Neil Hanson - The Custom of the Sea

‘I don’t think there is any really strong feeling in the Ferry against these poor unfortunate men and all I have to say about it is that I really don’t think they should have killed him. I can seem to see him now looking up to Captain Dudley and saying, “What — me, sir?”’

The editorial in the Southampton Times reflected the prevailing view among its readers.

While many of the briny fraternity complain that an equality of chance was not given to the four exhausted survivors by the casting of lots, others regard with more charity the unparalleled extremity to which they were driven and contend that it would have been equally a crime to have sacrificed one of the other three, when it was evident that the boy could not have survived.

Faced with such generous views from those closest to the victim, the treatment of the case by some sections of the metropolitan press was also beginning to soften.

There was even a sympathetic editorial in the Standard , in stark contrast to its earlier outright condemnation.

It is hardly possible for those enjoying the comforts of a life on shore to form a just opinion as to the state to which men must have come before they adopted this terrible alternative. It is, we believe, the first time that the law has taken cognisance of one of these awful tragedies at sea and the interest in the trial especially among seafaring men cannot fail to be very great.

The Daily Telegraph was even more understanding of the men’s position.

For humanity’s sake, we must regret that such confessions as have fallen from these rescued men ever came to the light of day. It would be better perhaps that it had never been told at all. Repulsive as the last resource of this boat’s crew appears, it is but just to remember that it was arrived at only through and after an anguish of suffering which would dethrone reason and reduce manhood to a raving craving for food and drink, utterly beyond the limits and wholly unimaginable to any save the victims.

During the rest of their lives the shadow of this awful memory must of necessity darken their days and often trouble their nightly slumber. But it is for their fellows to be compassionate rather than condemn them and to hear this piteous story of the sea with the assurance that, despite their unspeakable grief, even the friends of the poor lost sailor lad will pronounce no other judgement against them than one of sorrowful silence.

Public sympathy for the three men was heightened still further by the publication of Tom’s moving last letter to Philippa, written while in the dinghy. John Burton was responsible for that, beginning to collect on his quid pro quo with Tom, Brooks and Stephens by hawking copies of the creased, folded and waterstained letter to the newspapers.

The letter and the interviews with the survivors and Richard’s relatives served only to fuel an already insatiable public appetite for news of the Mignonette case. It had been reported worldwide and continued to dominate the British press, even relegating to second place the daily bulletins on the progress of Sir Garnet Wolseley’s expedition up the Nile to relieve the besieged General Gordon at Khartoum.

Reporters continued to pursue Tom, Brooks and Stephens, and interviewed everyone with even the most tangential connection to the men. A flood of correspondence from members of the public — the vast majority supportive of the men’s actions — filled the letters columns of the papers and many others wrote directly to the three men, whose addresses had been published in the press.

A ship’s captain from Perth wrote to Tom:

I feel I must give vent to my feelings by sending a letter. How glad your dear wife must have been to get you back safe and how deep must be your gratitude to Him who has so signally blessed and delivered you. I have to assure you of the sympathy of our entire ship’s company, as we all feel sure you acted for the best in all things.

I have not the slightest conception of what you have undergone in your late dreadful trial but I do feel grateful that your lives have been spared. May God bless you yet further and may He instruct the hearts before whom you will stand next week. You have all our prayers.

There were too many letters for Tom to respond individually and he instead replied through the correspondence columns:

May I express my thanks for numerous favours of sympathy to myself and companions for our past unparalleled sufferings and privations on the ocean and our present torture under the ban of the law, being charged with an act which certainly was not accompanied by either premeditation or malice in the true sense of the words as my conscience can confirm.

There can have been few, if any, other instances where a man accused of murder was able to plead his innocence in The Times .

Stephens also received several letters, including one, congratulating him on,

Your remarkable and providential escape from a watery grave. The great privations you and your noble companions have undergone and the great skill with which you handled your frail craft under such exceptional circumstances and under a tropical sun, have placed you at the first rank of England’s heroes.

Other individuals, some rich and powerful men associated with yachting, petitioned the home secretary. The owner of one of Tom’s former yachts, Iain MacNab, wrote to Harcourt:

Sir, May I venture to approach you with a brief appeal on behalf of one of the three unfortunate men in that terrible tale of the sea which is thrilling the whole land?

Tom Dudley was at one time Captain of my yacht and while in my service I conceived the highest regard for him in every way. He was skilful and brave in his calling, upright, truthful and honest as a man and kind to a degree to all under his command. He was generous too, and gave freely of his small store to his less fortunate friends. In all the relations of life his conduct was such as commanded respect; he was emphatically an honest man. All this is within my personal knowledge.

It passes my understanding to conceive the horror of the extremity that could induce so good and brave a man to do wrong. I am sure of this, that whatever view the law may take of the act, Dudley could not have thought it unjustifiable. Neither selfishness nor cruelty had any part in his character.

I apologize for intruding on your valuable time by placing these facts before you. But human life and happiness are at stake and I feel it my duty to state what I knew of poor Dudley, for whose sad position I feel deeply, and I think I am sure of your forgiveness when I crave your kind intervention on his behalf.

The letter was noted and filed, but Harcourt had no intention of being swayed into making any ‘kind intervention’ on Tom’s behalf. He remained determined that the full weight of the law should fall on the Mignonette case.

Not all legal opinion agreed with him, however, and the correspondence columns of The Times and the Telegraph carried a series of letters from barristers and solicitors arguing the procedural merits and demerits of prosecuting the men. ‘A Barrister’ wrote:

To judge these men from a severely legal standpoint for what they have done would be most unjust. After nearly twenty days of such fearful privations they can hardly be accounted responsible creatures. The longing for the dying boy’s blood was a phrensy, induced by physical and mental suffering. No doubt the youth would have shortly perished from want of stamina and from the draughts of sea water which he had imbibed.

The rough arguments with which the Captain and Stephens justified the action of killing to themselves because they were married men with families and the boy had nobody dependent upon him for support, are good arguments as far as they go.