Sammo
New member
In 1884, the yacht Mignonette, on passage from Tollesbury, in Essex, to Sydney, Australia, met heavy weather in the South Atlantic. Caught by an enormous breaking wave, the yacht foundered, and her professional crew (which was delivering the boat to its new Australian owner) took to the 13-foot dinghy, where they drifted for three weeks on the empty ocean under a hot and cloudless sky. On the 24th day of their ordeal, the cabin boy, Richard Parker, 17 years old, accepted his fate as the first to go, and the captain did the deed. The survivors dined gratefully on the boy's remains.
A German ship eventually rescued them and took them back to England. Their trial was a sensation of the day. The first line of the defense was that there was no case to answer: The Mignonette, was a registered British ship, and was lost, and the killing of the cabin boy had taken place in an unflagged open boat on the high seas. However the law of the land, argued the defense, had no jurisdiction over the men's conduct in a dinghy in international waters and a thousand miles from the nearest coast, the law of the wild prevailed.
In maritime law, a ship is a fragment of the country under whose flag it sails, a wandering chunk of Britain. However far it travels overseas, it's a vessel containing the laws and customs of its home port. Here is the first law of seagoing: Nowhere on earth can you be as exposed to and alone with wild elements as at sea, yet aboard a boat you never leave the culture of the land.
Unfortunately for the men (and for those of us who would like to get up to `orrible deeds in dinghies beyond the 12-mile limit), this reading of the law ran counter to a section of the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which held that a British seaman was subject to English law whether he was on or off his ship, and that the dinghy, was, an integral part of its parent yacht, therefore it was the same as if they had done him in on Plymouth Hoe. The captain and mate of the Mignonette were found guilty of murder, sentenced to death, and then granted a royal pardon. It seems the sympathy of the court (and British public opinion) was with them, but a guilty verdict was required to prove that the long arm of the law can extend far out to sea.
I wonder how they would be judged if it happened now, a hundred years on, would it still be the law of the wild, or the law of the land?
…………..
A German ship eventually rescued them and took them back to England. Their trial was a sensation of the day. The first line of the defense was that there was no case to answer: The Mignonette, was a registered British ship, and was lost, and the killing of the cabin boy had taken place in an unflagged open boat on the high seas. However the law of the land, argued the defense, had no jurisdiction over the men's conduct in a dinghy in international waters and a thousand miles from the nearest coast, the law of the wild prevailed.
In maritime law, a ship is a fragment of the country under whose flag it sails, a wandering chunk of Britain. However far it travels overseas, it's a vessel containing the laws and customs of its home port. Here is the first law of seagoing: Nowhere on earth can you be as exposed to and alone with wild elements as at sea, yet aboard a boat you never leave the culture of the land.
Unfortunately for the men (and for those of us who would like to get up to `orrible deeds in dinghies beyond the 12-mile limit), this reading of the law ran counter to a section of the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, which held that a British seaman was subject to English law whether he was on or off his ship, and that the dinghy, was, an integral part of its parent yacht, therefore it was the same as if they had done him in on Plymouth Hoe. The captain and mate of the Mignonette were found guilty of murder, sentenced to death, and then granted a royal pardon. It seems the sympathy of the court (and British public opinion) was with them, but a guilty verdict was required to prove that the long arm of the law can extend far out to sea.
I wonder how they would be judged if it happened now, a hundred years on, would it still be the law of the wild, or the law of the land?
…………..