The Real Captain Kidd

papers relating to it, which had been sent over to England by Bellamont for presentation to Parlia

aw 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 they[143] related. 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 the Quedagh 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

ersons 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 that[147] the 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

l, 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 othe

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 respect[151] of which he was accused of piracy. No wonder

Lordships, I desire you to

ial Lovel). What woul

I desire I may have counsel to plead to it." (He had evidently been coach

hat matter of l

he know[152] what he is charg

w what these matters of law are, befo

to put off my trial as long as I c

ot be matter of law t

ocure my papers. I had a couple of French passes, w

hat is not m

r them, but I co

n. Where we

em to my Lord Bella

urt sees no reason to put o

1

l permit those papers to be

r. Kidd, you

till I have those pape

delivered to him, because they are very material for his def

n). You are not to appear for any one until he plea

would only put

e must plead to

these things shall be kept from me,

rraigns. Ma

cannot make my defence without them. I desire

ill not plead, the

t upon my French passes

if you will not plead, you must have j

, they will justify me. If I plead, I shall be accessor

essory to your own dea

have me to plead, and not

eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, against the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, violently, feloniously, voluntarily, and of malice aforethought, did make an assault in and upon one William Moore upon the high seas near the coast of Malabar in the East Indies, and within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, with a certa

, why had he not been tried for murder there? If he was to be tried for murder here, why had no notice of this charge been given him, unless it were to prevent him from preparing his defence, and getting his evidence ready? He had been examined at great length by Bellamont and his Council, and by the Admiralty and the House of Commons as to his supposed piracy; but in neither examination does it appear that the slightest suggestion had been made that he was a murderer. By whose trick was it that he was now to be[157] tried for

t, but only on the question of the

off for some time, because he wants some papers very necessary for his defence. It is very true he is charged with piracy in sev

el. Have you

by my Lord Bellamont, and tho

seizure of it. And there was a letter[13] writ to testify it, which was produced before the Parliament" (apparently neither Kidd nor his counsel were aware that the passes themselves had been laid before Parliament and delivered over to the Admiralty for prod

aron Ward. Wh

hether they are in the Admiralty,

what you go. What ship was i

e we were in. The sa

have had a fortnight's noti

rt ordered fifty pounds, but the person that rece

1

there is a reasonable cause to put off the trial, othe

l. A fortnight's noti

he should have had his

r friends to prepare for

d, we will be ready

the meantime let him be tried for the murder, wherein

incident that had occurred some three and a half years previously, and be forced on the[161] spur of the moment without conferring with any legal adviser, to conduct

now to be tried on the bill of murder. The jury is going to be sworn. If you

know nothing to the contrary, b

ided Kidd in the altercation which ended in the fatal blow, for not having allowed the mutineers to have their own way. When Kidd called him "a lousie dog," his answer practically was that if Kidd had taken his advice, he and his companions, so far from being "lousie dogs," would have made their fortune and been gentlemen. Kidd seems to have knocked him down in a moment of very justifiable indignation, and without any intention of killing him. It is not even clear from the evidence that Moore died of the blow. The only two witnesses against Kidd at the trial were Palmer and Bradenham. On Kidd's[163] behalf three of the prisoners, Owens, Parrott, and Barlicorn, gave evidence, and

r that could be a reasonable occasion or provocation to take a bucket and knock the deceased on the head and kill him. Now for the prisoner on such a saying, and without any other provocation to take a bucket and knock a[165] man on the head and kill him must be deemed an unjustifiable act. For, as I have said, if one man kill another without provocation or reasonable cause, the law presumes and implies malice; and then such killing will be murder in the sense of the law, as being done of malice prepense. If there be a sudden falling out and fighting and one is killed in heat of blood, then the law calls it manslaughter, but in such a case as this, that happens on slight words, the prisoner calls the deceased a 'lousie dog,' and the deceased says, 'If I be so, you have made me so,' can this be a reasonable cause to kill him? and if you believe them not to be a reasonable cause of provocation I cannot see

n about an hour returned and

"Look to him, keepe