Beginning of the Story and Part II: Since establishing the hostile character of the ship and its cargo hinged on its national affiliation, the question of how this was determined was bound to arise during the trial. In practice, the nationality of the ship was determined not so much by the nationality of its owner as by its flag and pass.
Therefore, the issue of the French pass became the key problem of the entire trial. If Kidd could produce a French pass or otherwise prove its existence, it would give the English court and Kidd’s patrons a real opportunity to acquit the pirate.
The preconceived notion of a French pass was not an original invention by Kidd or the syndicate. It was based on the pirates’ common practice of ascribing an unlawfully captured ship to an enemy nationality.
This was what Chevalier Henri d’Anglure de Bourlemont did, in particular, in 1649 when he captured the merchant ship “Mercante Armeno” in the Mediterranean. The ship belonged to Armenian shipowner Anton Bogos and carried the cargo of Armenian merchants.
Kidd attempted to lay the groundwork for this version during the capture of the “Kedah Merchant”. He then unsuccessfully referred to it during the parliamentary investigation and continued along the same lines during the trial.
Witnesses for the prosecution showed that Kidd, in an attempt to create evidence of French affiliation for the captured ship from the very beginning, pretended to believe that a French gunner was the captain of the “Kedah Merchant,” although everyone knew he was not.
When asked to present to the court the French passes that were allegedly seized when capturing the Armenian and other ships, Kidd claimed they were supposedly with Governor Bellamont. From then until now, Kidd’s defenders have circulated the claim that the French pass was indeed taken from the captain of the Armenian ship and, along with all documents and the ship’s log, handed over to Bellamont.
However, the question then and now remains: why would a member of the syndicate want to hide evidence proving the innocence of their collaborator and executor?
The only argument in favor of such an assumption is that Bellamont might have been interested in accusing Kidd of piracy, aiming to appropriate the treasures Kidd brought. But, firstly, it was not Bellamont who first accused Kidd of piracy. On the contrary, he found himself faced with an already established fact.
Secondly, he could not count on obtaining the treasures confiscated from Kidd, because, as he himself admitted in his letters, due to Kidd’s guilt in piracy, the backers of the “Adventure Ship” could not rely on royal grants as the basis for rights to the property brought in by Kidd.
Lastly, concealing important evidence would simply be unwise, as accusations against Kidd for piracy would lead to accusations against the entire pirate syndicate. On the contrary, Bellamont and other members of the syndicate were interested in presenting evidence of the French affiliations of the Armenian and other ships captured by Kidd.
Not satisfied with the defendant’s unsubstantiated claims, the court demanded proof of the existence of such a pass. Kidd promised to present witnesses who would confirm that the captured ship had a French pass, but the witnesses only confirmed statements they had heard from Kidd himself.
Witness Palmer said that he “saw no pass.” Kidd then led him with a suggestive question phrased as a statement: “But you heard about it.” To which Palmer replied, “I heard about it, but never saw it.”
Davis, invited at Kidd’s request as a witness, could not confirm that the French pass he had heard about from Captain Elms actually belonged to the “Kedah Merchant.” Bradinham, who was asked again about the passes at Kidd’s request, once again responded negatively:
“I have never seen a French pass; I have only heard of it.” The court had no choice but to note that “there is no evidence to confirm the presence of French passes, and apparently, no one has seen them except for him (i.e., Kidd) himself, if he even saw them.”
The aggrieved merchants, through their representative in the trial, managed to prove both the ship’s and its cargo’s Armenian affiliation. They cited both the Company’s agreement with the “Armenian nation” from 1688 and the existing peaceful relations between the Great Mogul and the King of England.
The court’s attention was drawn to the fact that upon capturing the ship, “the captain claimed that the ship and its cargo belonged to friends, not enemies.” Lord Chief Baron Ward’s summary, based on the court proceedings, confirmed that the “Kedah Merchant” belonged to Armenians: “As you’ve heard, witnesses confirm that the ship and its property belong to Armenians and others who are in peaceful relations with the King.”
Since Kidd continued to baselessly claim the existence of French passes, the court also focused on the fact that even the presence of a French pass and flying a French flag would not give him the right to appropriate the ship and its cargo.
According to prevailing rules, a special prize court’s decision was required for the legality of the capture. Kidd was told that if the “Kedah Merchant” had a French pass and was sailing under a French flag, he would have to take an inventory of the ship and its cargo and then seek the court’s adjudication of the prize in a corresponding English court or an English possession, just as he had done with a small French vessel captured between Plymouth and New York at the beginning of the expedition.
In that case, Kidd would only be entitled to his share of the prize, and the King would get his, as stipulated in the patents. However, “none of this was done, and the seized money and goods were divided.” Kidd couldn’t explain why he had not sought legal adjudication of the prize and had disposed of the entire cargo at his discretion.
Unable to deny the fact of illegally appropriating the seized cargo and dividing it among his crew, Kidd began to cite mutiny by the crew. He claimed that he had not intended to pirate merchant ships or appropriate their cargoes; he was each time forced into it by the mutinous crew, who had locked him in the captain’s cabin beforehand.
According to Kidd, he did not participate in the division of the spoils and, moreover, did not even know about it. This “argument” proved to be unconvincing. On the contrary, from the testimonies, it became clear that Kidd himself was actively encouraging the crew towards maritime robbery. According to Palmer’s testimony, while chasing a caravan headed for the Arabian port of Mocha, Kidd inspired his crew with promises of rich spoils: “Let’s go, guys! I will make a lot of money out of this caravan!”
When Kidd tried to shift the blame onto his crew in court, an intriguing exchange occurred between him and a member of his crew, Palmer, revealing some details about the capture of the “Kedah Merchant” and Kidd’s own role in it. Let’s reconstruct this scene based on the court transcript:
Kidd: “I called all of you onto the deck to consult. You know, Mr. Palmer, I would have given them back this ship, but you all voted against its return.”
Palmer (pointing to an Armenian present in the court): “This man offered you 20,000 rupees for the ship, but you refused him.”
Kidd: “Didn’t I ask where you would take this ship? And you said, ‘We will capture it and take it to Madagascar.'”
Palmer: “Captain Kidd told his men, ‘These Armenians have made such a fuss over the ship that I had to say my men won’t give it up.’ But less than a quarter of the concerned people were actually present. The Armenians began to shout and wring their hands in despair.
Then Captain Kidd said, ‘I have to say, my men won’t give them the ship.’ So, some crew members went to the half deck, pretending they wouldn’t hand over the ship. But they were less than a quarter of all those concerned.”
The court records also contain other information about Kidd’s active role. When asked whether he was present during the capture of the “Kedah Merchant” and the division of the spoils, Churchill, a crew member and defendant, answered: “Yes, my lord, but I couldn’t do anything. I was compelled to follow the orders given to me by the captain.” Defendant James Howe gave similar testimony.
According to Palmer and other crew members, it was established that Kidd, when capturing merchant ships, “subjected them to plunder and robbery,” beat people, and used torture to find out where the money was and if anything valuable had been hidden from him.
The court confirmed that Kidd demanded absolute obedience from his crew: he dealt with those who objected to his criminal actions by labeling them as “mutineers.” For example, he accused a gunner—a “Moor”—of mutiny and killed him because he did not want to participate in his crimes.
The court could not ignore the fact that Kidd had never attempted to bring the captured ships into port for judicial prize adjudication. “By showing no desire to obtain such a judicial ruling, he demonstrated his objectives, intentions, and desires; he showed that he acted not in accordance with his patent, but contrary to it…”
Having established that the ship and its cargo belonged to Armenians—”a people in friendship with the King of England”—the court concluded that none of the patents Kidd held could justify the capture of the “Kedah Merchant.”
Therefore, on May 9th, Kidd and six of his accomplices were found “guilty of piratical capture of the ship and its cargo,” as well as other acts of piracy, and were sentenced to death. “My lord, this is a very harsh sentence,” Kidd said in his final statement. “I am the most innocent of all.”
For two more weeks after the sentencing, a priest urged him to confess his guilt and repent, but he remained unyielding. He was hanged along with his accomplices on May 23, 1701, at the dock where pirates were executed. It was said that the rope on the crossbeam broke. Kidd was lifted up and hanged on a tree.
As for compensation to Armenian cargo owners and shipowners, there is no information. Does this mean they received their appropriate share of the compensation fund as per the agreement with the Great Mogul?
This represented the only real opportunity to safeguard the interests of those who were wronged. Had they had to rely on English justice, their chances of recovering their property would have been practically nil.
And not only because Kidd himself had hidden the stolen goods, but also because the English state itself would not have allowed it. Neither the Whigs, who had organized this piratical venture, nor the opposition, were interested in returning the property to its lawful owners.
In England, both piracy and the “fight” against piracy were used as means of enrichment. Given the plundered riches, it’s easy to see that capturing pirates or pardoning them upon voluntary surrender was a very profitable business. The very opportunity to engage in this was the subject of desire and fierce competition.
Referring to the fact that “a large number of malicious individuals, arriving on ships from Europe and the West Indies, committed acts of piracy under the English flag,” the English East India Company, as early as March 2, 1696, sent a delegation to the Lords of the Admiralty, requesting permission for its ships to capture pirates and for the Company itself to establish an admiralty court for their trial.
However, London was reluctant to give up the right to award prizes in favor of the Company. They were willing to appoint a vice-admiral in Bombay to combat piracy, but without transferring the profitable prerogative of managing the captured property.
Bearing in mind this competition for the right to manage the pirates’ riches, the author of the aforementioned pamphlet defending Governor Bellamont exposes those who have created a “sensational case” around the “lawful” actions of the syndicate, while themselves being guilty of illicit enrichment under the guise of “fighting” piracy:
“There are people who have tasted the sweetness of holding admiralty courts in India and, under this cover, have engaged in real piracy on English and Indian rulers’ ships for years. For this, they paid the Crown in the form of a tenth of the so-called prizes and, as everyone talks about it, even more for granting pardons to pirates.
They are resentful that they can no longer act as admiralty courts and cannot claim all the loot taken from pirates as their own under the pretext of securing property that should be returned to its owner in India.”
From this, we can understand the fuss surrounding Kidd’s treasures, which lasted for many years in both England and America. Even the information about Kidd’s treasures found by the authorities is extremely convoluted and contradictory.
According to the “British Encyclopedia,” only a portion of Kidd’s treasure worth about 14,000 pounds sterling was found on Gardiners Island (east of Long Island), brought on the sloop “Antonia,” on which he arrived for negotiations with Bellamont. According to the English Biographical Dictionary, the bulk of the wealth was on the “Kedah Merchant,” which has never been found.
According to this source, the government was unable to find even the portion of the treasure that had been buried on Gardiners Island. According to the American Biographical Dictionary, authorities discovered gold, jewels, and other wealth amounting to approximately 10,000 pounds sterling. The “Kedah Merchant” was captured by Boulton and his crew and was valued at 40–50,000 pounds.
What is known for certain is that in 1705, an act of Parliament was passed authorizing the Crown to “dispose of the property of the notorious pirate William Kidd for the needs of the hospital in Greenwich.” Based on this act, the confiscated 6,472 pounds were handed over to Queen Anne for the said hospital.
However, rumors started circulating from the beginning about buried treasures—Spanish gold coins brought from Manila by Armenian merchants, various jewels, and other valuables. Were these rumors based on reality, or were they spread by the authorities who had seized these riches? Even today, it is believed that the question of “Kidd’s treasures” remains unresolved. The treasures he allegedly buried before surrendering to justice are still being sought.
The case of Captain Kidd did not signify the English abandoning piracy or its use as a means of suppressing the maritime trade of other nations. However, it did occupy a significant place in the history of the fight against piracy.
Epilogue
The French pass for the ship “Kedah Merchant” was found in the National Archives of Great Britain 219 years after the trial of Captain Kidd. The text reads:
In the Name of the King
We, Francois Marten, esquire, counselor to the King, general director of trade for the Royal Company of France in the Kingdom of Bengal, on the Coromandel Coast, and other territories, greet all those who shall see these letters.
Named Hovhannes Hovja and Yakov Hovja, both Armenians, captains of the ship “Kedah Merchant” with a displacement of approximately 350 tons, which was chartered in Surat by Agapiris Kalender, an Armenian merchant, from a certain Koerji Nannabay Parsi of the port, where the pilot is Ret Todel or the boatswain Zhionatu and the clerk Gassu, informed us that before their journey from Surat, they obtained a company pass, which they showed to us, dated January 1, 1697, signed by Marten and below by De Grangemon. Fearing troubles on the journey they were to undertake from this port to the port of Surat, under the pretext that the given passport is expired, they insistently request that we issue them a new one.
We recommend and instruct all those under the authority of the Company, ask the leaders of the squadrons and commanders of His Majesty’s ships, demand from all friends and allies of the Crown, not to create any obstacles that may delay its (“Kedah Merchant” — translator’s note) journey, and also to provide all possible assistance and cooperation, promising that in case of need they will act accordingly.
In confirmation of which, we have signed these letters, which are certified by the signature of the Company’s secretary, and to this act is affixed the seal of arms in the general office of the city of Ugli.
January 14, 1698, signatures: Marten, Depre (seal of the French East India Company)
Translation into Russian from Old French by Diana Stepanyan
This pass does not change the essence of Kidd’s piratical activities. However, under British law of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, it could have served as a strong argument in favor of the defendant in court.
Yuri Barsegov
Translation from Russian by Vigen Avetisyan.
Read Also:
The History of Armenian Merchants Fighting Against Piracy – “The Case of the Royal Pirate Kidd”
History of the Armenian Merchant’s Struggle Against Piracy II – “The Case of the Royal Pirate Kidd”
