ng, 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 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 ship.
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 title 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 ship-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 bey