The National Society of the Colonial Dames of America have formed the laudable habit of illustrating the colonial period of United States history, in which they are especially interested, by published volumes of original historical material, previously unprinted, and relating to that period. Thus in the course of years they have made a large addition to the number of documentary sources available to the student of that period. First they published, in 1906, in two handsome volumes, the Correspondence of William Pitt, when Secretary of State, with Colonial Governors and Military and Naval Commanders in America, edited by the late Miss Gertrude Selwyn Kimball, containing material of great importance to the history of the colonies as a whole, and of the management of the French and Indian War. Next, in 1911 and 1914, they published the two volumes of Professor James C. Ballagh's valuable edition of the Letters of Richard Henry Lee. Then, in 1912, they brought out, again in two volumes, the Correspondence of Governor William Shirley, edited by Dr. Charles H. Lincoln, and illustrating the history of several colonies, particularly those of New England, during the period of what in our colonial history is called King George's War. More recently, in 1916, the Society published an entertaining volume of hitherto unprinted Travels in the American Colonies, edited by Dr. Newton D. Mereness.

It was resolved that the next volume after these should be devoted to documents relating to maritime history. In proportion to its importance, that aspect of our colonial history has in general received too little attention. In time of peace the colonists, nearly all of whom dwelt within a hundred miles of ocean or tidewater, maintained constantly a maritime commerce that had a large importance to their economic life and gave employment to no small part of their population. In time of war, their naval problems and dangers and achievements were hardly less important than those of land warfare, but have been far less exploited, whether in narrative histories or in volumes of documentary materials. Accordingly the Society's Committee on Publication readily acceded to the suggestion that a volume should be made up of documents illustrating the history of privateering and piracy as these stand related to the life of America during the colonial period—for it is agreed that few aspects of our maritime history in that period have greater importance and interest than these two. In some of our colonial wars, as later in those of the Revolution and of 1812, American privateering assumed such proportions as to make it, for brief periods, one of the leading American industries. We cannot quite say the same concerning American piracy, and indeed it might be thought disrespectful to our ancestors—or predecessors, for pirates mostly died young and left few descendants—but at least it will be conceded that piracy at times flourished in American waters, that not a few of the pirates and of those on shore who received their goods and otherwise aided them were Americans, that their activities had an important influence on the development of American commerce, and that documents relative to piracy make interesting reading.

It is a matter for regret and on the editor's part for apology, that the book should have been so long in preparation. Work on it was begun prosperously before our country was engaged in war, but the "spare time" which the editor can command, always slight in amount, was much reduced during the period of warfare. Moreover, the Society, very properly, determined that, so long as war continued, the publication of their volumes and the expenditures now attendant upon printing ought to be postponed in favor of those patriotic undertakings, especially for the relief of suffering, which have made their name grateful to all lovers of the Navy and in all places where the Comfort and the Mercy have sailed.

It may be objected against the plan of this book, that privateering and piracy should not be conjoined in one volume, with documents intermingled in one chronological order, lest the impression be created that piracy and privateering were much the same. It is true that, in theory and in legal definition, they are widely different things and stand on totally different bases. Legally, a privateer is an armed vessel (or its commander) which, in time of war, though owners and officers and crew are private persons, has a commission from a belligerent government to commit acts of warfare on vessels of its enemy. Legally, a pirate is one who commits robbery or other acts of violence on the sea (or on the land through descent from the sea) without having any authority from, and independently of, any organized government or political society. (Fighting and bloodshed and murder, it may be remarked by the way, though natural concomitants of the pirate's trade, are not, as is often supposed, essentials of the crime of piracy.) But wide as is the legal distinction between the authorized warfare of the privateer and the unauthorized violence of the pirate, in practice it was very difficult to keep the privateer and his crew, far from the eye of authority, within the bounds of legal conduct, or to prevent him from broadening out his operations into piracy, especially if a merely privateering cruise was proving unprofitable. Privateering was open to many abuses, and it was not without good reason that the leading powers of Europe, in 1856, by the Declaration of Paris, agreed to its abandonment.

The object of the following collection of documents is not to give the whole history of any episode of piracy or of the career of any privateer, but rather, by appropriate selection, to illustrate, as well as is possible in one volume, all the different aspects of both employments, and to present specimens of all the different sorts of papers to which they gave rise. Nearly all the pieces are documents hitherto unprinted, but a few that have already been printed, mostly in books not easy of access, have been included in order to round out a story or a series. The collection ends with the termination of the last colonial war in 1763. Presented in chronological order, it may have a casual, as it certainly has a miscellaneous, appearance. But variety was intended, and on closer inspection and comparison the selection will be seen to have a more methodical character than at first appears, corresponding to the systematic procedure followed in privateering, in prize cases, and in trials for piracy.

On the outbreak of war in which Great Britain was involved, it was customary for the King to issue a commission to the Lord High Admiral (or to the Lords of the Admiralty appointed to execute that office) authorizing him (or them) to empower proper officials, such as colonial governors, to grant letters of marque, or privateering commissions, to suitable persons under adequate safeguards.[1] The Lords of the Admiralty then issued warrants to the colonial governors (see doc. no. 127), authorizing them to issue such commissions or letters of marque. A specimen American privateering commission may be seen in doc. no. 144; a Portuguese letter of marque, and a paper by which its recipient purported to assign it to another, in docs. no. 14 and no. 15. Royal instructions were issued to all commanders of privateers (doc. no. 126), and each was required to furnish, or bondsmen were required to furnish on his behalf, caution or security[2] for the proper observance of these instructions and the payment of all dues to the crown or Admiralty. Relations between the commander and the crew, except as regulated by the superior authority of these instructions and of the prize acts or other statutes, were governed by the articles of agreement (doc. no. 202) signed when enlisting.

These were the essential documents of a privateering voyage. There would probably be also accounts for supplies, like John Tweedy's very curious bill for medicines (doc. no. 158), and accounts between crew and owners (doc. no. 146), and general accounts of the voyage (doc. no. 159). There might be an agreement of two privateers to cruise together and divide the spoil (doc. no. 160). There might even be a journal of the whole voyage, like the extraordinarily interesting journal kept on the privateer 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,[3] 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. 1; 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 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 vice-admiralty 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 volume. 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.[4]

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 11 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 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 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. Tuttle of the Massachusetts Historical Society; to Hon. Charles M. Hough, judge of the United States Circuit Court in New York; to Miss C.C. Helm of his office; to the late Miss Josephine Murphy, custodian of the Suffolk Files; to Miss Mabel L. Webber, secretary and librarian of the South Carolina Historical Society; to Mr. Victor H. Paltsits of the New York Public Library; to Rev. Richard W. Goulding, librarian to the Duke of Portland; and to the authorities of the Public Record Office, the Privy Council Office, the British Museum, and the Bodleian Library. Special thanks are due to the officials of three libraries in which the work of annotation was mostly done—the Library of Congress, that of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and that of Bowdoin College. On a few nautical points the editor had the advice of his old friend the late Captain Charles Cate of North Edgecomb, Maine. And especially he has to thank the chairman of the Committee on Publication, Mrs. Charles E. Rieman, for her interest in the work and for the exemplary patience with which she has borne the delays in its completion.

It is perhaps needless to say that the spelling of the originals has been carefully preserved; it is hoped that it would not be thought to be that of the editor. The punctuation of the originals has not been deemed equally sacred. In general, it has been reproduced, but where small alterations would make the sense clear to the modern reader but could not change it, or where that same effect would be produced by introducing punctuation-marks, which writers nearly illiterate often omitted entirely, it has seemed the part of good sense to make reading-matter readable. Also, names of vessels have been uniformly italicized even when not underscored in the original manuscripts. Dates previous to 1752 are old-style dates unless, as in the case of Dutch or French documents, new style is indicated.

J. Franklin Jameson.

Washington, October 19, 1923.