Page content
Reset text sizeResize text larger

Primary Source of the Month


“An account of the behaviour and last dying speeches of the six pirates, that were executed on Charles River, Boston side on Fryday June 30th 1704 . . . ,” broadside, Boston, Massachusetts, 1704. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

“An account of the behaviour and last dying speeches of the six pirates, that were executed on Charles River, Boston side on Fryday June 30th 1704 . . . ,” broadside printed by Nicholas Boone, Boston, Massachusetts, 1704. Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Broadsides and Printed Ephemera Collection.

This broadside describes the execution of six pirates in Boston and marks the final chapter in the short career of an obscure pirate named John Quelch. While his reputation pales in comparison to better-known contemporaries like Captain Kidd or Blackbeard, Quelch’s case is noted for the British Crown's unprecedented use of power and a dramatic government shift away from supporting privateers as legitimate agents during war.

The story of Captain John Quelch and his band of pirates begins in July of 1703. Quelch was the first mate of the Charles, a fully armed, well-provisioned ship harbored at Marblehead, Massachusetts. Under a privateer’s license issued by Massachusetts Governor Joseph Dudley, the Charles set sail in July 1703 to attack French and Spanish ships off the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Within minutes of leaving port, the crew mutinied, locked the ship’s ailing captain, Daniel Plowman, in his cabin, and took control with Quelch elected as the new captain. Soon after clearing the harbor and entering Massachusetts Bay, the crew threw Plowman overboard and set sail for South America. 

Over the course of several months, the crew plundered several Portuguese ships off the coast of Brazil for sugar, hides, cloth, guns, and gold. By the spring of 1704, the crew believed they had enough booty and sailed back to Massachusetts arriving in Marblehead in June. Most of the crew scattered with their portion of the loot, but John Quelch and several others stayed in Marblehead. Unbeknownst to Quelch, the British government had recently allied with Portugal.Within a week of their return, Quelch and the five remaining members of his crew were arrested, charged with piracy against Britain’s newest ally, Portugal, and taken to Boston for trial.

On June 13, 1704, Quelch and the others were arraigned before the Admiralty Court—the first time an admiralty trial had been conducted outside of England. Because it was a military trial (rather than a criminal trial), the admiralty court had no jury and was presided over by a tribunal of judges. Eight days later, the court found all six defendants guilty and sentence them to death by hanging. On June 30, the five pirates, accompanied by an armed guard, were marched through Boston to the gallows at Scarlet’s Wharf.

At this point the broadside (above) takes up the story, naming the six pirates who were to be executed and detailing their last hours. It describes the scene at the gallows as “ . . . Crowded and thronged on all sides with Multitudes of Spectators.” and quotes several ministers' speeches designed " . . . to Instruct the Prisoners and bring them to Repentance.” The broadside also includes the remarks of the condemned. All of the pirates except Quelch expressed repentance. When Quelch's turn came he removed his hat, took a deep bow, and said, “ . . . I desire to be informed for what I am here, I am Condemned only upon Circumstances.” When one of the other condemned men had warned the crowd to beware of bad company such as himself, Quelch had added sarcastically, “They should also take care how they brought Money into New-England, to be Hanged for it!”

Some residents of Marblehead and Boston viewed pirates, especially privateers, as heroes who defied authority. They also welcomed them spending their ill-gotten gains in local establishments. Though the broadside moralizes on the pirates’ guilt, many people believed that their trial by a Crown-controlled court with no jury was an abuse of government power and a violation of basic rights of the accused.

[Note: Visit the Library of Congress Web site to view images and read a full transcription of both sides of the broadside.]


This article was written by Greg Timmons, freelance writer and education consultant, Missoula, Montana.



Footer