Historical context

The background to the Pirate War was the long Hundred Years War between France and England (1337-1453), in which Flanders was (albeit often reluctantly) frequently involved. Although a lasting truce had been concluded between France and King Richard II of England in 1396, this had been at least technically nullified by the deposition and subsequent probable murder of King Richard in 1399 by his successor King Henry IV (1399-1413). One result of this truce breakdown was a major outbreak of undeclared piratical naval war between France and England (also involving Flanders) which some modern historians regard as having been tacitly encouraged by the governments of both sides as a deliberate act of policy. On both sides of the North Sea, however, the generally warlike intentions of governments were modified by the need to protect and preserve the peaceful trade between England and Flanders which was vital to the economies of both nations, and particularly to their merchants. Piracy, it was only too clear to both Flemish and English merchants, was the deadly enemy of this trade.

In England, France rather than its nominal and reluctant ‘dominion’ of Flanders was popularly regarded as the real enemy. When Henry IV entered London at the beginning of his reign, for example, the crowds were reported to have cried out: ‘God guard our King Henry…Now we will wage war with all the world—except the Flemings’. And throughout the period covered by this study, the English royal government was bombarded by petitions from the merchants of London, English Calais and other places, not only requesting government assistance in recovering goods plundered by Flemish pirates, but often also urging the suppression of ‘tit for tat’ English piracy, the protection of trade, and the negotiation of a lasting peace with Flanders. 

In Flanders, meanwhile, there was an apparent dichotomy of interest between the feudal rulers, the successive Dukes (or reigning Duchesses) of Burgundy, who for much of the Pirate War period tended to favour the cause of their relations and technical overlords, the Kings of France; and the ‘Four Members of Flanders’, the representatives of the Flemish trading towns of Brugge, Ghent, Ieper and the ‘Franc of Brugge’, who almost invariably argued for the protection of trade, the suppression of Flemish as well as English piracy, and a separate peace between Flanders and England whether or not the war between France and England continued. So great did this dichotomy become, indeed, that in the autumn of 1404 Duchess Margaret, who ruled Flanders following the death of Duke Philip the Bold, actually excluded the Four Members from the peace negotiations with England, much to the outrage of the Members and the delight of the English ambassadors, who promptly attempted to set up separate talks with the Flemish towns. 

The governments and merchants of both sides, however, were united throughout the period in levelling frequent accusations of piracy against the opposing party, and attempting to obtain the return of ships and cargoes seized by enemy pirates, or at least financial reparation for the loss or damage incurred.

The inquisition into Flemish piracy of 1418

An interesting document on the Flemish side of piracy during the years 1403 to 1415 is the  ‘Enquete sur les prises faites par les corsaires de Flandre’. This inquisition (or enquiry) was carried out in Flanders during the earlier part of March 1418 by two ducal officials, ‘Jehan de le Keythulle’, a ducal councillor, and Roland du Bois, Duke John’s secretary for Flanders. Originated at the request of the Four Members of Flanders in May 1417, it was confirmed by Philip Count of Charolais, the Duke’s son and regent in Flanders, in August 1417. The enquiry was commissioned at a time when both the Four Members and the ducal court were anxious to conclude a firm peace with Henry V’s England (reigned 1413-1422), and thus urgently needed to placate English merchants by making at least a show of punishing or redressing offences against them.

The starting point for the 1418 inquisition seems to have been the earlier inquiry of November 1403, also instituted by the Four members and concerning attacks by mariners of Biervliet, Hughvliet, Blankenberge, Oostende, Walraversijde and Nieuwpoort on merchants of England, Holland and the Hanse. This 1403 enquiry was just one attempt to calm down the fighting at sea and to stop the tit for tat actions of piracy and raiding. It followed the Flemish complaints of 1402 listing in detail attacks on Flemish ships, the theft of Flemish merchandise and the killing of Flemish fishermen and traders. Other attempts followed and during the period 1406-1412 there was indeed a distinct lull in the fighting and there were at least no coastal raids during these years. But as the 1418 inquisition makes clear, the truce was very difficult to maintain and from 1413 the piracy re-intensified strongly again.

The inquisition document is written almost entirely in 15^th century French, then the official language of the ducal courts. The Articles of Complaint, however, were put to the witnesses point by point in Flemish, ‘so that they might better understand them’ (pour les mieulx entendre, len a expose en flamenc de point en point). The spelling of names was by no means fixed or consistent anywhere in Europe in the early 15^th century; but the confusion of  ‘official Flemish’, colloquial Flemish (as heard by English complainants) and ‘legal French’ forms of names can only have hindered the enquiry. It certainly allowed numerous witnesses to swear, often contrary to overwhelming evidence, that an accused man with a particular name—at least in the spelling and form given by the relevant complaint—was unknown to them, or had never existed at all.

Witnesses

The commissioners examined a total of 56 local witnesses about the English allegations, article by article. In the two major towns at least, these witnesses were selected by local lawyers as ‘those who would best know how to give evidence’: a somewhat ironical qualification, given their obvious collusion with each other, attempts to confuse the issue, and general unwillingness to convict their fellow-townsmen, or even to admit knowing them.

Of the 21 Nieuwpoort witnesses—who included the parish clerk, five eschevins, several other town officials, and six ‘mariners’—at least six (‘Jehan Adam’, ‘Jacques Hallinc’, ‘Olivier Snelle’, ‘Jacques Zoudelin’ alias Coppin Suthelin, Gerard Rosin and Claes Mynstre of Walraversijde) were indeed themselves included among those accused of piracy in the articles they were examined about. Yet only one of these six (Zoudelin) commented at all on the accusations made against him—and then to deny them. Some simply repeated word for word the formulaic denials of the previous witnesses: though many remembered the sensational arrival of the kidnapped English demoiselles in 1403, while others were united in their indignant rejection of the allegation that their fellow townsmen had failed to assist the Flemish ships driven ashore by a Scots pirate in 1415. The six Lombardsijde witnesses (including the mayor and four aldermen) were even less helpful, though several of their fellow-townsmen were included in the list of alleged pirates: to a man, they denied knowing anything at all about any of the complaints.

The 15 Oostende witnesses included two former mayors, an eschevin, two other town officials, and no less than four butchers, but only one ‘mariner and fisherman’. None were among the Oostende men accused of piracy and every one swore a blanket denial that most or all of those so accused had never existed. ‘Jehan Dobbels’, a ‘merchant of herrings and fish’, added a cynical remark. As one who had been in the fish trade and commissioned fishing boats for a long time past, he did not believe (ne croit point) that the total fish imports of all Flanders over twenty years would equal the exaggerated number of fish allegedly stolen from the English! 

The trades of the 11 Walraversijde witnesses are not given, and none are identified as holding any office within the village—if indeed Walraversijde had a formal system of local government at this time. They included, however, ‘Jacques de Verschenare’, no doubt an ancestor of the Van Varsenare family later prominent as Walraversijde ship-owners and traders, as well as ‘Jehan Heyns’, doubtless the man accused of piracy along with Claes Mynstre in 1412 and 1413. But since the Walraversijde witnesses were examined only about one complaint, the alleged theft of English cloth by Jehan Mace or Maes in 1404, Heyns could legitimately join all but one of his fellow Walraversijdenaars in strenuously denying all knowledge of this matter. Only Henry le Moor helpfully recalled his neighbours’ 17-year-old memories of cloth taken by Maes: but this was not English but Dutch cloth, and in any event it had been returned to its owners.

Reparations and reprisals

Given the principal aim of the inquisition to mollify injured English merchants, it is not surprising that both witnesses and commissioners were keen to record wherever possible that reparation for the complaints had already been made by 1418.

Sometimes such redress was made following a personal ‘pursuit’ by the injured party. Thus the indomitable English demoiselle Marie Stales, following her return from her not very rigorous imprisonment in Nieuwpoort, caused one of her kidnappers—Meeus de Crooc—to be arrested when he visited England, and detained until he made redress for the jewels allegedly taken from her. The fact that Meeus was visiting Scarborough (a port whose ships he had so often plundered) at the time of his arrest throws an interesting sidelight on the peacetime activities of Flemish ‘pirates’. Jacob Zoudelin (‘Coppin Suthelin’) on the other hand was prevented from going to England ‘to carry on his business there’ by John Appelman (whose crew he had allegedly drowned). Instead, Appelman rounded up as a reprisal many fishermen of Duinkerke, whose wives and families were so furious with Zoudelin that he dared not go there either.

More usually, however, the ‘pursuit’ of reparations was carried out by professional attorneys, who put pressure on the government of the offending party. Thus John Hunden, attorney for the Salthouse men plundered by Claes Mynstre and ‘Hans’ Heyns of Walraversijde and Hans Tabbard of Oostende, after much pursuit and several years had Tabbard arrested and taken before the Sovereign Bailli of Flanders, by whom he was forced to make reparation. This system also operated for Flemish merchants injured by the English. In 1410 John Kempstone, a merchant of St.Albans [Hertfordshire], was arrested in Veurne at the ‘pursuit’ of one Martin de Chat of Brugge, and held there for at least nine months in ‘hard and horrible prison’: having moreover to pay for his own keep while detained. 

Kempstone (described by eye-witnesses as a small elderly man) was almost certainly an innocent party, arrested simply because he was English and happened to be in Flanders. Indeed, innocent merchants, travellers and fishermen of both nations were all too often caught up in the Pirate War. The Flemish often reacted to English piracy or coastal raids by imprisoning English merchants, while the English equally often reacted to Flemish offences by seizing Flemish mariners or, whenever the excuse offered, impounding the La Rochelle—Flanders wine fleet. Which, of course, provoked more Flemish piracy, provoking in turn more English reprisals, and so on…

Conclusion

It is clear the ‘Enquete sur les prises faites par les corsaires de Flandre‘ is an interesting document for the study of early 15^th century Flemish piracy. It provides detailed information on the complaints made by English merchants about Flemish pirates. It is however necessary to approach the document with caution. Different motives might lead to distortion of reality, whether it be minimising, maximising or even making up of certain events. Furthermore, it must be emphasised that the enquiry covers only the ports on the central part of the Flemish coast, from Nieuwpoort north-eastward to Oostende, including Lombardsijde and Walraversijde. Other officials were commissioned at the same time to enquire into piracy by the south-western ports from Gravelines to the notoriously piratical Dunkerque; and likewise by the north-eastern ports from Blankenberge via Sluis to Biervliet. The documents recording the enquiries by the two latter sets of officials have however not apparently survived, or at least have not been identified yet. Thus the surviving inquisition provides only a partial and regional picture.

This article is adapted and abridged from dr. Charles Kightly’s report Pirates, traders and fishermen of Flanders. The interaction of Walraversijde and other Flemish mariners with England c. 1377-1500, Allerthorpe, 2011. The report was commissioned by the Province of West Flanders (museum of Walraversijde) as part of the European Interreg IV A 2 Seas Project HMS.