Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:17:10.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viewing the Scaffold from Istanbul: The Bendysh-Hyde Affair, 1647–1651

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Mark Charles Fissel  and
Daniel Goffman
Get access

Extract

Slightly more than two years after the decapitation of Charles I, the Commonwealth of England inflicted the same punishment on the same block against his follower, Sir Henry Hyde. The failure to reach a settlement in the aftermath of the British civil war led to the king's beheading. Explaining Hyde's execution, however, requires a geographically broader context, for Sir Henry undertook his treasonable activities against the overseas interests of the English Commonwealth and Sir Thomas Bendysh, who had served as English ambassador in Istanbul since 1647, when he assumed the role of protector of English merchants. Although Bendysh later quarreled with his charges, the unexpected appearance of Henry Hyde in Istanbul in 1650 rallied the merchants behind him, for Hyde represented to them a return to the recent past, with its governmental interference and royal regulation of commercial activity. His presence also forced merchants to choose sides, thereby transposing upon Levantine commerce the divisions that had emerged during the civil war. Just as most Company members supported Parliament, so did their factors in the Levant back Bendysh, a known quantity, a clever negotiator, and a pragmatist. In his brief tenure, Bendysh had proven his ability to strike bargains with the Ottomans and stimulate commerce. He also personified the interests of the Council of State and the Levant Company directors, thereby linking the disparate but inter-dependent network of Levantine commerce.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , Fall 1990 , pp. 421 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hinde, John, A True Copy of Sir Henry Hide's Speech on the Scaffold Immediately before his Execution before the Exchange, on the 4th of March, 1650. Taken in Short-hand from his mouth (London, 1650/1651), pp. 14–15Google Scholar. See also The Speech and Confession, of Sr Henry Hide (Embassador for the King of Scotland, to the empereur of Turkie)… (London, 1651)Google Scholar. The Lilly Library of Indiana University supplied a copy of the latter pamphlet.

2 Ínalcik, Halil, “Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700,” Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980): 283–337.Google Scholar

3 Goffman, Daniel, Izmir and the Levantine World, 1550-1650 (Seattle, 1990), pp. 25–76.Google Scholar

4 Wilson, Charles, England's Apprenticeship, 1603-1763 (London, 1967), p. 56.Google Scholar

5 Capp, Bernard, Cromwell's Navy: The Fleet and the English Revolution, 1648-1660 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 42–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Junge, Hans-Christoph, Flottenpolitik und Revolution: Die Entstehung der englischen Seemacht während der Herrschaft Cromwells (London, 1980), pp. 108-09Google Scholar; and Powell, John R., The Navy in the English Civil War> (London, 1962), p. 151.Google Scholar

6 Marcus, Geoffrey J., A Naval History of England, Vol. 1: The Formative Centuries (Boston, 1961), pp. 136-37.Google Scholar

7 Capp, , Cromwell's Navy, p. 52.Google Scholar

8 Gardiner, Samuel R., History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1656, vol. 1: 1649-1650 (New York, 1965), pp. 22-23, 57, 86-87, 298-309, 315-18Google Scholar; Powell, , Navy in the English Civil War, pp. 176-91Google Scholar; Corbett, , England in the Mediterranean, pp. 155–206Google Scholar; and Capp, , Cromwell's Navy, pp. 65–70.Google Scholar

9 Capp, , Cromwell's Navy, p. 70.Google Scholar

10 The dilemma was exemplified when the Commonwealth's ambassador to the Dutch, Dr. Dorislaus, was stabbed to death by royalists at his lodgings at The Hague on 2 May 1649 (Gardiner, , History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1656, [New York, 1965], 1: 64–65Google Scholar). A similar assassination occurred in Spain.

11 For England, see Morrill, John, The Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 1630-50 (London, 1980)Google Scholar. This problem of center and periphery also occupies Ottoman historians. See Inalcik, Halil, “Centralization and Decentralization in Ottoman Administration,” in Studies in Eighteenth-Century Islamic History, ed. Naff, Thomas and Owens, Roger (Carbondale and Edwardsville, Ill., 1977), pp. 27–52Google Scholar; and Faroqhi, Suraiya, “Political Initiatives ‘From the Bottom Up’ in the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire: Some Evidence for Their Existence,” in Sonderdruck aus Osmanistische Studien zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in memoriam Vanco Boskov, ed. Majer, Hans Georg (Wiesbaden, 1986), pp. 24–33.Google Scholar

12 0n Izmir's position in the seventeenth-century Ottoman empire, see Goffman, Izmir. The administrative nature of Ottoman archival materials makes it impracticable to cite individual documents in narratives dealing with personalities. In the preparation of this work, we have exploited several registers housed in the Basbakanlik Arsivi in Istanbul, including most notably Ecnebi Oefterleri 13/1 and 26/1, fbnülemin Tasnifi (maliye) 640, and Mühimme Defterleri 80-85. Most of these documents are abstracted in Goffman, Daniel, “Izmir as a Commercial Center: The Impact of Western Trade on an Ottoman Port, 1570-1650” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1985), pp. 407-66.Google Scholar

13 Wood, Alfred C., A History of the Levant Company (Oxford, 1935), pp. 89–91Google Scholar; and Ashton, Robert, The City and the Court, 1603-1643 (Cambridge, 1979), p. 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Hyde had been consul of the Morea since 1638 (coinciding with Crowe's arrival in the Levant), and was dismissed in 1643. See Public Record Office, State Papers 105/144, Levant Company Register Book, 1648-1668, ff. 2v-3.

15 PRO, SP 97/17, State Papers, Turkey, Letterbooks of the ambassadors at Constantinople, f. 5, Hyde's petition to the king (c. 1644), and f. 5v, the royal response, issued through Secretary Edward Nicholas. In 1640 Hyde had manufactured a royal seal for his use in the Morea, an infraction that Crowe reported to London, though suggesting leniency because he saw no “ill intent” in Hyde's actions. The episode illustrates Hyde's talent for counterfeiting seals and presuming royal authority (SP 97/16, f. 258, Crowe's letter of 4 October 1640). The lion dollar was the basic money of exchange in this period. For a contemporary discussion of “Exchanges,” see Roberts, Lewes, The Merchants Mappe of Commerce… (London, 1638), chs. 274-325.Google Scholar

16 He also wanted income from the trade through Istanbul, a request to which Crowe never would have agreed because compliance would have meant a loss of income for himself (PRO, SP 97/17, f. 5v).

17 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 5v. The royal letter is undated. Because of the uncertainty of carriage across Europe, correspondents between England and the Levant typically sent at least two copies of their letters.

18 The most spectacular example is Sir Paul Pindar. See Ashton, Robert, The Crown and the Money Market, 1603-1640 (Oxford, 1960), p. 218.Google Scholar

19 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, 21: 469Google Scholar, petition of the Levant Company to the Commons, 17 September 1646. The Strangers' Consulage referred to surcharges on goods foreigners shipped in English bottoms. See also SP 105/111, f. 592, Company to Sigr. Domenico Timone, 11 September 1646. Earlier Charles had attempted to grasp this revenue from the Company (Wood, , Levant Company, p. 89Google Scholar).

20 Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, etc. 1643-1660, Cases, 1643-1646 (London, 1890), p. 847.Google Scholar

21 Burke, Iohn, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England (London, 1844), p. 56Google Scholar, makes a strong case for Bendysh's royalism.

22 Bendysh's limited qualifications included administrative experience as High Sheriff of Essex from 30 November 1630. See PRO Lists & Indexes vol. 9, Lists of Sheriffs for England and Wales (New York, 1963), p. 46Google Scholar. See also PRO, SP 16/533/9, 16 for his implementation of the Book of Orders.

23 The Commons Journals, 5: 67–68Google Scholar, entries for 28 and 29 January 1648.

24 This influence peddling is murkily described in a cryptic letter in Warner, George F., ed., The Nicholas Papers. Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State, vol. 1, Camden Society, 2nd series, vol. 40 (1886), pp. 77–78Google Scholar. On 18 February 1647, Robert Thomson wrote in lemon-juice to Nicholas Oudart, “I am tould the Commissioners about the King would not suffer the persons sent by the Citty to gett the Kings hand to Sr Tho: Benddishes instructions and papers for th'ambassage of Constantinople to have accesse to his Majestie. [William Murray] hath (as Mr. Andrews tells me) puddled the cleareness of that buisines much by demanding and taking neere £3000, as if without that the King would not consent, whereas Mr. Andrews had his assent gratis and so tould the company, who are now discontent and begin to thinck Mrs. Harwood did avayle more for Sr. Tho: her paramour then the friends they imployd for Bernard. So perhaps the project may come to naught and Sr. Sackvile Crow continue, from whom Mr. Hyde tels me there is a large pacquet come for Secretary Nicholas, but too big to be adventurd again hence to Secretary Nicholas.”

25 British Library, Add. MS. 15,750, f. 29, 12 November 1647. The authors are indebted to Andrew Thrush for finding and transcribing this and several other documents. See also CSP, Domestic, Charles I, 21: 570Google Scholar, collection of documents, August and September 1647.

26 PRO, SP 105/144, 2v-3. Hyde waged a one-man war against Company interests in 1645, sabotaging Mr. Giles Ball, who had been designated his successor as the consul of the Morea. Hyde vindictively forwarded the consul's capitulations, needed for complaints against Ottoman subjects and officials, to Istanbul, thereby crippling Ball's ability to perform his functions. Hyde also interfered with cargoes.

27 See Steensgaard, Niels, “Consuls and Nations in the Levant from 1570 to 1650,” The Scandinavian Economic History Review 15 (1967): 43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 0n these “multi-faceted” lines of authority, see Goffman, Daniel, “The Capitulations and the Question of Authority in Levantine Commerce, 1600-1650,” The Journal of Turkish Studies 10 (1986): 158-61.Google Scholar

29 The letter is printed in W. L., Newes from Turkie or, A true Relation of the passages of the Right honourable Sir Tho. Bendish, Baronet, Lord Ambassadeur with the Grand Signieur at Constantinople,… (London, 1648), pp. 26–30Google Scholar. A copy was obtained from the Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

30 See text in note 24 above.

31 CSP, Venetian, 28: 8Google Scholar. Alvise Contarini, Venetian Ambassador at Rome, to the Doge and Senate, 10 August 1647.

32 Tongas, Gerard, Les relations de la France avec l'empire Ottoman durant la première moitié du XVIIe siècle et l'ambassade à Constantinople de Philippe de Harlay, Comte de Cèsy (1619-1640) (Toulouse, 1942), pp. 5–42.Google Scholar

33 Newes from Turkie, pp. 7-10

34 Bodleian Library, Clarendon State Papers, vol. 30, f. 170, n. 2643. This anonymous eye-witness account conflicts with Wood's description of this incident in Levant Company, p. 92, most notably in that Wood does not acknowledge Ottoman complicity.

35 CSP, Venetian, 28: 27–29Google Scholar. Bendysh's residence probably was Arab Ahmet Mansion on the Findikh coast, just up the Bosphorus from Tophane (personal communication with Halil fnalcik). The Venetian bailo, Soranzo, provides much information on the national and commercial rivalries involved, and the plight of Lady Crowe.

36 Newes from Turkie, pp. 32-34 and note 35 above.

37 PRO, SP 105/112, Copies of Levant Company Utters, 1647-62, ff. 39-40.

38 PRO, SP 97/17 f. 23v, Bendysh to the Council of State, 13 December 1649. See also CSP, Commonwealth, 1649-50, 1: 42Google Scholar, Levant Company to factors at Constantinople, 15 March 1650.

39 PRO, SP 105/151, Levant Company Court Books, 1648-60, ff. 4-5, 9-9v. and 16v-17. Most likely, Hyde's preliminary solicitation of Charles II has escaped the notice of historians through a calendar error, PRO, SP 97/17, f. 6. In this undated petition (February-May 1649) Hyde requests repayment of his debt without any hint of a consulship, and specifies Izmir as the area from which the funds should come. The idea of empowering Hyde as a rival ambassador may have originated with the Prince of Wales or his advisors, since Hyde did not initially propose it.

40 Henry E. Huntington Library, HM 20202, Sir Thomas Killigrew to Mr. Secretary Long, 29 December 1649.

41 British Library, Egerton MS. 2542, ff. 9-9v.

42 CSP, Venetian, 28: 126, n. 358Google Scholar. On 23 October 1649, the doge and Senate formally approved the tenor of remarks made by their ambassador in France to Henry Hyde as the consul designate for the English king, to “assure him of the republic's friendly sentiments either when he returns to Court or on some other occasion when it can be done effectively, in order to keep adding fuel to keep warm the friendly disposition of His Majesty” (CSP, Venetian, 28: 123, n. 345Google Scholar). The reference to Hyde's absence from Court indicates that as of mid-October, Hyde had already begun his journey toward the Levant. The appointment could not have come before June, for a letter from Hyde to Secretary Nicholas dated 19/29 June 1649 requests that the uncrowned Charles II be reminded to command Bendysh to expedite the payment of the Levant Company's debt allegedly owed to Hyde. There is no hint of the subsequent appointment in this letter. CSP, Commonwealth, 1649-1650, 1: 198, n. 16.Google Scholar

43 CSP, Venetian, 28: 143-15Google Scholar, n. 401, 28 April 1650.

44 Hyde's undated petition is in SP 97/17, f. 6. The calendar conjectures a dating c. 1644. Internal evidence indicates that it was Hyde's initial petition to young Charles, penned February-May 1649. Hyde reminded him of this matter on 19/29 June 1649 (CSP, Commonwealth, 1649-50, 1: 198, n. 16.Google Scholar)

45 CSP, Commonwealth, 1650, 2: 41–43.Google Scholar

46 CSP, Venetian, 28: 96Google Scholar, n. 261. See also p. 117, n. 331, where the Senate informs the bailo that English ships are transporting Turks. In 1638, this gift could be exchanged for two or three hundred lion dollars (Roberts, Merchants Mappe, chs. 277-89.)

47 For example, CSP, Venetian, 28: 128Google Scholar, n. 363, Salvetti to Alvise Contarini, the Venetian ambassador at the Congress of Münster. Their lack of an ambassador in London at this time forced the Venetians to rely on Amerigo Salvetti, the Resident of Tuscany in England. Salvetti's bargaining chip was the Venetian blockade of the Dardanelles. Contarini had negotiated a deal by which a limited number (three) of English ships were granted passage through the blockade in return for neutrality in the Cretan war (CSP, Venetian, 28: 123Google Scholar, n. 347). Salvetti had been placed in Venetian service by order of the Grand Duke of Tuscany on 21 April 1648 (CSP, Venetian, 28: 56, n. 124Google Scholar). As for Charles II, his Resident assured the Venetians that whereas Bendysh had aided an infidel enemy, his designated successor, Sir John Berkeley, would restore Christian charity between the English king and the Venetian Republic (CSP, Venetian, 28: 143-45Google Scholar, Killigrew to Doge and Senate, 28 April 1650).

48 CSP, Commonwealth, 1650, 2: 41Google Scholar, Company to Bendysh, 15 March 1650: “We write so seldom because we receive so few letters from you, your last being 12 April 1649….We only receive one letter from you in a year, and yet have notice of sundry copies you intended us, which are dispersed abroad to sundry hands, whilst ourselves are without copies or originals.”

49 In the Finch MSS (Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on the Manuscripts of Allan George Finch Esq. of Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland, vol. 1 [Hereford, 1913], p. 298Google Scholar) exist copies of two letters, one, ostensibly from Bendysh to Charles I, dated 21 May 1648, the other, from Manly to Charles II, on behalf of Bendysh, dated 4 May 1649. The former acknowledges a communication of Charles I to Bendysh via Manly (with the implication that the deceased ruler and Bendysh had been in communication), relating events at Constantinople during the course of the civil war. The latter is addressed to the “King of Scots” (Charles II's “official” title), presenting the earlier letter (as proof of his father's trust in Bendysh, no doubt), asserting that Bendysh “carried himself with a lustre befitting a monarch's imployment,” criticizing the “Parliament for cruelty in executing the late King,” declaring his allegiance to Charles, and swearing to serve him as a loyal subject and faithful soldier and to venture his blood in royal service. It is of note that the articles of treason later leveled against Bendysh included the two charges that he labored “to bee confirmed Ambassador from the Kinge of Scotts,” and that he held “Correspondence with the Kinge of Scotts, and with divers other notorious enemies of the Commonwealth beyond seas” (PRO, SP 97/17, f. 76).

50 CSP, Venetian, 28: 126, n. 356.Google Scholar

51 PRO, SP 97/17, ff. 38-42, a narrative of Bendysh's dealings with Hyde compiled by the former's clerk and recounting the period from Hyde's arrival in Istanbul (9 May 1650) until his removal (16 June 1650). Naturally, the account justifies Bendysh's actions.

52 0n 14 May 1650 Bendysh and Hyde exchanged at least seven letters (see PRO, SP 97/17, ff. 38-39). These were published as A brief Narrative and Vindication of Sir T. Bendish Knight and Baronet, Ambassador with the Grand Seigneur; in defence of himself, in the matter concerning Sr. Henry Hyde, for the said Embassy, who arrived at Constantinople the 9th of May, and departed for England about the end of August 1650 [London, 1660?]. There is at least one extant fragment, preserved in the British Library. Comparison of this pamphlet with PRO, SP 97/17, ff. 38-42 suggests that it was published almost verbatim from this letter-book manuscript. We are grateful to Eugene McCane for transcribing the pamphlet.

53 Zilfi, Madeline C., The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600-1800) (Minneapolis, 1988), pp. 133-43.Google Scholar

54 The Ottomans also knew the republican form of government, having traded with the Dutch for several decades. See de Groot, A. H., The Ottoman Empire and the Dutch Republic: A History of the Earliest Diplomatic Relations, 1610-1630 (Leiden and Istanbul, 1978)Google Scholar. The term “Estates General” appears frequently in Ottoman sources.

55 Tenenti, Alberto, Piracy and the Decline of Venice, 1580-1615, trans. Janet, and Pullan, Brian (London, 1967), pp. 64–66Google Scholar, and Corbett, Julian S., England in the Mediterranean: A Study of the Rise and Influence of British Power within the Straits, 1603-1713, 2 vols. (2nd ed.; London, 1917), 1: 155–206.Google Scholar

56 See Thomas, Lewis V., A Study of Naima, ed. Itzkowitz, Norman (New York, 1972), pp. 12–13Google Scholar for a disapproving passage on Kara Murad translated from Efendi, Mustafa Naima, Tarih-i Naima, 6 vols. (Istanbul, 1864-1866), 4: 295-96Google Scholar. He appears elsewhere in the work of this late-seventeenth-century chronicler. See for instance 4: 106 and 5: 234, 349, and 432. Evliya Çelebi, whose patron was Melek Ahmed Pasha, Kara Murad's successor as grand vezir and one of his chief rivals, assesses Kara Murad with perhaps unwarranted contempt in his Seyahatname.

57 A kadi in the Ottoman empire judged according to religious and sultanic law and administered an area called a kaza or kadihk (see Inalcik, Halil, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600 [London and New York, 1973], p. 75Google Scholar). In Izmir, this individual was particularly influential because there was no Ottoman military authority residing in the port. On Jean Dupuy's dealings with Ottoman officials in Izmir, see Basbakanlik Arjivi, Ecnebi Defterleri 26/1, pp. 15, 16, 19, 47-48, and 49.

58 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 41.

59 CSP, Venetian, 25: 76, n. 108.Google Scholar

60 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 55, petition and complaint of the Governor and Company of Merchants in the Levant Seas Against Henry Hyde; and f. 35, Bendysh to Company Director, 6 August 1650.

61 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 31-31v.

62 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 33.

63 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 37, to Mr. William Ell, the mates, boatswain, and other officers of the Lewis.

64 On this period, often misleadingly referred to as the “sultanate of the Ağas,” see Naima, , Tarih-i Naima, vol. 5Google Scholar, who regrettably says little about Bendysh and seemingly nothing about Hyde; Ahmed Refik (Altinay), Kadinlar Saltanatı, vol. 4 (Istanbul, 1913-1914Google Scholar); and the general history by fsmail Uzunçarşih, Hakkt, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 3, pt. 1 (Ankara, 1951), pp. 245–308Google Scholar. For a short narrative in English, see Shaw, Stanford J., History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 1: Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808 (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 203-07.Google Scholar

65 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 35, Bendysh to Company Director, stating that Hyde “Continueth still there [in Izmir] (notwithstanding our Endeavours to the Contrary) hoping to be able to worke som newe disturbance by occasion of a late Choyes of a new vizier Azem the old vizier & his freinds beeing discarded.”

66 From the Ottoman point-of-view, these were not bribes. See Ínalcık, Halil, “Ottoman Archival Materials on Millets,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. 1: The Central Lands, eds. Braude, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard (New York, 1982), pp. 447-48.Google Scholar

67 The French ambassador related to the doge and Senate that the “parliamentarians” (Bendysh and his adherents) had in fact refused to surrender Hyde to a çavus (CSP, Venetian, 28: 159, n. 433.Google Scholar)

68 PRO, SP 97/17, ff. 57-58. Niccoló Sagredo, Venetian ambassador in Germany, contended that Bendysh had four English merchants seized, beaten, and dispatched in chains to Izmir, and asserts that Ottoman compliance came only after the ambassador had offered ships against the Venetians and promised to send 200,000 sequins to the coast of Barbary to finance the corsairs' shipbuilding (CSP, Venetian, 28: 163, n. 441Google Scholar).

69 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 44. See also SP 105/144, Levant Company Register Book, ff. 28v-29, 11 December 1650. The fifth article presented to the Admiralty Committee requested that “the Convoy now designed for the Straights may saile up within sight of the Castles at Constantinople.” The English fleet did not sail up to Istanbul, as it was occupied with the French and Dutch respectively, not to mention Prince Rupert.

70 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 53.

71 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 55.

72 CSP, Commonwealth, 1651, 3: 10, item 2.Google Scholar

73 CSP, Commonwealth, 1651, 3: 14Google Scholar. The authors know of no extant judicial proceedings for this case. A parliamentary high court of justice could have prosecuted Hyde, since his offenses were treasonous. The Rump however decided to remand the case to the judges of the Admiralty. Although contemporary sources claim it was treason for which he was executed, no record of the specific charges survives.

74 Hinde, , Sir Henry Hide's Speech, p. 10.Google Scholar

75 See above, note 47.

76 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 59, 24 January 1651.

77 Hinde, , Sir Henry Hide's Speech, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

78 Basbakanlik Arsivi, Ecnebi Defterleri 26/1, p. 50, n. 1. This document contains the only direct mention of Bendysh (Ingiliz elçisi nâminda olan Bendis) we have found in Ottoman archival sources.

79 Uzunçarsılı, , Osmanli Tarihi, vol. 3, pt. 2 (Istanbul, 1953), pp. 397–411.Google Scholar

80 See for instance PRO, SP 97/17, ff. 57-58 (14 January 1651), and f. 70 (22 December 1651).

81 Allegations of Ottoman utilization of English bottoms are quite numerous in CSP, Venetian, 28: esp. 99Google Scholar, n. 272, and 117, n. 331. See also in 28: 8, n. 15; 63, n. 148; 75, n. 186; 95, n. 25; 96, n. 261; 98, ns. 268 and 269; 101, n. 278; 111, ns. 312 and 313; 122, n. 343; 162, n. 439; 165, n. 444; and 173, n. 468.

82 The struggle between Bendysh and his Ottoman religious nemesis is described in Naima, , Tarih-i Naima, 5: 64–68Google Scholar. See also PRO, SP 97/17, f. 66. For a brief biography of this seyhälislam, see Uzunçarşılı, , Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 3, pt. 2, pp. 468-69.Google Scholar

83 Naima reports these exchanges between consul, kadi, ambassador, and grand mufti in his Tarih-i Naima, 5: 64–67Google Scholar. He cites the English capitulations, in defense of Hashimizade's position, as follows: “When two Englishmen have an unsatisfied lawsuit of 200,000 aspers, the Islamic judge shall decide it. If it is more than 200,000 aspers, it shall not be heard here. It shall be transferred to England.”

84 PRO, SP 97/17, f. 65, 26 March 1651. That Pixley was Hyde's supporter is confirmed by his inclusion on Hyde's list of merchants whom the Lewis was forbidden to transport to England (SP 97/17, f. 37, 7 August 1650). Pixley also is mentioned in Hyde's declaration of 5 July 1650 (SP 97/17, f. 31).

85 Wilson, , p. 53. See also Cooper, J. P., “Social and Economic Policies under the Commonwealth,” in The Interregnum: The Quest for a Settlement, ed. Aylmer, Gerald (London, 1972), pp. 121–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 See above, p. 444. The State Papers from February 1649 to the end of 1650 contain a number of complaints about attacks on English shipping. On 13 September 1650 the Levant Company requested a convoy to protect its cargoes from French marauders, and on 11 October a Mr. Challoner was instructed to inform the Rump Parliament that the Council of State, upon recommendation of the Council of Trade, advocated the establishment of a convoy for the Levant merchants in the name of “preservation of trade” (, 2: 379; and Wood, , , p. 212).Google Scholar