A question about Francis Spriggs and Richard Hawkins

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Just for fun I was reading a fashionable study of Jacobite pirates (made by none other than Ed Fox) http://www.academia.edu/772352/Jacobitism_and_the_Golden_Age_of_Piracy_1715-1725

And one question popped in my mind. And I think it is a damn good one

This was said there

"Even if Jacobitism was rife among Low’s men, it was not among all his consorts. Francis Spriggs’ crew parted with Low in one of their prizes after a disagreement over their rules or “articles.” Richard Hawkins, who was captured by Spriggs and spent some days aboard his ship, observed that “whether they were drunk or sober, I never heard them drink any other health than KingGeorge’s.” Hawkins was with the pirates when they heard of the death of George I, at which “they immediately hoisted Jolly Roger half mast, and drank his Royal Highness’s health by the name of George the second.”64 Far from using Jacobitism to “frame-up” the pirates who captured him, it is difficult to imagine any reason for Hawkins to have invented their loyalty to the Hanoverians, so we must conclude that if there was any kind of Jacobite movement in the Lowther/Low “line of descent,” it was not as widespread as continuous as that in the Flying Gang line."

Source 64 was "British Journal

(London), 8 August 1724."

And I ask: How they could have mourned the death of George I in 1724 while King George died in 1727?

[Fox]

Y'know, you're the first person to pick up on that!

The simplest assumption that can be made is that they heard a rumour of George's death, and accepted it as fact.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Well that seems to make sense. For a moment I thought a dating error in the source but the idea of Low's gang being around as late as 1727 seemed unlikely.

It is interesting that the tradition of flying a flag half-mast is that old. Wiki says it dates back to the 17th century. What is also interesting that that Richard Hawking is a namesake of the well know Elizabethan sea dog.

And was it the flag of Sprigg's one of the Jolly Rogers with skeleton and red heart... No wait it was...

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Ok wiki, but well it is better than often thought

http://en.wikipedia.....26_the_Delight

Well Low's company, they could (perhaps) have witnessed the actual death of George as well as the fake rumour that was the case here in 1724. Spriggs was active at least as late as 1726 at least Wiki says so and says that the source is Post-Boy of June 25 1726. Wiki also claims that Edward Lowe would have been alive too accordingly to the newspaper.... Ofcource wiki can be wrong.

Speaking of Spriggs. I dare to think that a man who committed acts of torture of the most heinous sort would not look anything like imagined portrait of Captain Johnson book (of 1725). There he looks like a lamb-like gentleman with an added pistol and a sword.

Back to the earlier points do we know any reason why there was a lie spread that The King would have Died around 1723-24 (or when ever Hawkins was a prisoner)?

Edited January 4, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[GregF]

Foxe, you are absolutely correct when you say that they *heard* the rumor of George's death. I became quite familiar with Hawkins' experiences aboard Sprigg's galley while researching my forthcoming book on the pirates Low and Spriggs. The full quote from Hawkins' letter, published in the British Journal, August 22, 1724, is as follows: "Captain Pike of Rhode Island, the master of the sloop which they burnt while I was with them, said he was informed in Jamaica that the King was dead. On this they immediately hoisted the Jolly Roger half mast...".

As it turned out, after holding Hawkins, the other captain, Samuel Pike, and several crewmen aboard for a number of days, Spriggs eventually dumped them on the remote island of Roatan in the Bay of Honduras. The men were put on the island with a few supplies to sustain them. Hawkins had a cutlass, a musket, and a small supply of gunpowder and shot. The men also had some flour and about a week’s supply of beef and brandy. "The manner of our living on the island was tolerable considering our circumstances, for we were not sent away empty-handed," Hawkins wrote. The men were rescued by a passing ship about a week later. (You can read more at gregflemming.com).

[Fox]

Welcome aboard Greg,

It's about time somebody wrote a book about Low and his consorts - there's so much source material relating to them that I'm amazed nobody has done it yet. In fact, I was just reading the trial of Barlow and Simmons et al the other day... I look forward to reading your book

One (off-topic) question: which edition of Fillmore's narrative are you using? There's a quotation from Fillmore on your webpage that isn't in the edition I have.

[GregF]

Thanks, Foxe.

I looked at several editions of Fillmore's narrative, but relied primarily on the 1790 Haswell & Russell printing, A Narration of the Captivity of John Fillmore and his Escape from the Pirates. More contemporary information about Fillmore's experiences can be found in the report of his deposition (Boston Gazette, May 4 1724) and in the trial of the pirates and captives from Phillips' crew in Boston that May.

I am quite impressed that you know about Barlow and Simmons -- not many do! Their story is another fascinating window into an uprising by captives aboard a pirate ship.

Greg

[Fox]

I think the trial of Barlow and Simmons and the others involved in that uprising is, possibly, unique. Several times forced men who had risen up against their pirate captors were put on trial for piracy with the foregone conclusion that they would be found not guilty, as a protection against being tried in the future (and sometimes to make them eligible to give evidence against others), but in this case the forced men were tried for murder, for killing their two pirate captors. Fascinating (if you're a kind of pirate-history dork like me).

[GregF]

I couldn't agree more. Three weeks after they returned to Newport, Rhode Island, Simmons, Barlow, and seven other members of the crew on the John and Mary were brought to trial at the Newport townhouse. The trial was held because the men, with “force and arms,” had killed “two of the subjects of our Lord the King” -- but as you note, because these two “subjects” were by all accounts pirates, there never seemed to be any question of the crew’s innocence. The men recounted their capture and escape, and all of them were found not guilty.

What was also particularly unusual about the Barlow-Simmons event was that three months after the trial, Simmons filed a petition in Boston claiming his capture by the pirates had terrorized him so much that he couldn’t go back to working at sea. "And in as much as the said Nicholas Simmons is now under a necessity to leave off his employment of a mariner for fear of the said pirates and has a new employment to seek for his support, he being in but low circumstances," Simmons’ petition stated, "he therefore most humbly prays your honors would be pleased to take the premises into your most just and wise consideration and bestow of your bounty upon him as in your accustomed goodness you shall see meet."

By the way, I can't get your web site below (ETFOX.co.uk) to load. Is it down?

[Fox]

Apparently it is! I wasn't aware of that, so thanks for the heads-up. I've let the guy who does my website know.

I don't update as often as I should, but you can also find me here: https://www.facebook.com/ETFox