Daniel remained with them for another forty minutes. The talk was friendly, ranging from the voyage of the Mignonette and the causes of its sinking, to their mutual acquaintances in the small world of professional yacht-racing.
At length, he stood up. ‘My object in coming here was to let people know that someone owned Dick, and I am very glad I did so, because it has set my mind at rest a little. I shall be at the courts on Thursday.’
He shook hands with them all again, then rapped on the door. Laverty opened it so quickly he must have been waiting outside. Once more, his expression showed his displeasure.
The next morning Tilly called to see Tom. ‘A retired gentleman, Captain Douglas, has expressed a desire to talk with you. He is waiting outside.’
Tom’s expression did not change and after a moment, Tilly added, ‘He has travelled some distance.’
‘And why would I wish to meet him?’
‘He would give you valuable counsel.’
‘Then let us see this gentleman.’
Captain Douglas was white-haired and stoop-shouldered, but he had a seaman’s weather-beaten face and his hazel eyes were clear and sharp. His grip was firm as he shook Tom’s hand. ‘Captain Dudley, thank you for seeing me. I have come at Mr Tilly’s request…’
Tom gave the lawyer a sharp look.
‘…to offer you some advice, if you will have it. I was the police magistrate in Singapore when the survivors of the Euxine were landed there. You know of the ship?’
Tom nodded, his unblinking stare fixed on Douglas. ‘I know of it.’
‘Ten years ago, Sir William Harcourt’s predecessor as home secretary tried to set a legal precedent by prosecuting the men involved for murder. Like you, the survivors from the Euxine had neither denied the killing nor hidden the evidence.
‘They were taken from Batavia to Singapore, where the shipping master sought the opinion of the attorney general. He notified the Board of Trade in London that there was no necessity for any judicial inquiry and that the men were “free to engage themselves on any vessel requiring their services”.
‘However, a letter from a Captain Harrington to the Singapore Daily Times forced the hand of the governor.’ Douglas passed Tom a yellowing newspaper clipping and sat in silence as he read it.
This story is told from their own lips, and horrifying to relate, they seem to consider that they were justified in committing the atrocious murder for the sake of appeasing their own wants…
I trust that for humanity’s sake and for the credit of my brother seamen to whatever nationality they may belong, that steps be taken to bring these man-eaters to justice, and that from Singapore may go forth the decision that under no circumstances, however great the sufferings may be, are seamen allowed to sacrifice one of their number that others may live.
I am fully aware, after having some forty years’ experience of a sailor’s life, that during the dull night watches they are in the habit of relating such horrible stories of suffering which may have come to their ears, and by recounting them they may imperceptibly come to the conclusion that they are justified under certain emergencies in sacrificing one of their number.
The sooner they are disabused of the idea the better. I recommend prayer not cannibalism in such emergencies.
Tom refolded the clipping and passed it back, and Douglas told him the remainder of the tale of the Euxine, holding his gaze as if determined to impress on him the importance of what he said.
The paper had followed up the publication of the letter with a leader demanding a judicial inquiry to establish the law once and for all. The governor felt any trial should take place in a British court, not in a remote dependency, but the Colonial Office ordered him to proceed with an inquiry in Singapore.
Two of the survivors were persuaded to appear as witnesses for the prosecution, on the promise of a free pardon providing they gave their evidence in ‘an unexceptionable manner’. The remainder were charged with murder. The committal proceedings began before Captain Douglas on 30 January. They reflected the attorney general’s lack of enthusiasm. The Crown called only one witness, the shipping master, Captain Ellis.
He had copies of the depositions made in Batavia made by the accused men, but the originals had been sent to London and the copies were inadmissible as evidence. All that Captain Ellis could say was that the second mate of the Euxine, James Archer, had voluntarily confessed that a crewman had killed the cabin boy. It was neither a confession by Archer nor admissible as evidence of a confession by the crewman.
Captain Ellis’s own testimony was no more helpful to the Crown. During cross-examination it emerged that he had once been shipwrecked himself and cast adrift in an open boat. Asked if the men were responsible for their actions, he replied, ‘Certainly not. I feel sure they were not in a position to know right from wrong.’
He was then asked as a matter of naval history whether there were other instances of shipwrecked men drawing lots as to who should die for the rest and replied, ‘Yes, twenty or twenty-five years ago these cases were most common. I have never heard of men being punished for doing so.’
The hearing was adjourned indefinitely to enable the prosecution to collect further evidence, but the Java Packet had long since sailed without leaving more than a barely useful affidavit from the captain. The only other admissible evidence — the originals of the men’s confessions — was in London. The authorities in Singapore were also concerned that an acquittal or conviction for the minor offence of culpable homicide, where the person killed consents to his own death or takes the risk of death with his own consent, would send an undesirable message to seamen that it was acceptable to eat their fellows.
The attorney general favoured a trial in London.
The law as laid down in an English court would have more weight in all parts of the world and would probably be considered binding in all parts of the British dominions, whereas the law as laid down by the courts here would not be binding even upon the court itself, and this being the first case of its kind which has ever been proposed to be tried it is important that the principles that govern cases of this sort in future should be authoritatively upheld.
Officials at the Board of Trade in London were much less enthusiastic about a prosecution. As one noted,
I suppose we should send this to the Home Office, but no steps will be taken by that department. There is a horrible sanity about all these proceedings but the men were not, I believe, responsible for their actions. No social advantage can be derived from prosecution or punishment. To live must be sufficient punishment.
The assistant secretary at the Marine Department of the board concurred. ‘It is not likely that any jury would convict and if a Court of Law were to stamp this custom with clear authority it might be made a pretext for getting rid of troublesome people. I should be inclined to leave it alone, the details are too disgusting to take to court.’
The permanent under-secretary called it,
One of the very saddest and most disgusting incidents that I have known. The act was done under the direct pressures of necessity and it is too abhorrent to all the feelings of human nature to be repeated, except under similar circumstances. Punishment if practical or exposure are not needed and would have no effect in future cases.
The ship’s articles were annotated by a clerk, who wrote ‘Killed by the crew for food’, after the name of the boy, and the papers were sent to the Home Office as a formality. Officials there showed considerably more appetite for a prosecution, but there were considerable legal problems in trying in London a case concerning murder on the high seas, and involving men detained first in Singapore, and key witnesses who were Dutch nationals and currently at sea somewhere on the five oceans. The Home Office also shared the fear that an acquittal would send a wrong signal to seamen.