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 rôle 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 Button
(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