Deposition: French Battle the Weather, Spanish, English, and Pirates!

 *La Fidélité de Nantes*, arriving from Léogâne — 150 tons

Dated the 13th of October

Appearing before the Gentlemen Lieutenant-General on Duty:

(source: Rapports des capitaines à l'Amirauté de Nantes, Les Archives départementales de Loire Atlantique, B4578, 10-12.

Appeared Mr. Louis Drouin, Master of the vessel named *La Fidélité de Nantes*, of one hundred and fifty tons or thereabouts; having administered the oath to him, he promised and swore to speak the truth. He stated and declared to us that the said vessel, having been laden with merchandise permitted by Mr. Montaudouin—a merchant of this city and charterer of the said ship—and being furnished with all the necessary papers for the voyage from Saint-Domingue to the French Islands of the Americas, the said Mr. Drouin declares that he departed from the lower reaches of this river on the 27th of December 1716 to undertake the said voyage. On the following 28th of January, the deponent sighted the island of Saint-Domingue at approximately 8 o'clock in the morning; and on the following day, the 29th, at 4 o'clock in the evening, he sighted the Île de la Tortue. At approximately 8 or 9 o'clock that evening—while abreast of the said island and two leagues offshore—he encountered, for a period of four hours, conditions indicating squalls and foul weather. Consequently, having ordered the sails to be reefed, the wind shifted suddenly to the northwest with great violence, accompanied by rain and thunder; he was therefore obliged to heave to. At approximately 1 o'clock [in the morning], the wind shifted to the north with equal fury; the winds subsequently veered around the entire compass and increased in intensity, and the sea became furious and terrifying. On the following day, the 30th, no land was in sight—due both to a very thick fog and to the foul weather that continued unabated. He had the misfortune to drift toward the island of Cuba due to the swiftness of the currents, which carried him westward; on the 31st—the mist having cleared around 8 o'clock in the morning—he sighted very low-lying land. Realizing he had drifted to leeward, he hauled his vessel closer to the wind in an attempt to work clear; however, having taken an altitude reading which placed him at 22 degrees North latitude, he concluded that he was within the Old Bahama Channel—the passage lying between Cuba and the shoals known as *Los Placeres*. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that, after tacking for four or five hours, he observed by the bearings of the land that—far from making any headway—the currents were actually carrying him further to the west. This observation determined him to bear away and run directly through the said channel. On that same day, he sighted a ship astern of him—a vessel out of the Canaries bound for Havana—which confirmed to him that he was indeed within the said channel. Having kept company with the other vessel for a time, they parted ways on the morning of February 3rd, between 6 and 7 o'clock: he himself steered toward Matanzas, while the other vessel set a course to the west-northwest to coast along the shoreline there of Florida

...and, in order to navigate more easily during the evenings, [we sailed] in sight of the Martyrs [Reefs], intending to round them by passing to the north of the vessels [anchored there]; on the 4th of the said month—after having tacked several times to windward to gain ground—we stood inshore to round Florida, passing to the north of the shoals. Between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning, we encountered the ship *La Sainte-Aimée* of Saint-Malo, commanded by Captain Poitevin; having spoken with him and set our course to the northeast-by-east, we sighted land again around 6 o'clock that evening, bearing North-Northeast at a distance of more than six leagues. As the winds had diminished considerably—making it difficult to hold our course close to the wind—the declarant's ship passed the Matanzas Inlet, situated just to the north of the aforementioned Martyrs.

At between eight and nine o'clock that evening—the winds having abated somewhat—they were driven westward onto a cay, where they ran aground in five feet of water, two leagues offshore from the coast of Florida. Thereupon, the deponent immediately launched his small boat to take soundings and determine whether the water was deep enough to allow the vessel to be refloated; meanwhile, the crew furled and secured the sails, and lowered the yards and topmasts.

However, the men who had boarded the said canoe—instead of executing the order given to them by the deponent—cowardly abandoned the said ship (which they had lost sight of, and to which they did not return until it was once again afloat). Upon their return, the deponent states that the Sieur des Martiers (Second Captain) and Joseph Bucoy (Pilot)—who had boarded the said canoe—were compelled by the crew of the said canoe (as well as by others who had boarded under cover of night and amidst the ensuing confusion—including François Sauveive, Baptiste Gaspard Bossemay, Joseph Ignard, and Thomas Renaut, sailors) to row toward the ship *Sainte-Anne*. This vessel, belonging to the deponent, was then situated only about half a league away; however, the said Sieur Portevin (Captain) was far from offering them asylum aboard his ship—instead branding them as cowards and deserters, and ordering that fire be opened upon them, thereby forcing them to retreat. Yet, instead of returning to the deponent's ship, they took refuge aboard an English boat they encountered. Meanwhile, the deponent ordered the longboat to be launched to compensate for the loss of the said canoe; however, it was discovered that the said longboat was taking on water through three seams on each side, which had not been properly caulked.

...restored to their proper state—though I was unable to heel the vessel over, as she was lodged against the rocks—which obliged the deponent to have her re-floated so she might be promptly recaulked. This, however, could not be accomplished until after a considerable delay, during which time the crew had diligently managed the ship, which remained aground on the said reef. Consequently, the deponent—together with his other officers—resolved to wait for daylight before attempting to move the entire vessel to deeper water. Throughout the night, he remained on watch—and ensured others did the same—guarding the said longboat while it lay alongside, with six armed musketeers posted on the gunwales and other crew members stationed at their posts, ready to fire, and the cannons loaded with grapeshot in readiness for a second boarding attempt. At the break of day, the deponent had André de Mesorit—the ship's Master—board the longboat to take soundings around the vessel. After doing so, the Master reported that, given the ship was resting on the highest point of the reef, it would be more expedient to carry the anchor forward than to carry it astern, as this would require dragging it over a shorter distance.

The said vessel, having on board various cables, was—after being violently swung around off Cap Bas—subjected to continuous heavy seas until noon; indeed, at 2:00 PM, the declarants—namely Lieutenant Dangoise and Master Dunesquil—found themselves in a critical situation. As the said vessel was in distress and offered no means of relief under the prevailing circumstances, they were compelled—in order to facilitate a more prompt resolution, both to clear the decks and to lighten the load—to jettison into the sea various goods and effects, of which mention is hereby made.

...as evidenced by the declaration made at Léogâne on March 4, 1717—signed by La Callière, Judge of the said locality—which the declarant has this day submitted and deposited in the Registry (and signed in the margin), and to which specific reference is hereby made; at which said place of Léogâne, the declarant discharged the merchandise remaining aboard his vessel—a port where he had arrived on March 3rd in order to effect repairs—and where he subsequently loaded and took on board, on account of the said ship: seven hundred and fifty-nine barrels, three pipes, two tierces, and three-quarters of a barrel of refined sugar; and eighty-five barrels, twenty-two tierces, three quarter-casks, three pipes, and two ankers of indigo. The said Declarant further states that he is currently the bearer of... ...one hogshead of sugar and four barrels of indigo, more or less. Furthermore, the declarant reports having brought back sundry pieces of cotton cloth and printed Indian fabrics from the vessel arriving from Guinea, to be placed in the bonded warehouse of the Farm [of Revenue] of this city and subsequently reshipped to Guinea. He states that he set sail from the Point of Léogâne on the 16th of last month to come to France, in company with Mr. Joseph de St. Malo—aboard a Bordeaux-registered ship armed for war against pirates—and three other merchant vessels (one from St. Malo, another from Libourne, and a small boat). The said declarant subsequently found himself alone, along with Mr. Duclos of St. Malo, having parted ways with the other vessels at the Isle of Tortuga. While off the coast, two vessels were sighted cruising along the southern shore with all sails set; the declarant, acting as captain, tacked about, only to find that the said vessels were bearing down very close upon him. This occurred around 2:00 p.m., and they continued to press sail and give chase until nightfall. To evade them, the declarant altered course during the night; upon closer inspection, he realized they consisted of a frigate mounting 20 to 22 guns—which hoisted the Spanish flag and fired a cannon shot at him—and a smaller vessel. It was judged by both the declarant and his officers that these were nothing other than pirates who had recently sailed from the Isle of Providence and, following a similar course, were heading to cruise off the coast of the Isle of Saint-Domingue. This conclusion was reached because the said captain and officers had been informed by two passengers aboard his ship—who had previously been on a St. Malo vessel captured by two pirate boats—that a large number of people had taken refuge on the Isle of Providence (totaling more than 4,000 men), and that various vessels had indeed sailed from there to go cruising off the coast... ...the so-called Isle of Saint-Domingue, which they reportedly threatened to set fire to—specifically all the ships anchored in the roadsteads of Léogâne and Petit-Goâve—declaring that any vessels they captured, regardless of size, would be burned, just as they had done to the aforementioned ship *Monsieur Louis*, commanded by Sieur de la Ville. ...upon which they had the *Craseylaiv* and the *Cadeizine* vessels moored at the high banks of Vitimery; subsequently, they held a council and deliberated as to whether they should put the crews to the sword or hang them—as they had done to several others in Nantes—and proceeded to do the same to the crew of the aforementioned vessels. Following this, they seized the said ships but returned the longboat and the skiff to the remaining crew members, providing them with very little food and water; these survivors subsequently arrived at Petit-Goâve. Furthermore, the said declarant states that Messrs. Duclos, Gallet, and Chateauvert—passengers on board his vessel who had previously been on the ship *Malousy*—told him during the voyage that they had spoken with a young Irishman who was among the pirates on the said ship; this Irishman revealed that the *Malousy* was the eighth vessel the said pirates had captured, and that the passengers and crew of the *Malousy* were fortunate to have been set free, as the pirates had thrown the crews of the two preceding vessels overboard. One of the survivors at Petit-Goâve was a man named Guilness—the sole survivor of his entire crew, the other five having been thrown into the sea—who testified that he had been held there against his will and treated most wretchedly by the said pirates. All these circumstances compelled the Superintendents, Governors, and other officials of the said Island of Saint-Domingue to require all ships present along the coast at that time to contribute—on a pro-rata basis according to their tonnage and cargo value—toward the outfitting of two vessels intended to pursue and drive off the said pirates. Consequently, a sum was levied and collected from the said declarant—by the order and authority of the said Governors and Intendant—in the form of a contribution which he was compelled to pay to the Receiver, as evidenced by the receipt dated the 15th of August last; this...

...which had to be jettisoned before reaching the said ship; and finally, the voyage continued in its entirety between 47 and 48 degrees North-Northeast. This caused such damage to the *Matt de Beaupré*—which is now unserviceable—that, having sustained several heavy seas that stove in her planking and damaged her deck, the captain fears the cargo may be damaged; he therefore makes the required protests in accordance with the Ordinance. He reports that the following men died on board: René Robior on March 13th; Julien Cherpy on the 30th; Julien Honrey on April 9th; Martin Fondie on the 11th; the said Jeriem Conce Vaba; François Stephans; Mare Aussy on the 23rd; François Vudieq on June 8th; Julien Gaillat on August 5th; Étienne Xirnaboi on September 7th; and François Etcoi, surgeon, on October 6th. He further reports that the following men deserted: Joseph Higuard, François Sauveur, and Jean Ernard (who remained on an English vessel following the loss of the ship's boat); Pierre Cartier and Charles Daniel (at Port-au-Paix); Baptiste Gaspart, Pierre Caisseau, Laurent Lorstee, and Thomas Le Page (at Léogâne); Louis Mesnard (at Grand-Goâve); and Philippe Quer (at Petit-Goâve). He presented to us the discharge papers for the enlisted soldiers and fusiliers of the Bonnecarmier company, dated August 16th and signed by Messrs. Muscani (Governor) and Mitton (Superintendent), and has resumed his leave. All of the foregoing he has retained and declared to be true. Done at Paimbœuf on the 11th of the current month; this is his declaration, which was read back to him, and he affirmed that it is truthful, signing it in the presence of the witnesses required by law, and attesting to the deaths that occurred on the said vessel; he further declared that he was unable to sign his name. ...[regarding] the said ship, [and] the considerable expenses he incurred on its behalf—for which he shall submit a memorandum to serve as is just and fitting—he has signed.

P. F. Fourqint    L. Drouin   Demnseray

Introduction to Primary Sources and Their Use: Analysis of Depositions - John Vickers (bef. 28 May 1716)

Depositions are legal documents taken to investigate a legal matter. It's the same as an interrogation. That does not mean, however, each deposition and the person being deposed are trustworthy. Many criminals have lied to the police! There's no reason to suspect that any witness cannot be lying as well - maybe they want to keep their cousin out of jail! Depositions become matters of public record and will survive indefinitely. Lies can persevere as well as truth.

The task of the historian is to investigate the events mentioned in the deposition, who the deponent is, why are authorities engaged in this investigation, and what are the deponent's motivations for telling the authorities about the event. Yes, this is a lot of work. [Sarcasm alert:] That's why historians are paid the big bucks! 😂

Today, we take a look at the Deposition of John Vickers, enclosed in a letter to the Admiralty from Lt. Gov. Spotswood, dated 3 July 1716. 

Where was this deposition taken? York County, Virginia. The governor then was Lt. Gov. Alexander Spotswood (because the actual governor George Hamilton did not think coming to America was necessary for his paycheck!) and he had much angst for pirates at this time. Williamsburg, Virginia was the capital of the Virginia Colony from 1699 to 1780. Presumably, the deposition was taken there - no specifics were mentioned as to location. British magistrates were in the habit of visiting deposers at their place of residence (whether a rental or home). So, the assumption is that the same occurred in Virginia with Thomas Nelson, the presumed interviewer and magistrate in this case. Thomas Nelson signed as witness to Vicker's deposition and no one else was mentioned in a magisterial context. A postscript is attached, mentioning Barbados merchant Alexander Stockdale (b. circa 1656), was taken by pirates and was with Vickers in Providence, Bahamas at the time of these events. He confirmed the veracity of Vicker's testimony and Nelson also witnessed his statement. This is an important point - a second person validated the deposition at the time the deposition was taken and was involved in the events in the deposition. 

The date of 3 July 1716 is not the actual date of the deposition. It's the date of Spotswood's letter and he mentions in his letter that the enclosure is a duplicate from 28 May 1716. So, the actual deposition had to have occurred before that date. The events in the deposition span the period Nov 1715 - 22 Apr 1716, and accounting for the travel time from the Bahamas to Virginia, the deposition most likely occurred sometime in May 1716. Whether Vickers was present for all the events he testifies upon at Providence is not certain - only that he knew about them possibly from word of mouth from others, but it is reasonably certain that he was there for the conclusion of these events. 

Now, who is John Vickers? My book Dictionary of Pyrate Biography was written partly to provide historians biographical information on key players related to piracy simply to provide context for such investigations. Thus, an entry on John Vickers - an important witness to pirate history - was included:

Vickers, John - from Bermuda, grandson of original wealthy immigrant (1635) Severin Vickers, had once served on the council of St. Christopher’s Island [St. Kitts] in the 1680s. His uncle Richard, in 1677, replaced Simon Musgrave as Customs agent for Jamaica. Then, John Sr. was appointed to the General Assembly of the Leeward Islands, on October 1, 1683.  Perhaps it was his son who, a younger man in 1716, had been living on New Providence when the growing band of multinational rovers infested the island in the spring and summer of that year and caused him to leave for Virginia. 

The young merchant Vickers, barely twenty, gave his deposition before Thomas Nelson, originally of Penrith, Scotland, then a twelve-year resident of Yorktown, Virginia with a son on the way (Thomas, Jr., a future governor of Virginia). 

Vickers was a young man at the time he gave his testimony. Alexander Stockdale was 58 years old, yet Vickers was the one deposed. Spotswood's letter provides the context: Vickers was the man chosen by Spotswood to obtain this information. Did Spotswood think that a younger man might be more idealistic and less experienced in deception than an older man? Or, did Spotswood think that Vickers was impressionable and willing to curb his testimony to fit the desires of possibly pirate-hating Spotswood himself? 

Reading Spotswood's letter gives clues as to his possible state of mind. He mentioned the dangers of a "Nest of Pirates" and that they could possibly grow by the addition of "loose disorderly people" from the logwood cutters at the Bay of Campeche on the Spanish mainland. This might have been professional concern, but his history and the later murder of Blackbeard in another colony seem extreme and may also indicate more than a professional pecuniary interest in rooting out pirates. Spotswood had recently dealt with Forbes and three others, pirates who wrecked upon Cape Hatteras (in North Carolina, BTW.. same place he went after Blackbeard) and were brought back to Virginia. They had since escaped. By this time, Spotswood had determined that the Proprietary government of northern Carolina was not trustworthy and he took upon himself the charge of policing their waters - as we later see with the expedition against Blackbeard in the Pamlico region. In May 1715, he also sent Capt. Harry Beverly on an expedition to Florida in Spanish territory to investigate Providence, but Beverly was caught in the Hurricane of 30 July 1715 which wrecked eleven Spanish treasure ships on the coast of Florida. 

Spotswood perhaps showed a tendency toward obsession in these matters that did not directly pertain to the administration of his colony. Spotswood might have been aware of his precarious position and noted in his letter that his authority came through:

... having power by a Commission from His late Majesty King William under the Great Seal of Admiralty for the appointment of the Officers of the Admiralty in these Islands to make particular enquiry into the state thereof: and to that end have encouraged the Master of a Sloop bound from hence on a Trading Voyage to these parts [the Bahamas] to mann extraordinarily the Vessel under his Command, and endeavour to obtain the best account he can of the number Strength and design of those Pirates....

But, any colonial administrator could have claimed this authority. Beverly and Vickers were actually sent on a spy mission for Spotswood. Was Spotswood perhaps abusing his authority? One could argue that he was merely more attentive to his admiralty duty than most negligent colonial administrators. Still, Spotswood and Beverly repeatedly insisted that Spotswood had the authority. When you often officially voice your authority, there's at least a chance that you're not quite certain that you had authority! The old "where there's smoke" argument. 

I know this seems quite critical, but that's the point, isn't it? Not all questions are answerable, but we must at least consider all possibilities and investigate what we can. Always ask questions! Again, this requires meticulous research - much easier and faster now in the computer age! But, veracity of the deposition should be established as well as possible before it is used to argue a point. The reputation of the historian is on the line with every conclusion he/she makes!

Finally, as to the deposition itself, we start with a timeline of the events mentioned (which originally appear somewhat out of chronological order). Placed in chronological order:

 ~ July 1715, Daniel Stillwell of Jamaica moved to the island of Eleuthera and went in a small shallop with John Kemp, Matthew Low, two Dutchmen, and [Jonathan] Darvill to Cuba stole 11,050 pieces of eight from a Spanish launch and took it back to Eleuthera. 

Later, Capt. Thomas Walker of Providence heard about the theft from the governor of Jamaica and took Stillwell and his vessel into custody, but Benjamin Hornigold arrived at Providence and declared all pirates were under his protection. He then had Stillwell and his vessel released.

👉Nov 1715 - Benjamin Hornigold arrives at Providence with sloop "Mary of Jamaica, owner Augustine Golding," and another "Spanish sloop" to dispose of the goods. BCBNote: Vickers then said "but, the Spanish Sloop was taken from the said Hornigold by Captain Jennings of the Sloop Bathsheba of Jamaica." Afterward, Jennings supposedly stayed in the Bahamas until Mar 1716. There are errors in this part - possibly because Vickers may have been told about these events and may not have actually witnessed them. 

Jan 1716 - Hornigold leaves Providence in "said sloop Mary" and captures another Spanish sloop off Florida. Hornigold fits out the Spanish sloop and sent Golding's "Mary" back to him.

~1 Mar 1716 -  Capt. Fernandez of Jamaica in sloop Bennett took a Spanish sloop and robbed them of about "Three Millions of money" and split the shares at Providence, then went back to the north shore of Jamaica. 

Mar 1716 - Hornigold leaves Providence in his new Floridian prize - the captured Spanish sloop.  

👉Mar 1716 - Jennings departs Providence. 

👉22 Apr 1716 - Jennings arrives at Providence with a French sloop taken at Bahia Honda on Cuban Coast. Jennings takes this sloop to the wrecks off Florida to fish for treasure. 

Vickers then mentions there are about 50 men who deserted while fishing the wrecks and caused disorders at Providence. 

He tells of Thomas Barrow, formerly mate of a Jamaican Brigantine, who stole money and goods from a Spanish Marquis - now wants to go pirating. Barrow claims to be governor of Providence and says that 5-600 more Jamaicans will join them to make war on French & Spanish, but will leave English vessels alone. But, Barrow later took a New England Brigantine in Providence Harbor and a Bermuda sloop, beat and confined its master Butler, then discharged the sloop.

It's also common for the sailors there, says Vickers, to extort money from the inhabitants. Stockdale was extorted as well, but then Barrow and Peter Parr gave Stockdale a receipt for the money he paid them.

These events were jotted down from memory, somewhat out of order. Moreover, Hornigold may indeed have arrived in Nov 1715 with a sloop named Mary, but having a sloop "Mary" stolen from him by Jennings did not happen until April 1716. Vickers confused these two events - Jennings arriving on 22 Apr 1716 is probably correct and the date when Jennings took back the French sloop - not Spanish. That's why I've marked it in colored text. 

According to three other depositions about theft of two French sloops at Bahia Honda on the coast of Cuba, Jennings in Bathsheba and two other sloops had taken these ships in Apr 1716. They were Mary of Rochelle and Marianne. Hornigold and his men stole Mary of Rochelle from Jennings et al. Hornigold then took the ship back to Providence and Jennings followed him there. That could be the 22 Apt 1716 date given by Vickers - incidentally the month before he gave the deposition, so a recent event. The earlier date, however, of March 1716 for when Jennings left Providence may have been in error. These depositions can be found here, here, and here. 

Henry Jennings followed Hornigold back to Providence that April 1716 and then took Mary of Rochelle back from him, leaving him with Marianne. This Marianne is the same one taken from Hornigold by Samuel Bellamy when they later parted company with Hornigold. 

Yeah, my brain hurt when I researched this the first time. Persistence and thorough research was the key! Many researchers have confused these events and I believed they needed a thorough investigation to confirm them.

Vickers was a reasonably accurate reporter, but he had probably only heard some of Hornigold's deeds as hearsay in Providence bars (Nov 1715 data) and may have actually seen Jennings take Mary of Rochelle away from Hornigold in late April 1716 and assumed it was the same vessel Mary that belonged to Augustine Golding of Jamaica. An honest mistake, really....