"At length, after a debate which lasted from mid-day till nine at night, and in which all the leading members took part, the committee divided on the question that the letters patent were dishonorable to the King, inconsistent with the laws of nations, contrary to the statutes of the realm, and destructive of property and trade. The Chancellor's enemies had felt confident of victory, and made the resolution so strong in order that it might be impossible for him to retain the Great Seal. They soon found that it would have been wise to propose a gentler censure. Great numbers of their adherents, convinced by Cowper's arguments, or unwilling to put a cruel stigma on a man of whose genius and accomplishments the nation was proud, stole away before the doors were closed. To the general astonishment, there were only one hundred and thirty-three Ayes to one hundred and eighty-nine Noes. That the city of London did not consider Somers as the destroyer, and his enemies as the protectors of trade, was proved on the following morning by the most unequivocal of signs. As soon as the news of the triumph reached the Royal Exchange, the price of stocks went up."
There is a very rare pamphlet which illuminates the matter in much more detail. It was written and published as a defense of Bellomont and his partners and the very length, elaboration, and heat its argument shows how furiously the political pot was boiling while Kidd was imprisoned in London awaiting his trial. This ex parte production is entitled "A Full Account of the Actions of the Late Famous Pyrate, Captain Kidd, With the Proceedings against Him and a Vindication of the Right Honourable Richard, Earl of Bellomont, Lord Caloony, late Governor of New England, and other Honourable Persons from the Unjust Reflection; Cast upon Them. By a Person of Quality."[[2]]
It is herein recorded that the arguments to support the question moved in Parliament were:
"1—That by law the King could not grant the Goods of Pirates, at least, not before conviction.
"2—That the Grant was extravagant, for all Goods of Pirates, taken with or by any persons in any part of the world, were granted away.
"3—Not only the Goods of the Pirates, but all Goods taken with them were granted, which was illegal, because tho' the Goods were taken by Pirates, the rightful Owners have still a Title to them, Piracy working no change of Property.
"5—By this Grant a great Hardship was put upon the Merchants whose Goods might be taken with the Pirates, for they had nowhere to go for Justice. They could not hope for it in the Chancery, the Lord Chancellor being interested; nor at the Board of Admiralty where the Earl of Orford presided; nor from the King, all access to him being by the Duke of Shrewsbury; nor in the Plantations where the Earl of Bellomont was. So the only Judge who the Pirates were, and what goods were theirs, was Captain Kidd himself."
Whatsoever may have been wrong with his contract or his commissions, and Parliament sustained them by vote as already mentioned, Captain Kidd cannot be held blameworthy on this score. And it is absurd to call him a premeditated pirate who sailed from Plymouth with evil purpose in his heart. His credentials and endorsements, his record as a shipmaster, and his repute at home, cannot be set aside. They speak for themselves. Nor is it possible to reconcile the character of the man, as he was known by his deeds up to that time, with the charges laid against him.
It is worth noting that the complaints made against his conduct in the waters of the Far East came from the East India Company which denounced and proclaimed him as a pirate with a price on his head. It was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Although the House of Commons had decided five years before that the old Company should no longer have a monopoly of English trade in Asiatic seas, the merchants of London or Bristol dared not fit out ventures to voyage beyond the Cape of Good Hope, and found it necessary to send their goods in the ships that flew the flag of India House. The private trader still ran grave of being treated as a smuggler, if not as a pirate. "He might, indeed, if he was wronged, apply for redress to the tribunals of his country. But years must elapse before his cause could be heard; his witnesses must be conveyed over fifteen thousand miles of sea; and in the meantime he was a ruined man."[[3]]
This powerful corporation which ruled the Eastern seas as it pleased, confiscating the ships and goods of private traders, accused Kidd of seizing two ships with their cargoes which belonged to the Great Mogul, and of several petty depredations hardly to be classed as piracy. The case against him was built up around the two vessels known as the November and the Quedah Merchant. His defense was that on board these prizes he had found French papers, or safe conduct passes made out in the name of the King of France and issued by the French East India Company. He therefore took the ships as lawful commerce of the enemy.