would justify the seizure of the two vessels to which they related. The sole foundation for the suspicions that attached to Kidd, apart from his unfortunate and disreputable connection with Lord Chancellor Somers, and other unpopular members of the Ministry, was the vague allegation made some years before by the East India Company, that “they had received some information from their factories that he had committed several acts of piracy, particularly in seizing the _Quedagh Merchant_.” From the papers presented to Parliament it seemed now clear that his capture of that ship was justified; and that he was on his way home with her to New England with the object of getting her adjudicated a lawful prize, when his men had gone over to Culliford, and prevented him from carrying her to Boston. As one at least of the adventurers, Orford, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, should have known, she could not have been condemned as a lawful prize in the East Indies, owing to the neglect of the Admiralty to follow the advice of their own judge, to erect a Vice-Admiralty Court there, as had been done in the West Indies. The East India Company must have been pressed after Kidd’s arrest, to substantiate their vague charges against him. It is inconceivable, having regard to their interest in his conviction, that they left any stone unturned to procure evidence against him during the two years that he remained in confinement. But whatever their efforts may have been, they seem to have been unsuccessful. No person was found to come forward and allege that he had any knowledge of Kidd’s alleged piracies, except Cogi Babba, one of the owners of the _Quedagh Merchant_. And for the reason already explained, his evidence would be valueless, if the French passes were produced in Court.