«Արքայական ծովահեն Կիդի գործը» (վերջաբանը) - Յուրի ԲԱՐՍԵՂՈՎ

The article by Yuri Barsegov, published in issue №5 (8) of the journal ANIV, concludes a series of publications on the history of the struggle of Armenian merchants against piracy and is devoted to an analysis of the trial of Captain William Kidd, who was accused of seizing the Armenian vessel "Quedagh Merchant."

Introduction and Methodology
The work is based on a detailed examination of the trial proceedings and relies on a comparison of witness testimonies, court summaries, and historical sources (English and American biographical dictionaries, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"). The author reconstructs the course of the trial, revealing the mechanisms of legal and political struggle surrounding Kidd's case.

Key Point: The Myth of the "French Pass"
The central subject of the article is an analysis of the defense's version regarding the presence of a French pass on the captured vessel, which was supposed to justify the "legality" of the seizure as a prize. Barsegov shows that:

this version was built on the widespread privateering practice of ascribing enemy nationality to illegally captured vessels (an example being the seizure of the "Mercante Armeno" in 1649);
none of the witnesses (Palmer, Davis, Bradinham) could confirm that they had personally seen the French pass;
the court established a complete absence of evidence for the existence of such a document;
even the hypothetical presence of a pass would not have released Kidd from the obligation to conduct a lawful prize court procedure, which was never done.

Proof of the Armenian Ownership of the Vessel and Cargo
The author elaborates in detail on how the representatives of the aggrieved merchants proved the Armenian ownership of the "Quedagh Merchant," relying on the 1688 agreement with the "Armenian nation" and the peaceful relations between the Great Mogul and the English crown. The summary of the Lord Chief Baron Ward confirmed: the vessel and cargo belonged to Armenians and other persons who were at peace with the English king.

Kidd's Role in Organizing the Piracy
Based on cross-examined testimonies (the episode of Kidd's clash with Palmer, the testimonies of Churchill and Howe), the article refutes Kidd's attempts to shift responsibility onto a "mutinous crew," demonstrating that it was the captain himself who initiated the plundering, applied torture, and dealt with those who disagreed.

The Verdict and Its Consequences
On May 9, Kidd and six accomplices were found guilty of piracy and sentenced to death, the sentence being carried out on May 23, 1701. The author notes the absence of any data on compensation to the Armenian victims and links this to the political and economic interests of the English crown and the Whigs, for whom the "fight" against piracy was itself a source of enrichment.

Conclusion
The key conclusion of the article is that Kidd's trial clearly demonstrates the dual nature of English colonial policy: formal condemnation of piracy was combined with the systemic use of pirate methods and the appropriation of plunder in the interests of the state and persons connected with it, while real compensation for the damages suffered by the Armenian merchants remained practically unattainable.