But in another way these documents do possess a high value, and are of an exceptional interest, in that they exhibit the sworn testimony of six eye-witnesses to the fact as to the circumstances of Hudson’s out-casting.  Five of these witnesses now are produced (in print) for the first time.  The sixth, Abacuck Prickett, was the author of the “Larger Discourse” that hitherto has been the sole source of information concerning the final mutiny on board the “Discovery.”  That Prickett’s sworn testimony and unsworn narrative substantially are in agreement, as they are, is not surprising; nor does such agreement appreciably affect the truth of either of them.  Sworn or unsworn, Prickett was not a person from whom pure truth could be expected when, as in this case, he was trying to tell a story that would save him from being hanged.  Neither is the corroboration of Prickett’s story by the five newly produced witnesses—­they equally being in danger of hanging—­in itself convincing.  But certain of the details (e.g., the door between Hudson’s cabin and the hold) brought out in this new testimony, together with the way in which it all hangs together, does raise the probability that the crew of the “Discovery” had more than a colorable grievance against Hudson, and does imply that Prickett’s obviously biased narrative may be less far from the truth than heretofore it has been held to be.

The summing up of the Trinity House examination gives the crux of the matter:  “They all charge the Master with wasting [i.e., filching] the victuals by a scuttle made out of his cabin into the hold, and it appears that he fed his favorites, as the surgeon, etc., and kept others at ordinary allowance.  All say that, to save some from starving, 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.