CHAPTER IIIKIDD’S RETURN HOME
Had Kidd been fortunate enough on his first visit to Madagascar to find his pirates there, it is possible but not very probable that his crew might have done their best to kill or catch their fellow-countrymen, who were preying on the Indian commerce. On the other hand, had he not been so unfortunate as to find the pirates awaiting him there on his way back to Boston, he would probably have been able to bring his two prizes home safely within a reasonable time and have ended his voyage to the satisfaction of his employers and with credit to himself. Even as it was, had he been in command of a disciplined crew, as determined as their captain was, faithfully to discharge the painful duties they had undertaken, hisfinding the pirates at St. Marie’s would have given him a fair chance of crowning his patient efforts with a success which might have been handed down to posterity as a proof of the fortitude by which a great Scotch sea captain had been able to surmount apparently insuperable difficulties. But it would be hard to find in history, sacred or profane, an unluckier man than Kidd. TheAdventure Galleycame back to Madagascar in a sinking condition, with her crew on the brink of mutiny, worn out with repeated mishaps, having lost a large number of their fellows by sickness, disgusted at the ill-luck and strait-laced proceedings of their conscientious commander, in possession, it is true, of a rich prize, but in some doubt, owing to his hesitation in retaining her, whether, when they got to Boston, questions as to the legality of the capture, to say nothing of their recent misconduct in rifling the Portuguese ship, might not be raised, ending in their getting no pay whatever forbetween two and three years’ heavy and perilous work, and possibly in their being thrown into gaol by Bellamont for piracy. Probably they would have mutinied long before, if they could have found a capable leader with the necessary knowledge of navigation to take Kidd’s place. As it was, when they found their fellow-countrymen at St. Marie’s, living on the fat of the land on cargoes taken from the Moors, under an adventurous and successful commander, Culliford, who had stolen an East Indiaman from his employers, and was now reaping a rich harvest from his villainy, it was no wonder that the greater part of Kidd’s men at once decided to throw in their lot with him, rather than stand by Kidd in an internecine struggle with their fellow-countrymen, in which success was more than doubtful, and if attained would necessitate their carrying their conquered compatriots in chains to an English port, there to be handed over to the authorities with a view to their being hungas pirates, for what was regarded by the majority of the seamen on both sides as the very venial offence of plundering the enemies of Christianity. The catastrophe which now befell was the inevitable sequence of what had gone before, and what Kidd found awaiting him on his arrival at Madagascar.
Let him tell the tale in his own simple words.[8]
“When the Narrator arrived at the said Port, there was a Pirate Ship, called theMoca Frigate, at an anchor, Robert Culliford Commander thereof, who with his men left the same at his coming and ran into the woods. And the Narrator proposed to his men to take the same, having sufficient power and authority so to do. But the mutinous crew told him, ‘If he offered the same, they would rather fire ten guns into him than one into the other,’ and thereupon ninety-seven men deserted, and went intotheMoca Frigate, and sent into the woods for the said pirates, and brought the said Culliford and his men on board again, and all the time he stayed in the said port the said deserters sometimes in great numbers came on board the saidGalleyandAdventure Prize, and carried away great guns, Powder, Shot, small arms, sails, Anchors, Cables, Surgeon’s chest, and what else they pleased; and threatened several times to murder the Narrator, as he was informed and advised to take care of himself, which they designed in the night to effect; but was [sic] prevented by his locking himself in his cabin at night, and securing himself by barricading the same with bales of goods and having about forty small arms besides pistols, ready charged to keep them out.”
“Their wickedness was so great that after they had plundered and ransacked sufficiently, they went five miles off to one Edward Welche’s house, where his, the Narrator’s chest was lodged, and broke it openand took out ten ounces of gold, 40 pound of plate, 370 pieces of eight, the Narrator’s Journal, and a great many papers that belonged to him and the People of New York that fitted them out.”
“About the fifteenth of June, theMoca Frigatewent away, being manned with about 130 men and forty guns bound out to take all nations. It was then that the Narrator was left only with 13 men, so that the Moors he had to pump and keep theAdventure Galleyabove water being carried away, she sank in the harbour, and the Narrator with the said thirteen men went on board theAdventure Prize.”
Let us try to put ourselves in Kidd’s place, when the bulk of his men went over to the enemy. Forcibly deprived of his command at the moment when he saw success within his grasp; deserted by nearly all his crew; plundered of the greater part of the spoil he was taking home to his employers; on board the sinkingAdventure Galley;confined to his stifling cabin with its barricaded approaches. What course can it be suggested that he could have taken and have been held blameless by an English court? What course ought any man to have taken in his place who sought to do his duty by his owners?
It would have been a mercy to him and to his memory, if the mutineers had then and there made an end of him. But to have done this, they must have stormed his cabin, and they dared not try it. They knew his fighting record. They had been with him in his encounter with the Portuguese man-of-war. None knew better than they that he would sell his life dearly. Let us hope, too, that some few of his crew stood by him in this emergency, with “the forty loaded small arms, besides pistols.” But although the pirates and mutineers could not make an end of him, it was equally impossible for him to take the offensive against them. If neither party could attack, the situationcould only be relieved by diplomacy. The ultimate solution has been handed down to us by the doubtful testimony of one or two of those who were there. We are left to conjecture the intermediate stages of the arrangement.
According to the evidence theAdventure Galleywas brought into the port on the first of April, in company with its smaller prize. TheQuedagh Merchantdid not come in until some weeks afterwards. TheMoca Frigate, as already stated, went away on the fifteenth of June, leaving Kidd and thirteen men behind. In the interval some kind of a compact seems to have been come to, by which Kidd undertook not to molest the pirates, and Culliford agreed to let Kidd keep theQuedagh Merchantand a certain quantity of the goods on board of her. It is difficult to see how Kidd in his then position could have made a better bargain than this for the great men who were employing him. Judging from the amount of specieand goods which he succeeded after all in bringing to America, he appears to have done very well indeed for them. Possibly the canny Scot, notwithstanding the theft of his chest, had more gold and valuables concealed in his impenetrable cabin than the deserters dreamed of. Possibly some of his late crew had consciences and were willing to let him off cheaply. Whatever the details of the arrangement may have been, it is unlikely that he could in any case have saved himself from the charge brought against him at his trial, on which the judge laid great stress, and which has clung to him ever since, that having been sent out to catch the pirates, and bring them home with him, he had on the first occasion on which he had met them, promised not to molest them, an offence which it was alleged at his trial that he had aggravated by drinking deeply from a tub of “bomboo” with their Captain Culliford.
The word “bomboo” has a fine piraticalsuggestiveness about it. It sounds as if it were some weird concoction of strong liquors, which carousing pirates in their unholy orgies were wont to consume by the bucketfull. As a matter of fact, it was a very innocent beverage made of water, limes, and sugar; and it was small blame to poor Kidd that on emerging from his beleaguered cabin in that hot climate, he was glad enough to take a long drink of it, when at length a truce had been arranged. According to the King’s evidence at his trial, he solemnly undertook over this draught of “bomboo” not to molest the pirates, and presumably they also undertook not to molest him. The alternative very possibly was his death from thirst in his stuffy cabin. Culliford’s men outnumbered his by ten to one. The only evidence besides his own that we have of this incident was that given at his trial by two of his crew, who had deserted him and gone over to the enemy. Kidd not unnaturally was very bitter against thesetwo men,—Bradenham the surgeon and Palmer, one of his seamen—as appears from the following quotations from the verbatim report of his trial.
Kidd(to Bradenham). “Did you not come aboard my ship and rob the surgeon’s chest?”
Bradenham.“No, I did not.”
Kidd.“Did I not come to you when you went away and met you on the deck, and said, ‘Why do you take the chest away?’”
Bradenham.“No, I did not do it.”
Kidd.“You are a rogue.”
Again:
Kidd.“Mr. Bradenham, are you not promised your life to take away mine?”
Mr. JusticeTurton. “He is not bound to answer that question. He is very fit to be made an evidence of the King. Perhaps there can be no other in this case than such who are in his circumstances.”
In other words, those of the crew who had faithfully stood by their captain, and helpedhim to bring his prize home to America in the interests of their employers, one of whom was the King himself, could not be relied on as witnesses. The only witnesses who could be trusted to swear through thick and thin against Kidd, were two men who by their own admission had deserted their colours and joined Culliford in open piracy against the ships of all nations.
To quote again from the verbatim report:
Kidd.“I hope the King’s counsel will not put him in the way. It is hard that a couple of rascals should take away the King’s subjects’ lives. They are a couple of rogues and rascals.”
Again, when one of them conveniently feigned ignorance, and an answer by the other had been suggested to him by one of the counsel for the prosecution:
Kidd.“It is a fine trade that you must take away so many of the King’s subjects’ lives, and know nothing at all of the matter.”
Again, speaking this time to the judge:
“It is a fine trade indeed that he must be instructed what to say. He knows no more of these things than you do. The fellow used to sleep five or six months together in the hold.”
Once more:
“He tells a thousand lies. The man contradicts himself a hundred times.”
Kidd(speaking this time to Palmer). “I would not go with such a roguish crew as you were. Was I not threatened to be shot in my cabin by such villains as you, if I would not go along with you? This was the reason I could not come home. Did you not with the others set fire to the boat to destroy my ship? My lord, they took what they pleased out of the ship, and I was forced to stay by myself, and pick up here a man and there a man to carry her home.”
That Kidd had no option but to stay on at Madagascar after Culliford had left is obvious. The faithful thirteen who remainedbehind with him were clearly an insufficient ship’s company to bring theQuedagh Merchantwith her freight safely to America. When he left her off the coast of Hispaniola, nearly a year afterwards, denuded of the specie and goods which he had taken from her to Boston, she carried besides her thirty mounted guns, taken from theAdventure Galley, twenty more guns of her own, stowed away in her hold, some two hundred bales of calicoes, silks, and muslins, between eighty and ninety tons of refined sugar, forty tons of saltpetre, and ten tons of iron “in short junks.” No reason, other than stern necessity, can have induced him to prolong his stay at Madagascar. He and his men must have wished to get home as soon as might be. Had they been able to start at once, they might have been in time to put an end to the suspicions of their honesty, which were already accumulating in England owing to the protracted absence of news as to their movements, and the complaintof the East India Company of the seizure of theQuedagh Merchant.
Unfortunately Madagascar was one of the last places in the world in which Kidd was likely to find the men required to bring his ship home. The majority of such English-speaking men as were there were by no means desirous of bringing themselves within the grasp of the law. In the course of the next five months, to quote his own words, “he picked up here a man and there a man,” and “some passengers presented that were bound for these parts,”i. e., America. At last, still under-manned, he started on his homeward voyage, and reached Anguilla in the West Indies in April, 1699. By this time he had been condemned unheard by the home authorities; and the hue and cry had been raised against him and such of his crew as had remained faithful. The lords justices had sent instructions to the governors of all the English colonies in America “to apprehend himand his accomplices, whenever he or they should arrive in any of the said plantations,” and “to secure his ship and all the effects therein, it being their Excellencies’ intention that right be done to those who have been injured and robbed by the said Kidd, and that he and his associates be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law.” Consequently when, in all innocence, he sent his boat on shore, to quote again from his own artless narrative, “his men had the news that he and his people were proclaimed pirates, which put them into such consternation that they sought all opportunities to run the ship ashore upon some reef or shoal, fearing the Narrator should carry them into some English port.”
“From Anguilla,” he tells us, “they came to St. Thomas, where his brother-in-law, Samuel Bradley, was put on shore being sick, and five more” (out of his small crew) “went away and deserted him. There he heard the same news, that he and his companywere proclaimed pirates, which incensed the people more and more.”
“From St. Thomas he set sail for Moona, an island between Hispaniola and Porto Rico, where they met with a sloop, called theSt. Anthony, bound for Antigua from Curaso. The men on board then swore that they would bring the ship no further.” By this time some commanders would have hesitated. Not so Kidd. He held to his purpose to remain true to his employers whatever the cost to himself might be. He tells us, and his evidence is not contradicted, that he “then sent the said sloop,St. Anthony, to Curaso for canvas to make sails for the prize, she not being able to proceed, and she returned in ten days, and after the canvas came he could not persuade the men to carry her to New England. But six of them went and carried their chests and things on board of the Dutch sloop, bound for Curaso, and would not so much as heel the vessel, or do anything.” The remainder of the men notbeing able to bring theAdventure Prizeto Boston “he secured her in a good safe harbour in Hispaniola and left her in the possession of Mr. Henry Boulton of Antigua, Merchant, with three of the old men and fifteen or sixteen of the men that belonged to the said sloopSt. Anthonyand a brigantine belonging to Mr. Burt of Curaso.” He then “bought the said sloop,St. Anthony, of Mr. Boulton for the owners’ account: and after he had given directions to the said Boulton to be careful of the ship and lading, and persuaded him to stay three months until he returned, he made the best of his way to New York.”
Bellamont was not at New York, but at Boston. An old friend of Kidd’s, Emmot by name, came on board the sloop from New York, and to him Kidd told his simple tale, handed over to him the two invaluable French passes to take to Bellamont, as evidence that the two prizes, in respect of which he had been charged with piracy, had beenlawfully taken under his letters of marque. On the thirteenth of June, Emmot came to Bellamont at Boston with these passes, and two days afterwards Bellamont sent Mr. Duncan Campbell, the Postmaster of Boston, to invite Kidd to come into the port of Boston. On the nineteenth Campbell returned, and gave in a memorial,[9]still extant, of all that had passed between him and Kidd.
This memorial is of interest, as showing the effect produced on Bellamont’s emissary by his first interview with Kidd. Had he been prejudiced in Kidd’s favor, it is unlikely that he would have been selected by Bellamont for the purpose of ascertaining whether Kidd was guilty of piracy or not. On the same day he was sent back by Bellamont to Kidd, with the following letter:
Boston, 19 June, 1699.“Captain Kidd,—Mr. Emmot came to me last Tuesday night telling me he camefrom you: but was shy of telling where he parted with you. Nor did I press him to it. He told me you came by Oyster Bay in Nassau Island and sent for him to New York. He proposed to me that I would grant you a pardon. I answered that I had never granted one yet, and that I had set myself a rule never to grant a pardon to anybody without the King’s express leave or command. He told me you declared and protested your innocence and that if your men could be persuaded to follow your example, you would make no manner of scruple of coming into this port, or any other within His Majesty’s Dominions. That you owned there were two ships taken, but that your men did it violently and against your will, and had used you barbarously, in imprisoning you and treating you ill the most part of your voyage, and often attempting to murder you. Mr. Emmot delivered to me the two French passes taken on board the two ships your men rifled,[10]which passes I have in my custody, and I am apt to believe they will be a good article to justify you, if the late peace were not bythe Treaty between England and France to operate in that part of the world at the time the hostility was committed, as I am almost confident it was not to do. Mr. Emmot told me that you showed a great sense of honour and justice in professing with many asseverations your settled and serious design all along to do honour to your Commission and never to do the least thing contrary to your duty and allegiance to the King. And this I have to say in your defence, that several persons in New York, who I can bring to evidence it, did tell me that by several advices from Madagascar and that part of the world, they were informed of your men’s revolting from you in one place, and I am pretty sure they said was Madagascar, and that others compelled you much against your will to take and rifle two ships.“I have advised with His Majesty’s Council, and shewed them this letter, and they are of opinion that if you can be so clear as you (or Mr. Emmot for you) have said,that you may safely come hither, and be equipped and fitted out to go and fetch the other ship, and I make no manner of doubt but to obtain the King’s pardon for you, andfor those few men you have left who I understand have been faithful to you, and refused as well as you to dishonour the Commission you have from England.“I assure you on my Word and Honour I will perform nicely what I have promised, though this I declare beforehand that whatever goods and treasure you may bring hither, I will not meddle with the least bit of them: but they shall be left with such persons as the Council shall advise until I receive orders from England how they shall be disposed of.”
Boston, 19 June, 1699.
“Captain Kidd,—Mr. Emmot came to me last Tuesday night telling me he camefrom you: but was shy of telling where he parted with you. Nor did I press him to it. He told me you came by Oyster Bay in Nassau Island and sent for him to New York. He proposed to me that I would grant you a pardon. I answered that I had never granted one yet, and that I had set myself a rule never to grant a pardon to anybody without the King’s express leave or command. He told me you declared and protested your innocence and that if your men could be persuaded to follow your example, you would make no manner of scruple of coming into this port, or any other within His Majesty’s Dominions. That you owned there were two ships taken, but that your men did it violently and against your will, and had used you barbarously, in imprisoning you and treating you ill the most part of your voyage, and often attempting to murder you. Mr. Emmot delivered to me the two French passes taken on board the two ships your men rifled,[10]which passes I have in my custody, and I am apt to believe they will be a good article to justify you, if the late peace were not bythe Treaty between England and France to operate in that part of the world at the time the hostility was committed, as I am almost confident it was not to do. Mr. Emmot told me that you showed a great sense of honour and justice in professing with many asseverations your settled and serious design all along to do honour to your Commission and never to do the least thing contrary to your duty and allegiance to the King. And this I have to say in your defence, that several persons in New York, who I can bring to evidence it, did tell me that by several advices from Madagascar and that part of the world, they were informed of your men’s revolting from you in one place, and I am pretty sure they said was Madagascar, and that others compelled you much against your will to take and rifle two ships.
“I have advised with His Majesty’s Council, and shewed them this letter, and they are of opinion that if you can be so clear as you (or Mr. Emmot for you) have said,that you may safely come hither, and be equipped and fitted out to go and fetch the other ship, and I make no manner of doubt but to obtain the King’s pardon for you, andfor those few men you have left who I understand have been faithful to you, and refused as well as you to dishonour the Commission you have from England.
“I assure you on my Word and Honour I will perform nicely what I have promised, though this I declare beforehand that whatever goods and treasure you may bring hither, I will not meddle with the least bit of them: but they shall be left with such persons as the Council shall advise until I receive orders from England how they shall be disposed of.”
Kidd’s reply to this letter was as follows:
“To theEarl of Bellamont.“From Block Island on Board the Sloop Anthony“24 June, 1699.“May it please your Excellency,“I am honoured with your Lordship’s letter of the 19th instant by Mr. Campbell, which came to my hands this day. For which I return my most hearty thanks. I cannot but blame myself for not writing to your Lordship before this time, knowing it was my duty: but the clamours and falsestories that have been reported of me, made me fearful of visiting or coming into any harbour, till I could hear from your Lordship.“I note the contents of your Lordship’s letter, as to what Mr. Emmot and Mr. Campbell informed your Lordship of my proceedings I do affirm to be true, and a great deal more might be said of the abuses of my men, and the hardships I have undergone to preserve the ship and what goods my men had left. Ninety-five men went away from me in one day and went on board theMoca Frigate, Captain Robert Culliford, Commander, who went away to the Red Sea; and committed several acts of piracy, as I am informed; and am afraid (the men formerly belonging to myGalley) that the report is gone home against me to the East India Company, that I have been the actor. A sheet of paper will not contain what may be said of the care I took to preserve the owners’ interest, and to come home to clear my own innocency. I do further declare and protest that I never did in the least act contrary to the King’s Commission, nor to the reputation of my honourable owners,and doubt not but that I shall be able to make my innocence appear; or else I had no need to come to these parts of the world; if it were not for that and my owners’ interest. There are Five or Six Passengers that came from Madagascar to assist me in bringing the ship home, and about ten of my own men, that came with me would not venture to go into Boston, till Mr. Campbell had engaged Body for Body for them that they should not be molested while I stayed at Boston, or till I return with the ship. I doubt not but your Lordship will write to England in my favour and for these few men who are left.“I wish your Lordship would persuade Mr. Campbell to go home to England with your Lordship’s letters, who will be able to give account of our affairs and diligently follow the same that there may be a speedy answer from England. I desired Mr. Campbell to buy 1000 weight of Rigging for fitting of the ship to bring her to Boston, that I may not be delayed when I come there.“Upon receiving of your Lordship’s letter, I am making the best of my way to Boston. This with my humble duty to yourLordship and Countess, is what offers from, my Lord, your Excellency’s most humble and dutiful servant,“William Kidd.”
“To theEarl of Bellamont.
“From Block Island on Board the Sloop Anthony
“24 June, 1699.
“May it please your Excellency,
“I am honoured with your Lordship’s letter of the 19th instant by Mr. Campbell, which came to my hands this day. For which I return my most hearty thanks. I cannot but blame myself for not writing to your Lordship before this time, knowing it was my duty: but the clamours and falsestories that have been reported of me, made me fearful of visiting or coming into any harbour, till I could hear from your Lordship.
“I note the contents of your Lordship’s letter, as to what Mr. Emmot and Mr. Campbell informed your Lordship of my proceedings I do affirm to be true, and a great deal more might be said of the abuses of my men, and the hardships I have undergone to preserve the ship and what goods my men had left. Ninety-five men went away from me in one day and went on board theMoca Frigate, Captain Robert Culliford, Commander, who went away to the Red Sea; and committed several acts of piracy, as I am informed; and am afraid (the men formerly belonging to myGalley) that the report is gone home against me to the East India Company, that I have been the actor. A sheet of paper will not contain what may be said of the care I took to preserve the owners’ interest, and to come home to clear my own innocency. I do further declare and protest that I never did in the least act contrary to the King’s Commission, nor to the reputation of my honourable owners,and doubt not but that I shall be able to make my innocence appear; or else I had no need to come to these parts of the world; if it were not for that and my owners’ interest. There are Five or Six Passengers that came from Madagascar to assist me in bringing the ship home, and about ten of my own men, that came with me would not venture to go into Boston, till Mr. Campbell had engaged Body for Body for them that they should not be molested while I stayed at Boston, or till I return with the ship. I doubt not but your Lordship will write to England in my favour and for these few men who are left.
“I wish your Lordship would persuade Mr. Campbell to go home to England with your Lordship’s letters, who will be able to give account of our affairs and diligently follow the same that there may be a speedy answer from England. I desired Mr. Campbell to buy 1000 weight of Rigging for fitting of the ship to bring her to Boston, that I may not be delayed when I come there.
“Upon receiving of your Lordship’s letter, I am making the best of my way to Boston. This with my humble duty to yourLordship and Countess, is what offers from, my Lord, your Excellency’s most humble and dutiful servant,
“William Kidd.”
On the first of July he brought the sloop and the remnant of his crew into the port of Boston, conscious of his integrity and relying on the word and honour of Bellamont. It may well be doubted whether any man in equally trying circumstances has ever been truer to his trust.
CHAPTER IVTHE GENESIS AND GROWTH OF THE ARCH PIRATE MYTH
Kidd’s expedition having originated in the desire of the government to placate the East India Company, it is only reasonable to surmise that the Company received some early official intimation of what was being done on their behalf. To what extent they were informed officially of the details of the government scheme is of comparatively small importance. The great wealth at their disposal and the prodigality with which they expended their secret service money in those days, leave no room for doubt that at a very early stage of the proceedings they made themselves acquainted with the essential facts. Their factories were exposed to imminent danger from the irritation of the Great Mogul at the continuousrobbery of his subjects’ goods by English-speaking seamen on his coasts. The Company must have taken the keenest interest in the measures designed for the repression of this piracy. With their practical knowledge of the difficulties to be encountered, it is unlikely that they at any time regarded the adventurers’ project as a very promising one. When they heard of the failure of the Admiralty to protect Kidd’s carefully selected crew from the press gang, and realised that the bulk of the ship’s company would have to be got from New York, it is impossible that they can have entertained any illusions as to the probability of its success.
Kidd’s crew was pressed at the Nore on the first of March, 1696. By one of the curious close coincidences of date which speak for themselves in this case more convincingly than any words can do, the Company on the following day addressed a petition to the Admiralty, praying to be allowedto take the business of dealing with the pirates into their own hands. In this petition they urged that “Your Lordships will please to empower the petitioners’ ships and officers to seize and take all pirates infesting those seas within the limits of the Company’s charter and likewise empower them to erect a Court of Admiralty in those parts.” This proposal except for a very excusable technical error contained in it, which if not corrected, would have enabled the Company, instead of the Admiralty, to create a Court of Admiralty, was not unreasonable. It was referred by the Admiralty to their judge, Sir Charles Hedges, who promptly reported in the following terms on the steps necessary to carry it into effect: “That the more regular way will be for your Lordships to take a Commission under the Great Seal of England giving power to the Lord Admiral or Commissioners for executing the office of High Admiral to grant commissions to any of the Captains of the EastIndia Company’s ships for the taking of the ships of pirates, wherein it shall be expressed what parts or shares the King shall see fit to reserve to himself or bestow upon the Captors and Company.”
“That your Lordships may be pleased to erect a Vice-Admiralty at Bombay or any other place that shall be thought expedient in the same manner as is done in the West Indies, which being established by a commission in the ordinary form, that will be sufficient to empower such Vice-Admiralty there, to proceed against ships as fully as any Vice-Admiralty in England or the High Court of Admiralty can do.”
Why no action was taken on this proposal of the Company as modified by Sir Charles Hedges, is not clear. Possibly the Admiralty hesitated to hand over to the captains of the Company’s ships work which they thought more properly belonged to the King’s navy, and which when the French war was ended was very soon performedby Captain Warren’s squadron. Possibly they felt a delicacy in doing anything that might diminish the great ministers’ chances of gain from Kidd’s adventure. What seems to have happened is that the Company’s petition was officially shelved for nearly four years, when Captain Warren having in the meanwhile been sent out with five men-of-war to suppress the pirates, it was referred to the committee of the House of Commons, who had then been appointed to consider further the large question of the state and condition of the trade of England, by whom, if considered at all, it would have to run the gauntlet of many implacable enemies of the Company, and in particular of certain ardent protectionists of that day who never missed an opportunity of holding forth on the injuries to which English industries were exposed by the importation by the Company of Indian silks, calicoes, and muslins.
Apart, however, from any question ofthe probable success of Kidd’s expedition, or the desirability of giving the Company a free hand to deal themselves with the pirates, the terms of the grant of the spoil to the adventurers, with which the Company had evidently made themselves familiar, were calculated to place them in a very awkward position with the Great Mogul. What they had to protect themselves against, was a summary expulsion from his dominions; and they must have realized that even if Kidd succeeded in catching his pirates, it would be a very unsatisfactory reply to the demands of that great potentate for the immediate restitution of the stolen properties, to assure him that the thieves had been carried to England, where it was to be hoped that some of them might in due course be convicted, and possibly hung; but that the stolen goods had in the meanwhile been appropriated by some of the King’s great ministers. It was not impossible that the next demand of the Great Mogul might bethat these great gentlemen together with such of the directors of the Company as had acquiesced in this arrangement should at once be handed over to him to be dealt with according to their deserts. It is not, therefore, surprising to find that on the twentieth of August in that year, whilst Kidd was still at New York trying to pick up his crew, the Company presented a further petition to the Lords Justices, praying that “such of the species of gold, silver and jewels as have already been or shall hereafter be seized in the custody of any of the pirates or any other persons who cannot make a legal title thereunto, may not be disposed of, but put into the possession of the Company, in order to be preserved for the use of the proprietors in India, that the Government may see that His Majesty as well as the Company have done their utmost endeavours to seize the said pirates and to make restitution to the persons injured so far as it is in their power.”
In taking this course the Company must have realized that it would be very distasteful to the King and his four great ministers, who were proposing themselves to appropriate the bulk of the spoil. But they also knew that these great men had placed themselves hopelessly in the wrong; and that there were plenty of their enemies in the House of Commons who would be only too eager to expose the scandal, when the time came for them to do so. This consideration seems to have had some weight with the Lords Justices, and prevented them from shelving this petition as unceremoniously as the Admiralty had done the former one. Anxious to appease the Company, and at the same time to safeguard the rights of the adventurers, they decided at a meeting at which the Duke of Shrewsbury, one of the adventurers, was present, to send a peremptory but guarded dispatch to the governors of all the American plantations, requiring them “to take all possible care, and use alldue means for the seizing and apprehending all such pirates and sea robbers and such as may be reasonably suspected for the same, either by reason of the great quantities of gold and silver of foreign coins they usually have with them, or by other probable circumstances; and to cause them to be straightly imprisoned, and their ships, goods, and plunder to be kept in safe custody; until upon returning to us a full account of the said persons, ships, goods and plunder, with the evidence relating to them, His Majesty’s pleasure shall be known and signified concerning them.” Amongst the signatories to this despatch the name of the Earl of Romney, another of the adventurers, appears.
As might have been expected, this dispatch produced little if any practical result. During the next two years the Company continued to receive repeated reports of the depredations of the pirates, and the excitement created thereby amongst the nativesof India, who had in some cases seized the Company’s factories and put the factors in irons. Meanwhile the absence of any news from Kidd had not unnaturally aroused the suspicions of the Company. Culliford, the captain of one of their own East Indiamen, theMoca Frigate, had run away with their ship from Madras and joined the pirates; and it may have seemed to them by no means improbable that Kidd with his American crew had done the like. At length they received some vague intimation, confirming their suspicions; and in August, 1698, they informed the Lords Justices “that they had receivedsomeinformation from their factories in the East Indies that Kidd had committed several acts of piracy, particularly in seizing a Moors’ ship called theQuedagh Merchant.” As they produced no evidence from their informants at Kidd’s trial in support of these allegations, although they had ample time and opportunity for obtaining it during his two years’ imprisonment, it is notunfair to assume that the information which they received on this occasion was not such as they cared to submit to an English Court of Law. But such as it was, the Lords Justices did not hesitate to act at once upon it, and to assume without further inquiry not only that Kidd was guilty, but that he was already a notorious pirate. On the twenty-third of November, 1698, whilst Kidd was stranded at Madagascar, they sent the following circular to Rear Admiral Benbow, and the governor of every American Colony: “The Lords Justices having been informed by several advices from the East Indies of the notorious piracies committed by Captain Kidd, and of his having seized and plundered divers ships in those seas, as their Excellencies have given orders to the commander of the squadron fitted out for the East Indies that he use his utmost endeavours to pursue and seize the said Kidd, if he continue still in those parts, so likewise they have commanded me to signify theirdirections to the respective governors of the Colonies under His Majesty’s obedience in America, that they give strict orders and take particular care for apprehending the said Kidd and his accomplices, whenever he or they shall arrive in any of the said plantations, as likewise that they shall secure his ship and all the effects therein, it being Their Excellencies’ intention that right be done to those who have been injured and robbed by the said Kidd, and that he and his associates be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law. You are to be careful, therefore, to observe the said directions, and if the said Kidd or any of his accomplices be seized within the provinces under your government, you are forthwith to transmit an account thereof hitherto, and take care that the said persons, ships and effects be secured, till His Majesty’s pleasure is known concerning them.”
It would appear from the wording of this extraordinary and unjustifiable circular thatthe great men, who had sent Kidd out, had by this time abandoned hope of getting any gain out of their adventure, and that their main desire now was to clear themselves of the suspicion that they were conniving at the alleged piracies of the distinguished officer, whom they had induced against his own misgivings to enter their service, and who now was steadfastly doing his best for them in the face of grievous difficulties at the other end of the world. It may well be that at this time they believed him to be guilty. It may even be that they continued in this belief when report after report came to hand of the piracies of other English seamen in the East, notwithstanding the marked absence in those reports of any mention whatever of Kidd or of theAdventure Galley. Whether they continued to believe in his guilt after his own narrative had been made a Parliamentary paper, and he had been examined before the House of Commons on it, is a very different question. Neither theynor the Company were represented at the trial, nor was any evidence then tendered on their behalf. It was their interest to make Kidd their scapegoat; and the interest of the Company that some one, guilty or not, the higher in rank the better, should be publicly hung in infamy, as a warning to mariners engaged in the Eastern piracy. It was nobody’s interest in England that Kidd should be acquitted, unless as a condition for such acquittal he could be induced to make compromising revelations against his employers. And this, as will be seen, he resolutely refused to do in the face of strong temptation.
To return now to his relations with Bellamont, who though appointed Governor of New England as far back as June, 1695, had not apparently started for America until more than two years afterwards; and had profitably employed the interval in obtaining further favours from the government. Not contented with the pension of five hundredpounds per annum which had apparently been given him on his dismissal by the late Queen, in 1693, from his post as her Receiver General, he seems to have succeeded in May, 1696, in obtaining a further grant of one thousand pounds a year out of the forfeited estates of Lord Kilmeare, and in March, 1697, to have been made colonel of a regiment of foot. In the following June it was announced that he would at last start to his government in theDeptfordfrigate, but he delayed his departure until October, by which time he had succeeded in extracting from the Treasury a further sop in the shape of “twelve thousand pounds, paid him in mault lottery tickets.”[11]
On the first of July, 1699, Kidd, as already mentioned, landed at Boston, relying on Bellamont’s word and honor, and assurance that he believed that the two French passes, which had been handed to him by Emmot, would justify the seizure of the twoprizes taken, and that he made no manner of doubt that he could obtain the King’s pardon for Kidd and for the few men left who had continued faithful. It is easy to understand the relief the old man must have felt in setting foot in a civilized country once more after all his troubles, with the knowledge that he had served his employers so well, and the expectation that he would now receive recognition and reward for all he had gone through on their behalf. Towards the end of his voyage his wife and family from New York had come on board, having been informed of his whereabouts by his old friend Emmot; and all of them were probably looking forward to a warm reception on their landing. If so, they were soon disillusionized. The Governor declined to see Kidd except in the most formal manner and in the presence of witnesses. The truth was that he had placed himself in a very awkward position with the home authorities by inducing the King’s ministers to embark inthis unlucky adventure, and that he and they had long since come to the conclusion that the safest course to take to exonerate themselves from the consequences was to make a scapegoat of Kidd. Bellamont had been playing a very double game, not only with Kidd, but also with his own council. His own admissions in his letters written to the authorities in England before the end of that month, leave no doubt on this point. His consignment of Kidd to gaol was a foregone conclusion; and the only difficulty he had to get over, and it was an insuperable one, was how to do this with some appearance of decency. At the time when with specious promises he was persuading his victim to come to Boston, he was well aware that it was his duty to arrest him immediately on his landing there, in pursuance of specific instructions from England, which he had carefully concealed from his council. The letter to Kidd with all its assumed belief in Kidd’s innocence, and his own solemnassurances on his word and honour that he could obtain the King’s pardon for him and his men, was a trap laid for Kidd without the knowledge of his council, to whom he had submitted the letter for approval. His intention throughout had been to get hold of Kidd and send him to England, to be dealt with there in such manner as might be most convenient to the government. In his letters he has not only confessed this, but has even found it necessary to excuse himself to his superiors and give the reasons which he considered justified him in not arresting Kidd the moment he landed. “It will not be unwelcome news to your Lordships,” he writes, “that I secured Captain Kidd last Thursday in the gaol of this town. I thought myself secure against his running away, because I took care not to give him the slightest umbrage of my design of seizing him. Nor had I, until the day I produced my orders from the Court to arrest Kidd, communicated them to anybody. ButI found it necessary to produce my orders to my Council to animate them to join heartily in securing Kidd. Another reason why I took him not up sooner, was that he had brought his wife and family hither on the sloop with him who (sic) I believed” (poor wretch!) “he would not readily forsake.” At the same time whilst thus excusing himself for not arresting Kidd more promptly, Bellamont seems to have felt that some explanation was called for to justify his arresting him at all. “Your Lordships may observe,” he writes, and it requires a very microscopical scrutiny of his hypocritical letter to observe it, “that the promise made Kidd in my letter of a kind reception, and promising the King’s pardon for him, was conditional, that is, provided that he was as innocent as he pretended to be. But I quickly found sufficient cause to suspect him to be very guilty by the many lies and contradictions he told me.” What these lies and contradictions were, he is very carefulnot to say. Kidd’s own narrative, corroborated by the depositions of several of his crew, are perfectly intelligible and straightforward documents, far more intelligible and convincing than Bellamont’s lame reasons for thinking him guilty. The first of these was that Kidd had communicated in the first instance with his old friend Emmot, who Bellamont says was “a cunning Jacobite and my avowed enemy.” The second reason assigned is, “I thought he looked very guilty.” It is not improbable that poor Kidd was taken aback by his cold reception; but it is safe to assume that whatever his demeanor had been, it would have been regarded by the Governor as a sure sign of his guilt. Sometimes during his examination he seems to have been cheerful and breezy. With what result? The Governor reports, “Kidd did strangely trifle with me and the Council three or four times that we had him under examination.” Finding that his jocular efforts were not appreciated, Kidd notunnaturally became grave. But the result was still unsatisfactory. “He being examined two or three times by the Council and also some of his men, I observed,” says Bellamont, “that he seemed much disturbed.” The last time he was under examination, his appearance seems again to have changed, but still, as ever, for the worse. Probably by this time he had grown restless and restive. “I fancied,” Bellamont writes, “he looked as if he were upon the wing and resolved to run away.” But after all, the chief offence for which the poor man was at last consigned to gaol, was not committed by him, but by his evil genius, Livingstone, who asked Bellamont to return him the bond he had entered into for Kidd’s good behaviour. “I thought,” says Bellamont, “this was such an impertinence that it was time for me to look about me and secure Kidd.” On this last point the version of the anonymous person of quality is substantially the same as Bellamont’s. “Above all,” he writes, “Livingstone’sbehaviour, who was come to Boston, and very peremptorily demanded from the Earl the delivery of the bond which he had entered into for Kidd’s honest performance of his duty in the expedition (as if that was to be taken for granted) gave the Earl of Bellamont good reason to conclude that no time was to be lost. Therefore he caused Kidd to be seized with divers of his crew.” A lamer set of reasons for throwing a faithful subordinate into gaol it would have been difficult for the most unintelligent official to concoct.
The reply of the Lords Justices to Bellamont’s letters was the dispatch of a man-of-war, theRochester, to bring back Kidd and his fellow-prisoners to England. This ship set sail before the end of September; but came back to Plymouth in November for repairs. Her return led the opposition to believe that the sending of her out had been merely a pretence, and it was alleged that a great number of other ships that had goneout in her company had been able to proceed on their voyage and to reach New England safely. The wildest rumours were in circulation. The prevailing popular opinion seems to have been that the four great ministers had sent Kidd out in theAdventure Galleyto commit acts of piracy on their behalf; and that they had naturally selected for this purpose a past-master in the art of piracy. Some would have it that Somers, to prevent unpleasant disclosures, had already set the great seal to his pardon. Evelyn, in his diary of the third of December, says: “They” (i. e., Parliament) “called some great persons in the highest offices in question for setting the Greate Seale to the pardon of an arch pirate, who had turned pirate again, and brought prizes to the West Indies, expecting to be connived at on sharing the spoil.” Burnet, writing in much the same strain, says, “It was maliciously insinuated that the privateer turned pirate in confidence of the protection of those who employedhim, if he had not secret orders for what he did.” It is difficult to say whose reputation suffered more at this juncture—Kidd’s by his association with the four unpopular ministers, or the four unpopular ministers, by their association with Kidd.
On the completion of her repairs, theRochesterset sail again from Plymouth for New York. She carried a letter from the Lords Justices to Bellamont, approving his zeal and conduct in the whole affair, and requiring him to put the pirates and their goods on board of her. The delay in bringing Kidd to England, whether designed or not, was most unfortunate for him and most opportune for the ministers. The opposition seem to have had some inkling that Kidd’s return was being purposely delayed with the object of enabling the government to deal with him without consulting Parliament. To allay these suspicions, a certificate was produced signed by all the officers of theRochester, from which, according toBellamont’s apologist, it appeared that they had proceeded on their course to America “as far as their ship was able to bear the beating of the sea and then resolved to return to England.” “When they were returned to England,” he says, “by a like certificate they affirmed the same thing, and that the result was taken merely for securing the ship and the company’s lives.” “The captain,” he adds, “by his letter to the Secretary of the Admiralty says they were got 500 leagues before they met the storms. And orders being sent by the Admiralty to Mr St Lo, the Commissioner of the Admiralty at Plymouth, to examine into the truth of the matter, he certified the Lords of the Admiralty that in pursuance of their commands he, with the assistance of the officers of the Yard, had made a thorough survey of the ship and (mentioning the several particular defects) they unanimously found there was a necessity for her coming back.”
These official assurances by no means satisfiedthe Commons. On the sixteenth of the following March they presented an address to the King, praying that Kidd might not be tried, discharged, or pardoned until the next session of Parliament, and that Bellamont might be required in the meantime to transmit over to England all commissions, instructions, and other papers taken with or relating to him.
The King’s reply to this address was communicated to the House on the eighth of April, 1700, by Mr. Secretary Vernon, who informed the Commons that he had presented the address to His Majesty, and that His Majesty had commanded him to acquaint the House that His Majesty having received an account of the arrival of Captain Kidd in the Isle of Lundy, by a ship which the Lords of the Admiralty had sent to fetch him, which was bound for the Downs, His Majesty had ordered a yacht to be sent to the Downs in order for the bringing of him up, and that the commissioners of the Admiraltywere likewise directed to send their marshal to take him into custody.
This reply, so far from appeasing the opposition, seems to have added fuel to the flame of their indignation. Why could not the King assent at once to their address? Why had theRochestergone out of her course to the Isle of Lundy, unless it were to defer the bringing home of Kidd until Parliament had risen? Accordingly, a few days afterwards, a further resolution was moved that “An humble address be presented to His Majesty to remove John, Lord Somers, Lord Chancellor of England, from his presence and counsels for ever.” The motion was defeated by a majority of one hundred and sixty-seven to one hundred and six. But the fact that one hundred and six members voted for it, shows the bitterness of the party feeling against Somers, and the widespread suspicions of his honesty that prevailed amongst his political opponents. It need hardly be said that these suspicionswere not allayed by the well-timed arrival of Kidd and his fellow-prisoners in London on board the King’s yacht, on the very day after Parliament had risen. The result of this second curious close coincidence of date which has occurred in the course of this narrative, was that Kidd had arrived too late to be examined by the members of the House. He was therefore privately examined by the Admiralty officials, sent to Newgate, and ordered to be kept a close prisoner.
The desire of the House of Commons that Kidd should not be tried, discharged, or pardoned until the next session of Parliament was most unfortunate for him, because it necessitated his being kept in confinement with his fellow-prisoners at Newgate for more than a year. But it cannot be regarded as unreasonable, seeing that the necessary documents relating to him had not yet been laid before the House; that time was required for the collection of evidenceagainst him from abroad; and that such of the facts relating to him and his employers as had already been disclosed, afforded some ground for suspecting that the four inculpated ministers were far from blameless. It is the one satisfactory feature in this very unpleasant case, that no discredit attaches to the action of the House of Commons in respect of its treatment of Kidd, either in this session or the next.
On the sixth of March in the following year (1701), the House, having reassembled, ordered that the examinations of Kidd and all papers relating to him, transmitted by the Earl of Bellamont (who, it may be mentioned, was now dead), be laid before them by the Admiralty. On the next day, they were presented; and it was ordered that such of them as came from the Admiralty sealed up, be opened, and the private examinations of Captain Kidd before the Admiralty were accordingly opened and read. It appeared from them that Kidd had deniedthat he had ever seen Shrewsbury or Somers; or had heard more of them than that they were two of his owners; that he admitted that Bellamont had introduced him to the Earl of Orford, and that Colonel Hewetson had carried him to the Earl of Romney, which was all he knew of them.
The papers delivered up by the Admiralty related not only to Kidd, but also to atrocities which had been committed in the East Indies by pirates, who had nothing to do with him, and which had apparently been mixed up with his narrative, with the object of obscuring the case and creating a prejudice against him. The Commons appointed a committee to sort them, and to report to the House which of them related to Kidd. On the twenty-seventh of March this committee reported that they had done this; and their chairman, Sir Humphrey Mackworth, delivered them in at the clerk’s table, divided into two parcels, one containing the papers relating to Kidd, and the other the papersthat did not relate to him. Then Kidd’s private examinations before the Admiralty were again read; and Kidd, being brought in by the keeper of Newgate, was called in. A petition from Cogi Babba, which had been presented to the House, was also read. This petition is noteworthy as being the only complaint to the House made by those who were alleged at his trial to have been plundered by him. It purported to be presented by Cogi Babba, on behalf of himself and other Armenians, inhabitants of Chalfa, the suburb of Spahow, and subjects to the King of Persia. It merely set forth that the petitioners had freighted a ship called theKarry Merchant(better known as theQuedagh Merchant—and referred to in the French pass asCara Marchand), from Surat to Bengal, where the petitioners loaded her at prime cost to the value of four hundred thousand rupees, besides forty thousand rupees, the cost of the ship, which was all taken and carried away by Captain Kidd,on the ship’s returning to Surat about February, 1697; and it merely prayed that Kidd might be examined touching the premises, and the petitioners relieved concerning the same.
After the reading of these papers Kidd was examined and withdrew, and was remanded to Newgate; and it was decided that the House would the next day take into consideration the patent, commission and instructions to Kidd, which they did with the result that a motion was made that the grant passed under the Great Seal by Somers to Bellamont and others of the goods to be taken from the pirates before their conviction was illegal and void. The question being put, one hundred and eighty-five members voted in favour of the motion and one hundred and ninety-eight against it.
The House then decided that Kidd should be put on his trial in the ordinary course; and on the sixteenth of April, about three weeks before it took place, being informedthat he had sent to the Admiralty that he might have the use of his commission and some other papers at his trial, ordered that “the said Commission andsuch other papers as Captain Kidd desiresbe delivered by the Clerk of this House to the Secretary of the Admiralty.” Had this order been complied with, and the papers been accessible to Kidd or his legal advisers, he would have had a complete answer to the charge of piracy brought against him. For they included the precious French passes, which had justified his seizure of his two prizes.
CHAPTER VKIDD’S FIRST TRIAL AT THE OLD BAILEY
If any of the great personages involved in Kidd’s case took the trouble to look into the voluminous papers relating to it, which had been sent over to England by Bellamont for presentation to Parliament, they must at once have realized that Kidd’s prosecution was attended with great difficulties. Notwithstanding the public prejudice which had been aroused against him, and the fact that he was not only a Scotchman, but also a Colonial, they could hardly have believed that an English jury could be asked with safety to convict him of piracy, on any of the grounds on which Bellamont had committed him to gaol at Boston, either because he had been described by the Lords Justices as a notorious pirateor because he was thought to look guilty, or because during his examination he had in Bellamont’s opinion seemed at one time unduly cheerful, and at another unduly grave, or even because some one else had been so impertinent as to ask prematurely for the return of a bond. Kidd’s own simple narrative, which it is impossible to doubt that some of them must have read with interest, if not with shame, supported as it was by the depositions of such of his crew as had remained faithful to him, contained no inherent improbabilities, but bore the impress of truth, and satisfactorily accounted for his detention at Madagascar. No flaw was apparent in either of the French passes, which he had taken with his prizes, and which were included amongst the papers sent over by Bellamont. It is difficult to believe that any one who read them failed to come to the same conclusion that Bellamont had expressed, that they would justify the seizure of the two vessels to which theyrelated. The sole foundation for the suspicions that attached to Kidd, apart from his unfortunate and disreputable connection with Lord Chancellor Somers, and other unpopular members of the Ministry, was the vague allegation made some years before by the East India Company, that “they had received some information from their factories that he had committed several acts of piracy, particularly in seizing theQuedagh Merchant.” From the papers presented to Parliament it seemed now clear that his capture of that ship was justified; and that he was on his way home with her to New England with the object of getting her adjudicated a lawful prize, when his men had gone over to Culliford, and prevented him from carrying her to Boston. As one at least of the adventurers, Orford, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, should have known, she could not have been condemned as a lawful prize in the East Indies, owing to the neglect of the Admiralty to follow the adviceof their own judge, to erect a Vice-Admiralty Court there, as had been done in the West Indies. The East India Company must have been pressed after Kidd’s arrest, to substantiate their vague charges against him. It is inconceivable, having regard to their interest in his conviction, that they left any stone unturned to procure evidence against him during the two years that he remained in confinement. But whatever their efforts may have been, they seem to have been unsuccessful. No person was found to come forward and allege that he had any knowledge of Kidd’s alleged piracies, except Cogi Babba, one of the owners of theQuedagh Merchant. And for the reason already explained, his evidence would be valueless, if the French passes were produced in Court.
But the Old Bailey practitioners of that day, who were no doubt consulted in due course, were adepts in their trade, and it is unlikely that they entertained any seriousdoubt from the first as to the lines on which Kidd’s prosecution in the interests of their clients should proceed, or as to its ultimate success. They knew that he was friendless and that it was nobody’s interest in England but his own that he should be acquitted. They knew that no London jury that tried him could fail to be influenced by their knowledge that he had been denounced by the Lords Justices and the East India Company as a notorious pirate, or dismiss from their minds the innumerable wild tales which had for years been disseminated to his disadvantage.[12]They knew also, none better, thepractical difficulties which confronted every poor wretch brought to trial in those days on a capital charge by unscrupulous persons, who could afford to bribe or terrify miscreants into bearing false evidence against him. Incredible as it may seem to us with our modern notions of fair play and the belief which has been instilled into some of us of the wisdom of our ancient common law, much of which was as hopelessly absurd as many of the nostrums and theories of the medical men of those days, accused persons in criminal cases were forced to conduct their own defence and were not allowed the assistance of counsel, for the purpose of examining or cross-examining witnesses or commenting on any question of fact. Counsel on their behalf were only permitted to address the Court on questions of law; the legal fiction being that there was no necessity for a prisoner to employ counsel to elucidate the facts: that the judge could be trusted to see that this was properly done: and thatthe jury could be trusted to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Needless to say this fiction led to the frequent conviction of innocent persons, and was a great encouragement to perjured witnesses. Many a villain, who but for it would have hesitated to be suborned, was induced by it to come forward for a small consideration and swear to anything that his employers desired. Still more ready were some poor creatures to do this, if they had brought their own necks within measurable distance of the noose, and their refusal to swear away the life of the accused would entail their own death by hanging. In the present case, no trustworthy evidence of reputable witnesses being forthcoming against Kidd, the legal advisers of the Crown very naturally had recourse to the well-known last resort open to them, and set themselves to find some one or more scoundrels, who would be willing to turn King’s evidence against him. Twelve seamen, mostof whom had remained faithful to their commander, were now imprisoned with him, awaiting their trial for piracy. We shall never know how many of these were approached by the prosecution. What we do know is, that not one of them was induced to become King’s evidence. If Kidd had been guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, this in itself would have been a remarkable circumstance: for some of these poor men might have been expected to reconcile their consciences to the saving of their own lives by giving evidence against him. Not one of them did so. The only witnesses who could be found to testify against him were two rogues, who on their own admission had deserted him at Madagascar, and joined Culliford in open piracy against all nations. These men had imprudently returned to London, where unfortunately for themselves and Kidd, they were unearthed by emissaries of the prosecution before the trial came on. Their lives wouldjustly have been forfeited if they had not agreed to give the evidence on which their old commander and comrades were convicted. What that evidence amounted to, will be seen in due course.
Another hardship to which the accused were subjected in those days was this, that besides being deprived of the assistance of counsel to cross-examine and comment on the evidence, they were left in ignorance sometimes to the last moment of the charges to be made against them. Kidd had every reason to believe, when brought into Court for trial, that the only charge he had to meet was piracy. He had been committed by Bellamont for piracy, and examined before the Admiralty and the House of Commons on that charge. The great men with whom he had been associated were supposed to have employed him because he was a pirate. No suggestion had been made that he had been guilty of any other crime. And yet when he came into Court, the first chargeagainst him was not that he had been a pirate, but that he was guilty of an offence of a totally different character, a charge of which no notice whatever had apparently been given him, and to meet which he had had no opportunity of obtaining legal advice or preparing his defence.
Nor was this all. He was a man of substance in America when arrested. But in gaol in England he was without money or friends to prepare for his trial. Although the Court had ordered fifty pounds to be paid to him that he might have legal advice, the money was not delivered to him till the night before he was tried. What was, if possible, unfairer than any of these things was the deliberate withholding from him by the officials of the papers, which the House of Commons had ordered to be delivered to the Admiralty for the purposes of his trial, and in particular the two French passes, on which he relied to prove that he had been justified in taking the two prizes, in respectof which he was accused of piracy. No wonder that he pleaded hard for the production of these papers and the postponement of his trial, until he was allowed access to them. That there can be no question of the accuracy of the foregoing statements, appears clearly from the verbatim report of his trial, perused and approved by the judges and counsel who took part in it. Take first this extract from that report.
“Kidd.May it please your Lordships, I desire you to permit me to have counsel.
“Recorder(Sir Salathial Lovel). What would you have counsel for?
“Kidd.My lord. I have some matter of law, relating to the indictment, and I desire I may have counsel to plead to it.” (He had evidently been coached up on this point that morning or the night before by his legal advisers.)
“Dr.Oxenden. What matter of law can you have?
“Clerk of Arraigns.How does he knowwhat he is charged with? I have not told him.
“Recorder.You must let the Court know what these matters of law are, before you can have counsel assigned you.
“Kidd.I know what I mean. I desire to put off my trial as long as I can, till I can get my evidence ready.
“Dr.Oxenden. It cannot be matter of law to put off your trial.
“Kidd.I beg your Lordships’ patience till I can procure my papers. I had a couple of French passes, which I must make use of in order to my justification.
“Recorder.That is not matter of law.
“Kidd.I sent for them, but I could not have them.
“Dr.Oxenden. Where were they then?
“Kidd.I brought them to my Lord Bellamont in New England.
“Recorder.Mr. Kidd, the Court sees no reason to put off your trial—you must plead.
“Kidd.If your Lordship will permit those papers to be read they will justify me.
“Recorder.Mr. Kidd, you must plead.
“Kidd.I cannot plead till I have those papers I have insisted upon.
“Mr.Lemmon(one of his counsel). He ought to have his papers delivered to him, because they are very material for his defence. He has endeavoured to have them, but could not get them.
“Mr.Coniers(one of the counsel for the prosecution). You are not to appear for any one until he pleads, and that the Court assigns you for his counsel.
“Recorder.They would only put off the trial.
“Mr.Coniers. He must plead to the indictment.
“Kidd.It is a hard case, when all these things shall be kept from me, and I shall be called on to plead.
“Clerk of Arraigns.Make silence.