "hitherto untainted" reputation (in reality, Hall had been convicted of assault and battery for invading a neighbor's home and beating him up only months before the Cape Fear battle). Hall won a default judgment when Rhett, for reasons unknown, failed to show up for court. But apparently, the court never did get around to awarding Hall any damages.

These three facts: 1) Tookerman, probable friend and helper of Bonnet, owned the Sea Nymph, 2) Hall expected Tookerman to pay him money vastly in excess of what one would normally expect, or the court would grant, and 3) Rhett, witness to Hall's conduct at Cape Fear, accused Hall of being a pirate, would support a hypothesis that 4) Hall's failure to get into the fighting at Cape Fear may not have been accidental as previously supposed, but deliberate, acting on orders from Tookerman and motivated by the anticipation of a large money bribe from Tookerman that never materialized.

Conclusive? No. But interesting.

It was a sailor's superstition at one time that drowning a cat would bring up a wind when the ship was becalmed. I don't know if that tale goes back to the Golden Age, though.

Interesting. Is that a boar spear? And what kind of hat?

One last post, then I promise to leave this subject alone.

I got Kurt Stein's Canes and Walking Sticks. It has two more pictures of GAoP and pre-GAoP sword canes.

One is a late 16th century German combination sword-and-gun cane. It is mahogany with an octagagonal section hilt, a blade 42.43 inches long, overall length 50.125 inches. The blade is flattened diamond section. Here's the picture.

The other is an early 18th-century sword cane. The flat hexagon section of the blade is typical of the period. The shaft is hardwood, the grip polished bone. Ferrules are brass. Here's the picture.

There's also some useful information on period sword canes.

A word about blades of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.  As has been observed, these were periods during which the sword was worn as an important item of both military and civilian dress, and this undoubtedly is the reason for the great scarcity of sword canes dating from them.  Bladesmiths did less bluing than artistic etching and gilding, and after one examines only a few early blades the characteristic manner of their decorating becomes quite unmistakable.

In sum, sword canes are period, although they were considerably scarcer than they became in the nineteenth and late eighteenth centuries.

Another thought with that in mind... Although the arms were possibly kept by individuals and readily accessable, and as noted by "Onesies" above, the drunkenness could lead to violence or mutiny etc.- Would it be possible that the Captain would have had the powder and shot kept under lock from the crew?

Just a thought.... Capt. Bo

The only hint I have about that is that Kidd's Adventure Galley did have a separate powder magazine. My book doesn't say whether it was locked. But it would make sense, given that fire was one of the constant fears of maritime life.

My understanding was that the custom came about simply as a symbolic statement that the jurisdiction of the Admiralty started at the waterline. If you saw the tide wash over the executed criminal, you could see that he was clearly in the territory of the Admiralty and thus the Admiralty had authority to execute the criminal.

Well, what clues can we pick up from the naval service? Granted that arms were kept under lock and key most of the time, surely it must have been necessary at times to send navy sailors aloft during battle, after they had been given weapons. Torn sails would have to be furled or cut loose, damaged rigging repaired, etc. Did those sailors go aloft armed, and if not, where did they leave their weapons meanwhile?

Any word of if they waited to divide the loot until they docked at a port or if they split up the plunder right after the battle. I would imagine that jealous could cause for some nasty reactions.

I am not sure what the most common practice was. I do know that in August 1718, Stede Bonnet's crew did a share-out aboard their sloop while at sea.

The Master at Arms was in charge of the firearms and weapons, which may not have played into pirate crews, if you are of the belief that pirates solely tended to their own private weapons....

The articles of John Phillips and Bartholomew Roberts both lead me to believe that pirates usually did tend to their own weapons and were held responsible for doing so.

Phillips' article 6: "That Man that shall not keep his Arms clean, fit for an Engagement, or neglect his Business, shall be cut off from his Share, and suffer such other Punishment as the Captain and the Company shall think fit. "

Roberts' article V: "V. To keep their piece, pistols, and cutlass clean and fit for service. [in this they were extravagantly nice, endeavoring to outdo one another in the beauty and richness of their arms, giving sometimes at an auction (at the mast) thirty or forty pounds a pair for pistols."

The reference in Roberts' articles to the pirates actually buying their pistols suggests that, at least in that crew, the pistols were not under the Master at Arms' control.

LadyBarbossa, pirate captains didn't always know how to navigate, viz. Walter Kenedy, described as a mere "pretender." On merchant ships, the mate sometimes knew navigation. Merchant captain George Roberts, known for being captured by pirate Capain Low, once got sick on one of his voyages. When he recovered, he went at once to his mate and demanded to know the latitude (dissatisfied with the answer, he then worked it out for himself).