William Kidd: the commissions and the conduct

The trial print reproduces a commission for reprisals against French shipping and another authorizing the apprehension of pirates. Both name Kidd and Adventure Galley. They describe an authorized undertaking with restrictions, reporting duties and a route to legal proceedings. ^[1]

Possessing these documents was a central part of Kidd’s defense. The argument was not that he had never received authority, but whether that authority justified the acts for which he was prosecuted.

The first proceeding concerns William Moore, a gunner aboard the galley. Witnesses described Kidd striking him with an iron-bound bucket and Moore dying afterward. Kidd raised arguments about discontent and mutiny; the court distinguished those claims from what was happening at the moment of the blow. The jury convicted him of murder. ^[1]

That charge should remain separate from an account of whether a particular merchant vessel was a legitimate prize. One outcome did not supply the evidence for the other.

The piracy proceedings concerned captures including Quedagh Merchant. The print describes an English master, Armenian merchants and Kidd’s claim that French passes justified taking the ship. Witnesses reported cargo disposal, a rejected offer to redeem the vessel and distributions among the company. ^[1]

Those details place merchants and their property inside the story. The case was not simply a contest between an adventurous captain and distant officials.

Bradinham testified that Adventure Galley leaked badly, with two pumps working, and was left because it was unfit for another passage. He described Kidd moving to the captured merchant vessel. The physical condition of the original ship belongs beside the legal argument about the replacement. ^[1]

The witnesses’ accusations concerning encounters at Madagascar were disputed by Kidd. The print preserves a contested case, not an unchallenged confession of everything said against him.

The title and proceedings record conviction and execution in 1701. They do not supply a modern location for a fabulous buried fortune. Nor does Kidd’s argument about missing passes, by itself, establish a complete later exoneration. ^[1]

Follow the trials, the commissioned vessel, the merchant prize and the process capture was supposed to follow. Each answers a different part of the case.