nceived the plan of privately
equipping an armed ship as a syndicate enterprise without cost to the
government. The promoters were to divide the swag captured from
pirates as dividends on their investment.

The enterprise was an alluring one, and six thousand pounds sterling
were subscribed by Bellomont and his friends, including such
illustrious personages as Somers, the Lord Chancellor and leader of the
Whig party; the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Earl of Orford, First Lord of
the Admiralty; the Earl of Romney, and Sir Richard Harrison, a wealthy
merchant. According to Bishop Burnet, it was the king who "proposed
managing it by a private enterprise, and said he would lay down three
thousand pounds himself, and recommended it to his Ministers to find
out the refit. In compliance with this, the Lord Somers, the Earl of
Orford, Romney, Bellomont and others, contributed the whole expense,
for the King excused himself by reason of other accidents, and did not
advance the sum he had promised."

Macauley, discussing in his "History of England" the famous scandal
which later involved these partners of Kidd, defends them in this
spirited fashion:

"The worst that could be imputed even to Bellomont, who had drawn in
all the rest, was that he had been led into a fault by his ardent zeal
for the public service, and by the generosity of a nature as little
prone to suspect as to devise villainies. His friends in England might
surely be pardoned for giving credit to his recommendations. It is
highly probable that the motive which induced some of them to aid his
designs was a genuine public spirit. But if we suppose them to have
had a view to gain, it would be legitimate gain. Their conduct was the
very opposite of corrupt. Not only had they taken no money. They had
disbursed money largely, and had disbursed it with the certainty that
they should never be reimbursed unless the outlay proved beneficial to
the public."

It would be easy to pick flaws in this argument. Bellomont's partners,
no matter how public spirited, hoped to reimburse themselves, and
something over, as receivers of stolen goods. It was a dashing
speculation, characteristic of its century, and neither better nor
worse than the privateering of that time. What raised the subsequent
row in Parliament and made of Kidd a political issue and a party
scapegoat, was the fact that his commission was given under the Great
Seal of England, thus stamping a private b