The captain was not in the dock
The print names Henry Every as not yet taken and lists the companions actually present. Proclamations sought a much larger group than the six people whose proceedings the book principally records. A wanted list and a defendant list are different populations. [1]
The case therefore reached the court through companions, witnesses and documents rather than an examination of Every himself.
The first result surprised the court
The opening narrative says witnesses were heard concerning Gunsway and that the jury returned not guilty, contrary to the court’s expectation. The prisoners were then held under a new warrant for other alleged piracies. [1]
That sequence should survive a retelling. Describing only the later convictions removes an important part of what the print records.
The next charge returned to the original ship
The detailed proceeding concerned taking Charles the Second from Gibson. Gravet described being threatened and confined; Druit described a boat from another ship and the actions of particular men. Questions repeatedly asked witnesses to identify the prisoners actually involved. [1]
The prosecution was linking individual participation to a defined seizure, not simply asking whether everyone had a disreputable reputation.
The voyage supplied evidence and disagreement
Dan and Middleton described later captures, provision stops and distributions. Defendants challenged what witnesses knew and argued about their own conduct. The print contains the court’s directions and judgments as well as the testimony. [1]
Words such as “fully proved” belong to that presentation. A modern account should not lose who is making the assessment.
Other indictments produced later outcomes
The book goes on to describe charges involving Danish vessels and another merchant capture, with further guilty verdicts. Its title’s broad date range and the opening date of the earlier session therefore refer to a sequence of proceedings. [1]
Read the original vessel, the Indian Ocean capture and the wider question of individual participation. Do not turn several charges into one generic trial or infer the absent captain’s fate from his companions’ cases.
Questions, answered.
Was the initial Gunsway acquittal the only verdict in the print?
No. The book records further proceedings on other charges and later convictions.
Was Every personally convicted in these proceedings?
He is named as not yet taken. The proceedings described concern captured companions.
Sources & reading notes
Source checks distinguish an artifact, a reported account and a modern interpretation. They do not constitute independent historian review.
- The Tryals of Joseph Dawson and others (1696)Open the keyboarded source transcriptionContemporary English or Scottish printed record; EEBO–TCP keyboarded transcription · Public-domain 1696 text; CC0 transcription
Opening Admiralty session of 19 October; the adjournment and new warrant; the Charles the Second indictment and detailed testimony; later indictments and verdicts. The title-page session range and opening session date should both be retained rather than conflated. A proclamation states authorities’ information and demands; a trial print records allegations, witnesses and judgments. Neither makes every accusation an independently established fact. Named suspects are not automatically convicted defendants. TCP gaps and spelling variations remain.
See the details.Cannon, shot and the meaning of a pounder.Explore the illustrated guide