The testimony of Mr Purcell is also strongly in favour of James Morrison, as he attests that before the Bounty and the Launch had separated, Mr Morrison had specifically asked him, ‘to take notice in the face of the whole of the Mutineers that he was prevented from coming into the Launch’.37
And so ends the second day.
The next morning, Midshipman Hayward, or Lieutenant Hayward as the recently promoted officer is now, is called and takes his place with an air of confidence. His has been an extraordinary experience. He is the top-ranking Loyalist present for this affair, an exemplar of duty before devilry, and he knows it. The very man who had waited hidden and listening next to the Captain’s cabin in the Pandora as Captain Edwards attempted to trap Peter Heywood and George Stewart in a lie is now here, to give his own unvarnished, untarnished, account of what occurred – both on the day and, if needs be, on the two subsequent voyages he has taken to both Tahiti, and to Timor, twice, did he mention?
For now, while being sworn in, Hayward glowers at his former shipmates and, within the bounds of judicial respect – for they must not veer into anything resembling Contempt of Court – the accused glare back, for they have an expectation that his testimony will not be kind to them.
And they are correct …
‘I had seen Lieutenant Bligh brought to the gangway held by Christian and surrounded by John Mills, who was at this time Armed,’ Hayward begins his most crucial testimony, naming and shaming, condemning those he places right in the middle of the Mutiny. ‘Thomas Burkett, the Prisoner, Matthew Quintal, John Sumner, John Millward, the Prisoner, William McCoy, and Thomas Ellison, the Prisoner, who came up rather in a hurry with a bayonet in his hand swearing, “Damn him, I will be sentry over him!”’38
Monkey is seen to slump in his seat.
His death sentence, effectively, has just been pronounced. The situation for Mr Burkett and Mr Millward is no better. (And Burkett’s truthful claims that he had only ever joined the Mutiny at the wrong end of Billy McCoy’s pistol, and then Fletcher Christian’s; that he was the one who had covered Captain Bligh’s bare buttocks; and if it wasn’t for him pushing Quintal, the Loyalists would have had no compass at all … make little impression.)
But, for now, the course of the questioning moves on.
For the judges are particularly interested in Lieutenant Hayward’s account of the actions of his former friend and messmate, Midshipman Peter Heywood.
Well, Hayward turns to the judges, ‘I … perceived Peter Heywood … in his berth. I told him to go into the boat, but in my hurry do not remember to have received any answer.’39
Do you think Peter Heywood was one of the Mutineers?
‘I should rather suppose [him] after my having told him to go into the boat and he not joining us, to be on the side of the mutineers.’
And Mr James Morrison? What of him?
At the question, Lieutenant Hayward changes his countenance entirely.
He has no doubt Mr Morrison was a Mutineer he informs the court, because he had closely observed his ‘countenance’ as he unloaded the Launch and found him ‘rejoiced’. This was in strict contrast to Mr McIntosh, who Hayward is sure was not a Mutineer because his face looked, ‘depressed’.40
And so back to Peter Heywood.
‘What was Mr. Heywood employed about in his berth when you went below?’
‘Nothing but sitting with his arms folded on his own chest, in the fore part of the berth.’
‘Did you from his behaviour consider him as a person attached to his duty or to the party of the mutineers?’
Hayward chooses his words carefully.
‘I should rather suppose, after my having told him to go into the boat, and he not joining us, to be on the side of the mutineers, but that must be only understood as an opinion as he was not in the least employed during the active part of it.’
‘Did you observe any marks of joy or sorrow on his countenance or behaviour?’
‘Sorrow.’
‘You have said just now that you supposed McIntosh not to be attached to the Mutineers because he had a depressed countenance; might not the sorrow that you perceived in the countenance of Peter Heywood arise from the same cause?’
‘It might be so,’41 Hayward allows carefully.
After more questioning that leads nowhere in particular, it is time for the accused to cross-examine the witness.
Morrison can barely wait, and wastes no time to get to his key question.
‘You say that you observed joy in my countenance and that you are rather inclined to give it as your opinion that I was one of the mutineers,’ he says firmly. ‘Can you declare before God and this court that such evidence is not the result of a private pique?’
‘No,’ Hayward replies forcefully, ‘it is not the result of any private pique, it is an opinion that I formed after quitting the ship, from the prisoner’s not coming with us when he had as good an opportunity as the rest, there being more boats than one.’42
Morrison wastes no time in seizing the high ground.
‘Can you deny,’ he asks plaintively, for he knows that Lieutenant Hayward can do no such thing, ‘that you were present when Captain Bligh begged that the Long Boat might not be overloaded and that he did say he would do justice to those who remained?’
‘I was present at the time Lieutenant Bligh made such a declaration, but understood it as respecting clothes and other heavy articles with which the Boat was already too full.’43
Again, there is a stirring in the court.
In none of the published or circulated accounts, in none of the testimony so far, and nowhere within the parameters of common sense, has such an assertion been made and it is prima facie, ludicrous.
It is so ludicrous that Morrison can barely believe Hayward has said it.
And so to his most important question.
‘Do you remember,’ Morrison asks, ‘any time on that day calling upon me to assist you in any point of duty or to give any assistance to retake His Majesty’s Ship?’
‘I have a faint remembrance,’ Lieutenant Hayward allows, ‘of a circumstance of that nature.’44
‘Relate the Circumstance?’ asks the prosecutor.
‘It is so very faint,’ Lieutenant Hayward says, ‘that I can hardly remember it or the person who it was – but on seeing Charles Churchill upon the booms I thought that had I had a Friendly Island club, of which there were many on board, I could, had I not been observed, have gone forward, which was behind Churchill, and knocked him down; that was the time after handing the bag up, and the prisoner might have been the person whom I called to my assistance.’45
In an instant, Morrison follows up with his next question.
‘What answer did I give to you?’
‘I do not remember.’
‘Did I say, “Go it, I’ll back you, there is tools enough”?’
‘I do not remember.’46
Though frustrated, there is nowhere further for Morrison to go, and he must cede the witness to William Muspratt – the only other Mutineer able to afford a lawyer – who has been aching to make his own cross-examination.
‘In answer to a question just asked by Morrison,’ Muspratt begins, ‘you allow Captain Bligh used these words, “Don’t let the boat be overloaded, my lads, I’ll do you justice,” which you say alluded to the clothes and other heavy articles. Do you mean to understand the latter words of “My lads I’ll do you justice,” to apply to clothes or to men whom he apprehended might go into the boat?’
Hayward is flustered at the question and becoming cross at being badgered, one after the other, by these (sniff) Mutineers.
‘If Captain Bligh,’ he says irritably, ‘made use of the words “My lads,” it was to the people already in the boat and not to those in the ship.’47
The looks on the faces of the members of the court indicate they are not merely incredulous that Captain Bligh could possibly have meant this, but also underwhelmed and even highly annoyed that Lieutenant Ha
yward could insist on such an absurdity in sworn testimony.
Midshipman Hallett, or ‘that little wretch Hallett’,48 as Nessy Heywood will soon refer to him – and for good reason – is the next to bear witness. For the key to his testimony is indeed focused on his recollection of an episode involving Peter Heywood.
‘When he was standing as I have before related,’ Hallett says, ‘Captain Bligh said something to him, but what I did not hear, upon which he laughed, turned round, and walked away.’49
Outrageous!
Heywood laughing in the face of a Captain bound to his mast is clearly the action of a scornful Mutineer, and a scoundrel at that, not that of a loyal Midshipman trying to find a way to seize back the ship.
Again the fatal pendulum of evidence seems to swing towards the young man being guilty.
But Heywood still has a chance to make the pendulum swing back, when his own time to give evidence comes. And at least he has time to prepare, devoting every waking hour of the weekend – which falls at exactly the right time – to writing, rewriting, and then rewriting some more, until he can write no more.
Come Monday, Heywood rises when summoned – the first defendant to be called to the dock on the day – and speaks in a low voice: ‘Owing to the long and severe confinement I have suffered I am afraid I am not capable of delivering my defense with the force of expression it requires, and therefore desire one of my friends might read it for me.’
‘Granted.’50
And so his lawyer, Mr Const, rises to read out Peter Heywood’s carefully crafted statement.
Cleverly, Mr Heywood makes it clear from the first: he makes no claim to be a hero. He was a mere 16-year-old in the midst of a situation, the enormity of which was quite overwhelming for a frightened and confused young man.
‘Add to my youth and inexperience that I was influenced in my conduct by the example of my messmates, Mr. Hallett and Mr. Hayward, the former of whom was very much agitated and the latter, though he had been many years at sea, yet, when Christian ordered him into the boat he was evidently alarmed at the perilous situation, and so much overcome by the harsh command, that he actually shed tears.’51
It is a bold tactic. Heywood is focusing the court’s attention on the fact the very officers who have given sworn testimony against him – officers who the court feels kindly to, for their seemingly proven loyalty – in fact, had pleaded with the leader of the Mutineers to be allowed to stay with him, and not go with Captain Bligh! These men were his superiors, the ones setting the example!
‘Such then was exactly my situation on board the Bounty – to be starved to death, or drowned, appeared to be inevitable if I went in the boat and surely it is not to be wondered at if at the age of sixteen years, with no one to advise with and so ignorant of the discipline of the service (having never been at sea before), as not to know or even suppose that it was possible that what I should determine upon might afterwards be alleged against me as a crime –: I say under such circumstances, in so trying a situation, can it be wondered at if I suffered the preservation of my life to be the first, and to supersede every other, consideration?’52
But to be clear, Heywood is not saying he wanted to get into the Launch himself. For, the truth is, no man did.
‘Surely I shall not be deemed criminal that I hesitated at getting into a boat whose gunnel when she left the ship was not quite eight inches above the surface of the water. And if, in the moment of unexpected trial, fear and confusion assailed my untaught judgment and that by remaining in the ship I appeared to deny my Commander, it was in appearance only – it was the sin of my head, for I solemnly assure you before God that it was not the vileness of my heart.’53
With Mr Const enunciating words in a manner that somehow gives them added legal weight, Heywood’s side of the story is put for the first time into the open public domain.
Of course he had wanted to stay loyal to Captain Bligh, but, how? For when he had tried to do exactly that, going with George Stewart back to his berth to collect their belongings, so they could take them onto the Launch, they were confronted with gun-wielding thugs who threatened their lives if they even tried.
Having hopefully established that key point, Heywood now begins his cross-examinations of the witnesses. And yes, his voice is nearly as wispy as his malnourished body. But it is soon apparent that there is absolutely nothing wrong with his sharp mind.
Standing, and only occasionally consulting the copious notes he has been taking throughout in his neat, well-educated artist’s hand, Heywood takes on his persecutors, one by one.
Firstly, to Mr Fryer, he puts the critical question: ‘If you had been permitted would you have stayed in the ship in preference to going into the boat?’
‘Yes.’54
After more questions, he finally asks: ‘What was my general temper and disposition on board the ship?’
‘Beloved by everybody …’ says Mr Fryer.55
William Cole is sworn.
‘Did you,’ Peter Heywood begins, ‘consider me when helping to hoist out the Launch as assisting the Captain or the Mutineers?’
‘By no means helping the Mutineers,’ Cole replies to their Lordships. ‘I thought him to be on the Captain’s side.’56
Heywood also seeks to have Cole confirm the key pillar on which his innocence rests: he was kept below against his will.
‘After I went below accompanied by Stewart, and while we were there, did you hear any orders, given to Thompson the sentinel upon the arms chest, “not to let them come up again” and by whom were such orders given?’
‘I heard,’ Cole allows, ‘Churchill call out “keep them below!”’
‘Do you think he meant me as one of them, whoever they were?’
‘Yes, I do.’
‘Although you cannot positively say it was me he meant to have confined, have you any doubt in your mind but that it was me?’
‘None at all.’57
‘Did you see Mr. Hayward upon deck during the time of the Mutiny?’
‘Yes.’
‘In what state did he appear to be – was he cool and collected, or did he seem agitated and alarmed?’
‘More alarmed.’
‘Did you see Mr. Hallett upon deck during the time of the Mutiny?’
‘Yes.’
‘In what state did he appear to be, was he cool and collected or did he seem agitated and alarmed?’
‘Alarmed.’58
Heywood’s point is eloquently made … without him even having to say it. It is all very well for the likes of Lieutenant Hayward and Mr Hallett to present themselves as cool Loyalists, now capable of recalling precise details and conversations that point to the guilt of others. But at the time they were not like that at all. At the time they were two agitated, alarmed men in tears. So what is their evidence now truly worth?
William Peckover is sworn next and testifies in favour of Heywood’s innocence.
Mr Purcell is to be questioned next, which is delicate – for the Carpenter has already told the court he personally saw the hand of Heywood holding a cutlass, at the height of the Mutiny – and that testimony must be either recanted, or at least countered.
‘Did you consider me – when assisting to hoist out the Launch – as helping the Captain or the Mutineers?’
‘The Captain,’ Purcell replies, unequivocally.
With such a good start, Heywood is quick to follow up.
‘After what you have said respecting the cutlass on which you say my hand rested, just as the Launch was going to be hoisted out, I would ask you whether, on the most mature consideration of the matter, you did then, or you do now, believe that I could be considered as an Armed Man?’
‘No.’59
Even better!
The next witness is someone Heywood has longed to question publicly for many months. It is Captain Edwards of the Pandora.
‘Did I,’ Peter Heywood asks pointedly, ‘surrender myself to you upon the arrival of the Pandora at Tahiti?’
‘Not to me,’ Edwards replies carefully, again addressing his remarks to the bench of Admiral judges, ‘but to the Lieutenant. I apprehend he put himself in my power – I always understood he came voluntarily.’
‘Did I give to you such information respecting myself and the Bounty as afterwards proved true?’
‘He gave me some information respecting the people in the Island, that corroborated with Coleman’s. I do not recollect the particular conversation, but in general it agreed with the account given by Coleman.’60
Now, as it happens, the court itself has some questions for Captain Edwards about what Midshipman Heywood told him, on one particular matter.
‘Did Peter Heywood give you any account of the transactions of the Bounty after the boat was turned adrift to her return to Matavai Bay, Tahiti?’
‘Yes, I had conversations with Heywood upon that subject, but I do not recollect all the conversation that passed.’61
Well, that’s all right, because Heywood recalls the conversation down to the tiniest detail, and has had a great deal of time to reflect on its significance.
‘When I told you that I went away the first time from Tahiti with the Pirates did I not at the same time inform you that it was not possible to separate myself from Christian, who would not permit any man of the party to leave him at that time, lest, by giving intelligence, they might have been discovered, whenever a ship should arrive?’62
‘Yes, but I do not recollect the latter part of it respecting giving intelligence,’63 Captain Edwards replies.
The only thing that counts, of course, is the ‘Yes’.
And finally, at Heywood’s prompting, Lieutenant Larkin affirms to the court the young Midshipman had paddled to Pandora just after it dropped anchor, and voluntarily gave himself up.
Was this the action of a man who knew himself to be guilty?
The defence of Peter Heywood is complete.
Following Heywood’s lead, Morrison now hands over his own written defence, with Judge Advocate Moses Greetham assigned to read it to the court.
‘Conscious of my own innocence of every article of the charge exhibited against me, and fully satisfied of my zeal for His Majesty’s service, I offer the following narration in vindication of my conduct …’64
Mutiny on the Bounty Page 54