Piracy by British seamen was at this time sufficiently common to call for the interference of Parliament. It exercised much the mind of our then Prime Minister Sir William Cecil—who held the same great office under Queen Elizabeth that his descendant, our present Prime Minister, holds under Queen Victoria. From his private memoranda on this matter we may notice the following as directly bearing on our subject. He writes— “Instead of the Iceland fleet of Englishmen, which used to supply Normandy and Brittany, as well as England, 500 French vessels, with 30 to 40 men in each of them, go annually to Newfoundland, and even the home fisheries have fallen equally into the hands of strangers. The Yarmouth waters (which certainly included the Lowestoft) were occupied by Flemish and Frenchmen. As remedies for this evil he mentions—(1) Merchandise, (2) Fishing, (3) _The exercise of Piracy_, _which was detestable_, _and could not last_.” Sufficient evidence this of the extent to which our seamen had taken to piracy at this time. However detestable our Prime Minister thought it, he did not, or could not, stop it. It went on more or less throughout Elizabeth’s reign. Our sea-warriors who defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, were most of them the crews of these “pirate” ships, who for once at least, indulged their fighting propensities in the best service of their country. The only remedy at the time that Cecil could think of was an Act of Parliament to compel people to eat fish. In 1562, Mr. Froude tells us, he brought a bill into the House of Commons to make the eating of flesh on Fridays and Saturdays a misdemeanour, punishable by a fine of £3, or three months’ imprisonment, and, as if this was not enough, adding Wednesday as a subsidiary or half-fish day, on which one dish of flesh might be allowed, provided there were served at the same table and the same meal three full competent usual dishes of sea fish of sundry kinds, fresh and salt! The House of Commons, Cecil admitted, was very much against him. He carried his measure only by arguing that, if the Bill was passed, it would be almost inoperative:—labourers and poor householders could not observe it, and the rest by license or without license would do as they would; while to satisfy the Puritans he was obliged to add the ludicrous provision that— “Because no person should misjudge the intent of the statute which was politicly meant only for the increase of fishermen and mariners, and not for any superstition in the choice of meats, whoever should preach or teach that eating of fish or forbearing of flesh was for the saving of the soul of man, or for the service of God, should be punished as the spreader of false news.” The Act was passed, but it does not seem that it had more effect than was expected in either improving the fishing trade or in stopping piracy. {66}