Revenge by the captain's quartermaster in 1741 (doc. no. 145), one of the very few such narratives preserved. Other documents of various kinds, illustrating miscellaneous incidents of privateering, will be found elsewhere in the volume.

Both privateers and naval vessels belonging to the government made prize of ships and goods belonging to the enemy, but many questions were certain to arise concerning the legality of captures and concerning the proper ownership and disposal of ships and goods. Hence the necessity for prize courts, acting under admiralty law and the law of nations. The instructions to privateers required them (see doc. no. 126, section III.) to bring captured ships or goods into some port of Great Britain or her colonial dominions, for adjudication by such a court. In England, it was the High Court of Admiralty that tried such cases. At the beginning of a war, a commission under the Great Seal, addressed to the Lords of the Admiralty, instructed them to issue a warrant to the judge of that court, authorizing him during the duration of the war to take cognizance of prize causes. After 1689, it was customary to provide for trial of admiralty causes in colonial ports by giving to each colonial governor, in addition to his commission as governor, a commission as vice-admiral. Before 1689, this was done in a few instances, chiefly of proprietary colonies, the earliest such instance being that exhibited in our doc. no. I; but in the case of colonies having no royal governor (corporation colonies) we find various courts in that earlier period exercising admiralty jurisdiction (docs. no. 8, no. 25, no. 48, and no. 105, note 1). From Queen Anne's reign on (doc. no. 102), jurisdiction in prize causes was conferred, as in the case of the judge of the High Court of Admiralty in London, by warrant (doc. no. 182) from the Lord High Admiral or Lords of the Admiralty pursuant to the commission issued to them, as stated above, at the beginning of the war. In doc. no. 116 we see the judge of the High Court of Admiralty expressing the belief that it

3

Such a commission (1748) is printed in R. G. Marsden, Law and Custom of the Sea (Navy Records Society), II. 279, and another (1756) in Stokes, p. 278.

would be better if all prizes were brought to his court in London for adjudication, but the inconvenience would have been too great.

The governor's commission as vice-admiral, issued (after 1689, at any rate) under the great seal of the High Court of Admiralty, gave him authority to hold an admiralty court in person. Often the governor was not well fitted for such work, though not often so frank as Sir Henry Morgan (doc. no. 46, note 1) in admitting his deficiencies. As admiralty business increased, it became customary to appoint admiralty judges to hold vice-admiralty courts in individual colonies, or in groups of colonies. Sometimes, especially in the earlier period, they were commissioned by the governor of the colony acting under a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty (doc. no. 69) empowering him so to do; more often they were commissioned directly by those lords, under the great seal of the Admiralty. Doc. no. 180 is a commission of the former sort, doc. no. 181 of the latter. When war broke out, authority to try prize cases was conveyed, as above, to the vice-admiral, the viceadmiralty judge, and their deputies.

In the trial of a prize case, the first essential document was the libel (docs. no. 99, no. 128, no. 165, no. 184, and no. 188), by which claim was laid to ship or goods. Witnesses were examined, chiefly by means of the systematic series of questions called standing interrogatories (doc. no. 183). Their testimony, taken down in written depositions, constitutes much the largest class of documents in this vol

ume.

Most narratives of privateering or of piracy are found in the form of depositions. Reports of trials, embracing proceedings and documents and testimony, are found in docs. no. 128, no. 143, and no. 165; sentences or decrees of the judge in docs. no. 143, no. 150, and no. 155; inventories of prizes in docs. no. 33 and no. 161; an account of sales in doc. no. 186.

If a party to a prize appealed from the sentence of the vice-admiralty court (docs. no. 151 and no. 196), he was required to give bond (doc. no. 152) for due prosecution of the appeal in England. From 1628 to 1708 such

appeals were heard by the High Court of Admiralty; after 1708 they went to a body of privy councillors specially commissioned for the purpose, called the Lords Commissioners of Appeal in Prize Causes (see doc. no. 151, note 1). A specimen of a decree of that tribunal reversing the sentence of a colonial vice-admiralty court is in doc. no. 195.*

Piracy being from its very nature a less formal proceeding than privateering, there are fewer formal documents to present as essential to its history. In the seventeenth century, there are instances of trials for piracy by various courts: e.g., the Court of Assistants in Massachusetts in 1675 (doc. no. 41, note 1) and the Massachusetts Superior Court in 1694 (doc. no. 56, note 2). But the regular method, which came to prevail, was trial by special commissions appointed for the purpose, similar to those which were appointed for the trial of pirates in England by virtue of the statute 28 Henry VIII. c. 15 (1536). We have such a colonial commission, appointed by the governor, in doc. no. 51 (1683). In 1700 the statute II and 12 William III. c. 7 extended to the plantations the crown's authority to appoint such commissions (see docs. no. 104, note 1, no. 106, note 1, and no. 201). A curious signed agreement to commit piracy will be found in doc. no. 50; indictments for that crime in docs. no. 56, no. 119, and no. 120; partial records of trials in docs. no. 112, no. 113, and nos. 119-122. A full account of an execution, explicit enough to satisfy the most morbid curiosity, is presented in doc. no. 104. Nos. 123 and 124 are formal bills for the execution, the digging of the graves, and the cheering drams which the executioners found needful after their grisly work.

But if American colonial piracy presents a smaller array of legal documents than American colonial privateering, it makes up for it by its rich abundance of picturesque narrative and detail. The pieces here brought together show us piracy off Lisbon and in the East Indies and at Madagascar, at Portobello and Panama and in the South Sea, in the West Indies, and all along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland

For a report of these commissioners approving the sentence of the court below, see Stokes, pp. 325-326.

to the coast of Guiana. They exhibit to us every relation from that of the most innocent victim to that of the most hardened pirate chief. They make it clear how narrow was sometimes the line that divided piracy and privateering, and how difficult it must have been to learn the truth. from witnesses so conflicting and of such dubious characters, testifying concerning actions of lawless men in remote. seas or on lonely shores.

Most of the pirates famed in story, who had anything to do with colonial America, appear in one way or another in these papers. On the history of Henry Every, for instance, and even on the oft-told tale of William Kidd, not a little new light is cast. Kidd's letters from prison, the letter and petitions of his wife, the depositions of companions, the additional letters of Bellomont, make the story live again, even though no new evidence appears that is perfectly conclusive as to the still-debated question of his degree of guilt. The wonderful buccaneering adventures of Bartholomew Sharp and his companions, 1680-1682, at the Isthmus of Panama and all along the west coast of South America, are newly illustrated by long anonymous narratives, artless but effective. And indeed, to speak more generally, it is hoped that there are few aspects of the pirate's trade that are not somehow represented in these pages.

At least it will not be denied that the documents, whether for piracy or for privateering, show a considerable variety of origins. Their authors range from a Signer of the Declaration of Independence to an Irishwoman keeping a boarding-house in Havana, from a minister of Louis XIV. or a judge of the High Court of Admiralty to the most illiterate sailor, from Governor John Endicott, most rigid of Puritans, to the keeper of a rendezvous for pirates and receiver of their ill-gotten goods. Witnesses or writers of many nationalities appear: American, Englishmen, Scots, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Spaniards, a Portuguese, a Dane or Sleswicker, a Bohemian, a Greek, a Jew. The languages of the documents are English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and Latin. Though none of them are in German or by Germans, not the least interesting pieces

1

in the volume are those (docs. no. 43, no. 48, and no. 49) which show a curious connection of American colonial history with the very first (and characteristically illegal and unscrupulous) exploits of the Brandenburg-Prussian navy.

The range of repositories from which the documents have been procured is also considerable. Many were found in the state archives of Massachusetts, many in the files of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, many in the collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, others in the archives of Rhode Island and New York, in the office of the surrogate of New York City, and in the New York Public Library. A very important source of material, indispensable indeed for certain classes of document, was the records and papers of the vice-admiralty courts of the colonial period. Extensive portions still remain in the case of four of these courts, at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston (see the first foot-notes to docs. no. 126, no. 184, no. 165, and no. 106, respectively). A large number of the documents, larger indeed than from any other repository but one, were drawn from the inexhaustible stores of the Public Record Office in London, namely, from the Admiralty and Colonial Office Papers. Others came from the Privy Council Office; a few, but among them two of the longest and most interesting, from among the Sloane and Harleian manuscripts in the British Museum; one whole group from the Rawlinson manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Three of the Kidd documents were obtained from among the manuscripts of the Duke of Portland at Welbeck Abbey. Several of the pieces, and a number of lesser extracts used in annotations, were taken from colonial newspapers, and two from printed books not often

seen.

Archivists and librarians have assisted the editor with their customary and never-failing kindness. It is a pleasure to express his gratitude to Mr. J. J. Tracy and Mr. John H. Edmonds, former and present archivists of Massachusetts, Mr. Herbert O. Brigham of the Rhode Island archives, Mr. A. J. F. van Laer and Mr. Peter Nelson of those of New York; to Mr. Worthington C. Ford and Mr. Julius H. Tut