Part 4 (1/2)

[Illustration: AN ASTROLABIE, 1596

FROM ”THE ARTE OF NAVIGATION” LONDON EDITION 1596]

I aot ”a cruell wound in the backe” Were it not that by the killing of him we should have lost his narrative, I should wish that that weak villain had been killed along with the stronger ones They were strong It was a brave fight that they io!” orthy of the lips of a better man But he and the others eave theood to know that Hudson's ed Juet's equally exemplary punishment, equally deserved, caot to the very edge, and Juet passed beyond the edge, of starvation When the shi+p was only sixty or seventy leagues from Ireland, where she made her landfall, prickett tells that he ”dyed for meere want”

What befell the survivors of the ”Discovery's” crew, on the shi+p's return to England, has remained until now unknown; and even now the account of them is inconclusive In the Latin edition of the year 1613 of his ”Detectio Freti” Hessel Gerritz wrote: ”They exposed Hudson and the other officers in a boat on the open sea, and returned into their country There they have been thrown into prison for their crime, and will be kept in prison until their captain shall be safely brought home For that purpose some shi+ps have been sent out last year by the late Prince of Wales and by the Directors of the Moscovia Co as yet has been heard”

For three hundred years that statementary documents which I have been so fortunate as to obtain from the Record Office carry it a little, only a little, farther Unhappily they stop short--giving no assurance that the allows that they deserved All that they prove is that the few survivors were brought to trial: charged with having put the master of their shi+p, and others, ”into a shallop, without food, drink, fire, clothing, or any necessaries, and thenthem: so that they came thereby to their death, and miserably perished”

There, unfinished, the record ends What penalty, or that any penalty, was exacted of those who survived to be tried for Hudson's noble fate is hidden in a sordid darkness: fitly in contrast with his noble fate--that lies retired within a glorious mystery

XIV

Hudson has no cause to quarrel with the rating that has been fixed for him in the eternal balances All that he lost (or seeood to hiht out with Fate his last losing round

In his River and Strait and Bay he has such monuments set up before the whole world as have been awarded to only one other navigator

And they are his justly Before his tireat inland sea, were raphical concepts

After his tiraphical facts He did--and those who had seen them before him did not--make them effectively known Here, in this city of New York--which owes to hi--he has a monument of a different and of a nobler sort Here, assuredly, down through the coes his memory will be honored actively, his na as the city shall endure

And I hold that Hudson's fareat discoverer, is not dimmed by the fact that up to a certain point he followed in other lory is lessened by his seeo on fixed lines to a fixed end On the contrary, I think that his faht--as he did--surpass his predecessors; and that his glory is increased by the resolute fir fast to his great purpose to find a passage to the East by the North, he coainst him--until that last deal--to turn in his favor; and even in that last deal he won a death so heroically woful that exalted pity for hireat achieveh the centuries very splendidly alive

NEWLY-DISCOVERED DOcumENTS

CONCERNING THE DOculish shi+ps in the Time of James I,” by RG Marsden, MA, in Volume XIX of the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, I came upon this entry: ”'Discovery' (or 'Hopewell,' or 'Good Hope') Hudson's shi+p 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 , most obvious in proper names, follows that of the documents

As I have stated elsewhere, none of the historians who has dealt withto Hudson has told what becaland 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 re pursuit of elusive historical truth will understand, therefore, ratitude to Mr Marsden, when this clew to hitherto unpublished facts concerning Hudson was placed init 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 ht even all of the documents referred to by Mr Marsden The record of the trial is incorettably, the ment of the Court So far as the mutineers are concerned, all that these docuht to trial: what penalty was put upon them, or if any penalty was put upon them, still remains unknown

But in another way these docuh value, and are of an exceptional interest, in that they exhibit the sworn testimony of six eye-witnesses to the fact as to the circu 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 infor the final mutiny on board the ”Discovery” That prickett's sworn testireereement 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 hied 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 (eg, the door between Hudson's cabin and the hold) brought out in this new testiether, does raise the probability that the crew of the ”Discovery” had ainst 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 suives the crux of the[ie, 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 so, 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 saeon--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 soard to the needs of the reth to work the shi+p

This is an agreeainst Hudson in the ”Larger Discourse”; upon which Dr Asher e be a true one, Hudson's motives were certainly honorable; with such erous to deal openly Their crime had no other cause than the fear that he would continue his search and expose the for this eers” 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” hi the remainder on starvation rations--no matter what may have been his ht 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 ho should die of hunger that the others should have food enough to keep them alive, then the mutineers could clai 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 thereeable role of Postulator, I ainst Hudson--while not disproved--is not sustained The one witness, Robert Byleth, of whom reputable record survives--the only witness, indeed, of e 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 creas ”by occasion of the want of victualls” Neither in his statee Hudson rong-doing of any kind Byleth himself does not seem to have been looked upon as a cri 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 ly, 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 punishainst Hudsonpoint in Hudson's favor; so strong--his credibility and theirs being considered co the testieon and the common sailors by whom Hudson was accused

But it is useless to try to draw substantial conclusions fromentary 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 confir if this were not the case

A curious feature of the trial of thedelay--more than five years The Trinity House authorities acted proht 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 Syht before the Masters (October 24, 1611) for exale day their exa verdict of the Masters upon their actions that they ”deserved to be hanged for the same” Three months later, 25 January, 1611 (OS), the matter was before the Instance and Prize Records division of the High Court of Ad the only recorded result is the exaeon, 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 Ter cannot be fixed precisely--there being no date attached to the True Bill found against Bileth, prickett, Wilson, Motter, Bond, and Sims