that he was employed on each of these occasions by the very
persons--members of the Muscovy Company and others--who most would
have desired to punish him had they believed that punishment was
his just desert. That he did not testify against Hudson must count,
therefore, as a strong point in Hudson's favor; so strong--his
credibility and theirs being considered comparatively--that it goes
far toward offsetting the testimony of the haberdasher and the
barber-surgeon and the common sailors by whom Hudson was accused.

But it is useless to try to draw substantial conclusions from these
fragmentary records. The most that can be deduced from them--and
even that, because of Byleth's silence, hesitantly--is that in a
general way they do tend to confirm Prickett's narrative. They
would be more to my liking if this were not the case.

A curious feature of the trial of the mutineers is its long
delay--more than five years. The Trinity House authorities acted
promptly. Almost immediately upon the return to London of the eight
survivors of the "Discovery" five of them (Prickett, Wilson,
Clemens, Motter and Mathews--no mention is made in the record of
Byleth, Bond, and the boy Syms) were brought before the Masters
(October 24, 1611) for examination. In a single day their
examination was concluded: with the resulting verdict of the
Masters upon their actions that they "deserved to be hanged for the
same." Three months later, 25 January, 1611 (O.S.), the matter was
before the Instance and Prize Records division of the High Court of
Admiralty; of which hearing the only recorded result is the
examination of the barber-surgeon, Edward Wilson. Then,
apparently, the mutineers were left to their own devices for five
full years.