The Real Captain Kidd: A Vindication

by Cornelius Neale Dalton

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 all due 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 natives of 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, the Moca 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 received some information from their factories in the East Indies that Kidd had committed several acts of piracy, particularly in seizing a Moors’ ship called the Quedagh 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 not unfair 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 their directions 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 that the 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 the Adventure 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 they nor 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 hundred pounds 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 the Deptford frigate, 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 two prizes 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 in this 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 solemn assurances 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. But I 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 careful not 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 not unnaturally 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’s behaviour, 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, the Rochester, 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 gone out 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 the Adventure Galley to 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 employed him, 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, the Rochester set 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 the Rochester, from which, according to Bellamont’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 satisfied the 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 Admiralty were 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 the Rochester gone 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 suspicions were 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.