In an article entitled "English Ships in the Time of James I.," by
R.G. Marsden, M.A., in Volume XIX of the Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society, I came upon this entry: "'Discovery' (or
'Hopewell,' or 'Good Hope') Hudson's ship on his last voyage;
Baffin also sailed in her." A list of references to manuscript
records followed; and one of the entries, relating to the High
Court of Admiralty, read: "Exam. 42. 25 Jan. 1611. trial of some of
the crew for the murder of Hudson."
Note--The varying spelling, most obvious in proper names,
follows that of the documents.
As I have stated elsewhere, none of the historians who has dealt
with matters relating to Hudson has told what became of his
murderers when they returned to England. Hessel Gerritz alone has
given the information (1613, two years after the event) that they
"were to be" put on trial. Whether they were, or were not, put on
trial has remained unknown. Any one who has engaged in the
fascinating pursuit of elusive historical truth will understand,
therefore, my warm delight, and my warm gratitude to Mr. Marsden,
when this clew to hitherto unpublished facts concerning Hudson was
placed in my hands.
Following it has not led me so far as, in my first enthusiasm, I
hoped that it would lead me. The search that I have caused to be
made in the Record Office, in London, has not brought to light even
all of the documents referred to by Mr. Marsden. The record of the
trial is incomplete; and, most regrettably, the most essential of
all the documents is lacking: the judgment of the Court. So far as
the mutineers are concerned, all that these documents prove is that
they actually were brought to trial: what penalty was put upon
them, or if any penalty was put upon them, still remains unknown.
But in another way these documents do possess a high value, and are
of an exceptional interest, in that they exhibit the sworn
testimony of six eye-witnesses to the fact as to the circumstances
of Hudson's out-casting. Five of these witnesses now are produced
(in print) for the first time. The sixth, Abacuck Prickett, was the
author of the "Larger Discourse" that hitherto has been the sole
source of information concerning the final mutiny on board the
"Discovery." That Prickett's sworn testimony and unsworn narrative
substantially are in agreement, as they are, is not surprising;
nor does such agreement appreciably affect the truth of either of
them. Sworn or unsworn, Prickett was not a person from whom pure
truth could be expected when, as in this case, he was trying to
tell a story that would save him from being hanged. Neither is the
corroboration of Prickett's story by the five newly produced
witnesses--they equally being in danger of hanging--in itself
convincing. But certain of the details (e.g., the door between
Hudson's cabin and the hold) brought out in this new testimony,
together with the way in which it all hangs together, does raise
the probability that the crew of the "Discovery" had more than a
colorable grievance against Hudson, and does imply that Prickett's
obviously biased narrative may be less far from the truth than
heretofore it has been held to be.
The summing up of the Trinity House examination gives the crux of
the matter: "They all charge the Master with wasting [i.e.,
filching] the victuals by a scuttle made out of his cabin into the
hold, and it appears that he fed his favorites, as the surgeon,
etc., and kept others at ordinary allowance. All say that, to save
some from starving, they were content to put away [abandon] so
many." It was from this presentment that the Elder Brethren drew
the just conclusion--as we know from Prickett's characteristic
denial under oath that he "ever knew or heard" such expression of
their opinion--that "they deserved to be hanged for the same."
In the testimony of Edward Wilson, the surgeon--one of the
"favorites"--the point is made, credited to Staffe, that "the
reason why the Master should soe favour to give meate to some of
the companie and not the rest" was because "it was necessary that
some of them should be kepte upp"--in other words, that some
members of the crew, without regard to the needs of the remainder,
should receive food enough to give them strength to work the ship.
This is an agreement, substantially, with the charge preferred
against Hudson in the "Larger Discourse"; upon which Dr. Asher made
the exculpating comment: "But even if this charge be a true one,
Hudson's motives were certainly honorable; with such men as he had
under his orders it was dangerous to deal openly. Their crime had
no other cause than the fear that he would continue his search and
expose them to new privations: and it seems that in providing for
this emergency, he had even increased his dangers." Dr. Asher's
excuse, I should add, refers more to concealment of food than to
unfair apportionment.
I have no desire to play the part of devil's advocate; but--in the
guise of that personage under his more respectable title of
Promotor Fidei--it is my duty to point out that if Hudson
deliberately did "keep up" himself and a favored few by putting the
remainder on starvation rations--no matter what may have been his
motives--he exceeded his ship-master's right over his crew of life
and death. His doing so, if he did do so, did not justify mutiny.
Mutiny is a sea-crime that no provocation justifies. But if the
point at issue was who should die of hunger that the others should
have food enough to keep them alive, then the mutineers could
claim--and this is what virtually they did claim in making their
defence--that they did by the Master in a swift and bold way
precisely what in a slow and underhand way he was doing by them.
In the more agreeable rôle of Postulator, I may add that this
charge against Hudson--while not disproved--is not sustained. The
one witness, Robert Byleth, of whom reputable record survives--the
only witness, indeed, of whom we have any record whatever beyond
that of the case in hand--did not even refer to it. In his
Admiralty Court examination--he is not included in the record of
those examined at the Trinity House--he said no more than that the
"discontent" of the crew was "by occasion of the want of
victualls." Neither in his statement in chief nor in his
cross-examination did he charge Hudson with wrong-doing of any
kind. Byleth himself does not seem to have been looked upon as a
criminal: as is implied by his being sent with Captain Button
(1612) on the exploring expedition toward the northwest that was
directed to search for Hudson; by his sailing two voyages
(1615-1616) with Baffin; and, still more strongly, by the fact
that he was employed on each of these occasions by the very
persons--members of the Muscovy Company and others--who most would
have desired to punish him had they believed that punishment was
his just desert. That he did not testify against Hudson must count,
therefore, as a strong point in Hudson's favor; so strong--his
credibility and theirs being considered comparatively--that it goes
far toward offsetting the testimony of the haberdasher and the
barber-surgeon and the common sailors by whom Hudson was accused.
But it is useless to try to draw substantial conclusions from these
fragmentary records. The most that can be deduced from them--and
even that, because of Byleth's silence, hesitantly--is that in a
general way they do tend to confirm Prickett's narrative. They
would be more to my liking if this were not the case.
A curious feature of the trial of the mutineers is its long
delay--more than five years. The Trinity House authorities acted
promptly. Almost immediately upon the return to London of the eight
survivors of the "Discovery" five of them (Prickett, Wilson,
Clemens, Motter and Mathews--no mention is made in the record of
Byleth, Bond, and the boy Syms) were brought before the Masters
(October 24, 1611) for examination. In a single day their
examination was concluded: with the resulting verdict of the
Masters upon their actions that they "deserved to be hanged for the
same." Three months later, 25 January, 1611 (O.S.), the matter was
before the Instance and Prize Records division of the High Court of
Admiralty; of which hearing the only recorded result is the
examination of the barber-surgeon, Edward Wilson. Then,
apparently, the mutineers were left to their own devices for five
full years.
So far as the records show, no action was taken until the trial
began in Oyer and Terminer. The date of that beginning cannot be
fixed precisely--there being no date attached to the True Bill
found against Bileth, Prickett, Wilson, Motter, Bond, and Sims.
(For some unknown reason Mathews and Clemens were not included in
the indictment; although Clemens, certainly, was within the
jurisdiction of the Court.) The date may be fixed very closely,
however, by the fact that the two most important witnesses,
Prickett and Byleth, were examined on 7 February, 1616 (O.S.).
Three months later, 13 May, 1617 (O.S.), Clemens was examined. And
that is all! There, in the very middle of the trial--leaving in the
air the examinations of the other witnesses and the judgments of
the Court--the records end.
Had document No. 2 of the Oyer and Terminer series been found, some
explanation of the five years' delay of the trial might have been
forthcoming; and the exact date of its beginning probably would
have been fixed. As the records stand, they leave us--so far as the
trial is concerned--with a series of increasingly disappointing
negatives: We do not know why two of the crew--one of them
certainly within reach of the Court--were not included in the
indictment; nor why the trial was postponed for so long a time; nor
certainly when it ended; nor, worst of all, what was its result.
I should be glad to believe that the mutineers--even including
Byleth, who was the best of them--came to the hanging that the
Elder Brethren of the Trinity, in their off-hand just judgment,
declared that they deserved. If they did, there is no known record
of their hanging. A curiously suggestive interest, however,
attaches to the fact that at just about the time when the trial
ended one of them, and the only conspicuous one of them, seems
permanently to have disappeared. That most careful investigator the
late Mr. Alexander Brown was unable to find any sure trace of
Byleth after his second voyage with Baffin, which was made in
March-August, 1616. Seven months later, as the subjoined records
prove, he was on trial for his life. It seems to me to be at least
a possibility that the result of that trial may have led directly
to his permanent disappearance. If it did, and if Prickett and the
others in a like way disappeared with him, then was justice done on
Hudson's murderers.