Henry Hudson Part 4

[Ill.u.s.tration: AN ASTROLABIE, 1596.

FROM "THE ARTE OF NAVIGATION." LONDON. EDITION 1596]

I am glad that p.r.i.c.kett got "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 made; and Henry Greene's last recorded word, "Coragio!" was worthy of the lips of a better man. But he and the others eminently deserved the death that the savages gave them, and it is good to know that Hudson's murder so soon was avenged. Juet's equally exemplary punishment, equally deserved, came a little later. On the homeward voyage the whole company got to the very edge, and Juet pa.s.sed beyond the edge, of starvation. When the s.h.i.+p was only sixty or seventy leagues from Ireland, where she made her landfall, p.r.i.c.kett tells that he "dyed for meere want."

What befell the survivors of the "Discovery's" crew, on the s.h.i.+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 s.h.i.+ps have been sent out last year by the late Prince of Wales and by the Directors of the Moscovia Company, about the return of which nothing as yet has been heard."

For three hundred years that statement of fact has ended Hudson's story. The fragmentary doc.u.ments 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 a.s.surance that the mutineers got to the gallows that they deserved. All that they prove is that the few survivors were brought to trial: charged with having put the master of their s.h.i.+p, and others, "into a shallop, without food, drink, fire, clothing, or any necessaries, and then maliciously abandoning them: 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 murder remains unknown. Their ign.o.ble fate is hidden in a sordid darkness: fitly in contrast with his n.o.ble 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 seemed to lose) in life has been more than made good to him in the flowing of the years since he fought 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 time, those great waterways, and that great inland sea, were mere hazy geographical concepts.

After his time they were clearly defined geographical 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 him its being--he has a monument of a different and of a n.o.bler sort. Here, a.s.suredly, down through the coming ages his memory will be honored actively, his name will be in men's mouths ceaselessly, so long as the city shall endure.

And I hold that Hudson's fame, as a most brave explorer and as a great discoverer, is not dimmed by the fact that up to a certain point he followed in other men's footsteps; nor do I think that his glory is lessened by his seeming predestination to go on fixed lines to a fixed end. On the contrary, I think that his fame is brightened by his willingness to follow, that he might--as he did--surpa.s.s his predecessors; and that his glory is increased by the resolute firmness with which he played up to his destiny.

Holding fast to his great purpose to find a pa.s.sage to the East by the North, he compelled every one of Fate's deals against 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 him, almost as much as admiration for his great achievements, has kept his fame through the centuries very splendidly alive.

NEWLY-DISCOVERED DOc.u.mENTS

CONCERNING THE DOc.u.mENTS

In an article ent.i.tled "English s.h.i.+ps 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 s.h.i.+p on his last voyage; Baffin also sailed in her." A list of references to ma.n.u.script 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 doc.u.ments.

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 grat.i.tude 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 doc.u.ments referred to by Mr. Marsden. The record of the trial is incomplete; and, most regrettably, the most essential of all the doc.u.ments is lacking: the judgment of the Court. So far as the mutineers are concerned, all that these doc.u.ments 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 doc.u.ments 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 circ.u.mstances of Hudson's out-casting. Five of these witnesses now are produced (in print) for the first time. The sixth, Abacuck p.r.i.c.kett, 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 p.r.i.c.kett'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, p.r.i.c.kett 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 p.r.i.c.kett'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 p.r.i.c.kett'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 p.r.i.c.kett'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 s.h.i.+p.

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 t.i.tle 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 s.h.i.+p-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 role 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 b.u.t.ton (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 p.r.i.c.kett'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 (p.r.i.c.kett, 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, p.r.i.c.kett, 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, p.r.i.c.kett 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 doc.u.ment 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 p.r.i.c.kett and the others in a like way disappeared with him, then was justice done on Hudson's murderers.

THE DOc.u.mENTS

Trinity House MS. Transactions. 1609-1625.

(24 _October_ 1611)

The 9 men turned out of the s.h.i.+p: Henry Hudson, master.

John Hudson, his son.

Arnold Ladley.

John King, quarter master.

Michael b.u.t.t, married.

Thomas Woodhoase, a mathematician, put away in great distress.

Adame Moore.

Philip Staff, carpenter.

Syracke Fanner, married.

John Williams, died on 9 October.

--Ivet [Juet], died coming home.

Slain: Henry Greene.

William Wilson.

John Thomas.

Mich.e.l.l Peerce.

Men that came home: Robart Billet, master.

Abec.o.c.ke p.r.i.c.kett, a land man put in by the Adventurers.