![]() Mediterranean corsairs operated with a style of patriotic-religious authority that Europeans, and later Americans, found difficult to understand and accept. Unfamiliarity with local forms of authority created difficulty determining who was legitimately sovereign on land and at sea, whether to accept their authority, or whether the opposing parties were, in fact, pirates. The legal framework around authorised sea-raiding was considerably murkier outside of Europe. The shift from treason to property also justified the criminalisation of traditional sea-raiding activities of people Europeans wished to colonise. This helped bring privateers under the legal jurisdiction of their home country in the event the privateer turned pirate. By the passing of the Piracy Act 1717, a privateer's allegiance to Britain overrode any allegiance to a sovereign providing the commission. As a result, privateering commissions became a matter of national discretion. By the late 17th century, the prosecution of privateers loyal to the usurped King James II for piracy began to shift the legal framework of piracy away from treason towards crime against property. In British law, under the Offences at Sea Act 1536, piracy was an act of treason, or raiding a ship without a valid commission. If the nationality of a prize was not the enemy of the commissioning sovereign, the privateer could not claim the ship as a prize. At sea, the privateer captain was obliged to produce the commission to a potential prize ship's captain as evidence of the legitimacy of their prize claim. The commission also dictated the expected nationality of potential prize ships under the terms of the war. Typically, the owners or captain would be required to post a performance bond. It usually limited activity to one particular ship, and specified officers, for a specified period of time. The commission was the proof the privateer was not a pirate. The risk of piracy and the emergence of the modern state system of centralised military control caused the decline of privateering by the end of the 19th century. A privateer who continued raiding after the expiration of a commission or the signing of a peace treaty could face accusations of piracy. Depending on the specific sovereign and the time period, commissions might be issued hastily privateers might take actions beyond what was authorized in the commission, including after its expiry. The commission usually protected privateers from accusations of piracy, but in practice the historical legality and status of privateers could be vague. However, this incentive increased the risk of privateers turning to piracy when war ended. For participants, privateering provided the potential for a greater income and profit than obtainable as a merchant seafarer or fisher. Privateering allowed sovereigns to raise revenue for war by mobilizing privately owned armed ships and sailors to supplement state power. A percentage share usually went to the issuer of the commission (i.e. Captured ships were subject to condemnation and sale under prize law, with the proceeds divided by percentage between the privateer's sponsors, shipowners, captains and crew. This included attacking foreign vessels and taking them as prizes, and taking prize crews as prisoners for exchange. ![]() The commission empowered the holder to carry on all forms of hostility permissible at sea by the usages of war. A sovereign or delegated authority issued commissions, also referred to as a letter of marque, during wartime. ![]() Since robbery under arms was a common aspect of seaborne trade, until the early 19th century all merchant ships carried arms. East Indiaman Kent (left) battling Confiance, a privateer vessel commanded by French corsair Robert Surcouf in October 1800, as depicted in a painting by Ambroise Louis Garneray.Ī privateer is a private person or ship that engages in maritime warfare under a commission of war. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |