Everything Everywhere Daily: History, Science, Geography & More - The Sinking of the Mignonette and Justified Cannibalism

Episode Date: July 19, 2025

On May 19, 1884, a small yacht containing four men set sail from England to Australia.  On July 5th, the ship was hit by a massive wave and capsized.  The crew escaped the shipwreck on a lifeboat, but was left in a horrible situation. They were hundreds of miles from land, with no fresh water, and a single pound of turnips for food. Three weeks later, on July 25, food was out, and the men were still adrift, and the sailors made the decision to kill and eat one of their own.  Learn more about the sinking of the Mignonette and the legal ethics of cannibalism on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily.  Sponsors Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Mint Mobile Get your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed Jerry Compare quotes and coverages side-by-side from up to 50 top insurers at jerry.ai/daily American Scandal Follow American Scandal on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe to the podcast!  https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Update your podcast app at newpodcastapps.com Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Disce aliquid novi cotidie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On May 19, 1884, a small yacht containing four men set sail from England to Australia. On July 5th, the ship was hit by a massive wave and capsized. The crew escaped the shipwreck on a lifeboat, but was left in a horrible situation. They were hundreds of miles from land with no fresh water and a single pound of turnips for food. Three weeks later, on July 25th, the food was out and the men were still adrift, and the sailors made the decision to kill and eat one of their own. Learn more about the sinking of the Minionette and the legal ethics of cannibalism on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. What if your perceptions about the past were wrong?

ThruLine is a podcast that takes you back in time to uncover the parts of the story that may have gone unnoticed. It effectively turned day into night and how it shaped the world now. Time travel with us every week on the ThruLine podcast. from NPR. Before getting into the ethics of cannibalism in English law, and I know that phrase sounds kind of weird, but please stick with me. I first need to describe the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Mignonette and the details of this particular case. The Mignonette was a yacht built in 1883 in England. The boat was designed for leisure activities and was built for coastal voyages rather than open sea sailing. That same year, the ship was purchased by an Australian lawyer

named Jack Want. Obviously, the boat being in Britain wouldn't work, so he planned to have the boat sailed to Australia. After waiting a year to assemble a crew that could tape the ship to Australia, the boat was finally ready to set sail, departing from Southampton for Sydney on May 19, 1884. The ship had a crew of just four, Captain Tom Dudley, Edwin Stevens, Edmund Brooks, and Richard Parker. At 17 years old, Parker was the youngest member of the crew,

and was hired as the cabin boy. On July 5th, the ship was sailing northwest of the Cape of Good Hope near the southernmost tip of Africa. It was a smooth night, and so Captain Dudley opted to slow the ship down to allow the crew to sleep. As soon as the ship slowed and the crew went below deck, a massive wave hit the ship, washing away part of the ship's deck. Realizing that the ship was unsalvageable, Dudley ordered the crew to their one and only lifeboat.

The minionette sank just five minutes after being struck. The crew made it out with vital navigational instruments and two tins holding one pound of turnips. The crew was stuck in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, 700 miles away from the nearest land, and to make matters worse, that first night they were actively fighting sharks. It took the crew two days to start eating the turnips, consuming one can amongst the four of them over the next two days. On July 9th, they were able to drag a turtle aboard the lifeboat, keeping them fed, along with the second tin of turnips, until roughly July 15th or 17th. As the crew had no water and were unable to drink the blood of the turtle,

due to it being contaminated with seawater, they were forced to drink their own urine for survival. Bear grills would have been proud. On July 20th, Parker, the young cabin boy, fell ill from drinking seawater. And the first suggestions of cannibalism were discussed on either the 16th or the 17th July. They discussed drawing lots to determine who would be eaten to keep the others alive, but Brooks refused to participate. The discussion became more intense on the 21st, but no actions were taken. On either of the 23rd or the 24th, it suspected that Parker had fallen into a coma, and Captain Dudley

again raised the idea of cannibalism. That night, Dudley reminded Stevens that he had a wife and family back home. The following morning, the two had a plan and opted to kill the young cabin boy Richard Parker. Parker, now in a coma, had not yet died and therefore would provide blood to drink. It's unclear whether Brooks

was approving of this choice or not, yet Dudley claims he had accepted their next action. Dudley said a prayer over Parker's body as Stevens held the boy's legs down, and Dudley then pushed his blade into the boy's neck, killing him. It's believed that Dudley and Brooks consumed

the most, where Stevens ate very little comparatively, and Dudley later described themselves as mad wolves. The crew was rescued just four days after turning to cannibalism on July 29, 1884. A German ship named the Montezuma picked the men up and brought them back to England. Upon returning, the men were subject to the Merchant Shippings Act, which required them to make statements about their travels following losses at sea. The men were totally honest in describing the events that happened, believing that the custom of the sea would protect them from any punishment for their actions. And here I need to explain what the custom of the sea is. It differs from maritime law in that it is totally unofficial and simply the tradition of sailors.

The custom of the sea specifically deals with the question of cannibalism and can essentially be summarized as follows. If there's not enough food for survivors of a maritime disaster, like a shipwreck, then the survivors of that disaster can eat the corpses. Furthermore, it is also agreed that if no bodies are available, drawing lots can be used to decide who will make the sacrifice for food. Therefore, as long as the drawing lots were fair, it was a widely accepted method for survival amongst sailors and the general public. This was something that was never written down.

It was only spoken hush tones among sailors, and was almost never something that anyone had to worry about. When Dudley was describing the killing of Parker, he was overheard by a police officer by the name of James Laverty. Laverty then went to question Dudley himself and took the knife used to kill Parker into custody. The men were detained as Laverty received a warrant to arrest the three survivors for murder.

A few days later, the case was presented to the Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt. Harcourt opted to prosecute the case, if for no reason other than to have an actual case on the books that could act as precedent in future cases, because in past cases, they never went to trial or the trial didn't take place in England. The initial public reaction supported the defendants. Even the brother of Richard Parker, the boy who was killed, sided with the three survivors. This caused the case to be suspended to a later time.

in place, and the three sailors were granted bail until their new trial date, which was scheduled for September 18th. Hark Court was disgusted by the public support of the sailors and was determined to get a conviction. This, however, was going to be a very difficult proposition. To get a conviction, you needed evidence. The only people present to witness the crime had the right to remain silent because they were the ones on trial. Therefore, if they chose to remain silent, the trial, there would have been very little evidence to support a conviction. Additionally, to convict all three, he would need all three of them to confess to the murder and the cannibalism.

This is because a confession would only be admissible against the person making the confession and would not be admissible against any of the other sailors. To circumvent this, it was recommended that Edmund Brooks be released so that he could serve as a witness and therefore be called by the prosecution to testify. By doing this, it would not be a confession, but rather an eyewitness testimony, and would therefore be admissible against Dudley and Stevens. The case became known as R. V. Dudley and Stevens. Before proceeding to the trial, I should provide some background on previous cases and rulings that were similar to R.V. Dudley and Stevens. While there are cases in other countries, for the purpose of this episode, I'll just

just focus on British law because it was the legal precedent relevant to this case. One such case was used by the defense. Known as the St. Christopher case, a group of Englishmen in the Caribbean went missing at sea for 17 days. During this time, they drew lots and killed a man to feed the starving crew. They were put on trial and pardoned by the judge as it was viewed as necessary for survival. The problem was that no verdict was ever recorded. In 1874, another similar case occurred when the cargo ship, Yuxine, was shipwrecked.

The second mate, James Archer, and seven other survivors were stranded on a lifeboat. While on the lifeboat for 22 days, two of them died, one of whom was killed and butchered after drawing lots. It was decided that the men's charges would be dropped in both the UK and Singapore, which was

where the men were sent after being rescued. And again, nothing ever went to trial, and nothing was ever put in the books. Additionally, in the English criminal code at the time, there was no law specifically making it illegal to eat someone. That was kind of an oversight. Nor was it necessarily illegal to kill someone out of necessity. The law left cases of necessity to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The trial of the survivors began on November 3, 1884. The judge was Baron Huddleston. The lead prosecutor was Arthur Charles and the lead defense attorney was Arthur Collins. The defense fund for the accused was actually raised by the public, who were overwhelmingly on the side of the defendants. The jury for the trial were the same members who were part of a previous day's trial on a murder case, and in that case, they had given the defendant the death penalty. Dudley and Stevens both pleaded not guilty to the charges. The defense used the argument of necessity for the murder charge.

He cited examples of Dudley preying over the boy's body and the conditions on the boat to show that the defendants knew that the actions they were, taking were drastic yet necessary. However, it became clear as the trial continued that the judge had already made up his mind before the case had even begun. He ignored submissions from the defense. He wanted a guilty verdict. As I noted before, he wanted to finally settle what the law of necessity should be and that

he believed that necessity was not a strong defense for murder. The jury was asked to deliver a special verdict. In English law, a special verdict is when the jury makes factual conclusions rather than declaring guilt or innocence. This essentially means that the jury is tasked with presenting blanket facts to the court, stating, yes, X did this and yes, why did that, rather than coming to a conclusion regarding the law. That leaves the outcome of the case in the judge's hands. As much of the public was on Dudley and Stevens' side, this would help ensure the outcome that Haldston-Wy-Wynolds. wanted. The truth is, it was not a fair trial. The judge presented the jury with two options,

except the special verdict or find the men guilty. Huddleston the previous night wrote out a special verdict and read it to the jury, instructing them to indicate their agreement with what he wrote. He took the jury's silence as acceptance. Even when the jury did try to speak up about things to add to the special verdict, he would say that it was already included. Additionally, when the special verdict was published, he realized he had made errors within the document and simply opted to alter the record of the verdict. Later that November, on the 25th, the Attorney General noticed an issue with the case and its lack of conviction. The defendants were ordered to appear in London on December 4th for a trial with the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. During this trial,

Collins, the defense lawyer, pointed out the altered special verdict record. The Attorney General represented the prosecution and stated that there was no defense of necessity in the law to justify murder. The previously mentioned St. Christopher case wasn't admissible because it wasn't formally documented. The judges ended up siding with the prosecution as there was no legal or moral reasoning, they said, for using necessity to justify murder. It was also pointed out that the boy, Parker, had not given his permission to die. He did not draw lots. He did not offer himself as a sacrifice. It was argued that Dudley and Stevens decided who lived and died, unlike in the other cases. Both Dudley and Stevens were technically sentenced to death, although both sentences were

almost immediately changed to six months in prison, of which they both served. The case of R.V. Dudley and Stevens established the legal precedent that you can't legally kill and eat someone, even in extreme survival situations. Since the sinking of the Minionette, almost 100, 40 years ago, there haven't been many similar cases. Perhaps the most notable example was in 1988 when 110 stranded refugees from Vietnam were stuck on a ship and resorted to cannibalism. Half those on the ship died, although only a few were murdered to be eaten. As the event occurred in international waters, no one was ever brought to trial. The sinking of the minionette served up one of the most infamous cases of survival cannibalism in maritime history,

a tale that truly tested the waters of morality and law. In the end, the tale of the Mignonette proved that even in the most dire circumstances, there are some decisions that are just too hard to swallow. The executive producer of Everything Everywhere Daily is Charles Daniel. The associate producers are Austin Otkin and Cameron Kiefer. Research in writing for this episode was provided by Olivia Ash. Today's review comes from listener Rachel Josh Mom over on Apple Podcast. in the United States. They write? I did it. I made it into the Southern California chapter of

the Completionist Club today. Thank you for keeping my mind sharp with your concise episodes about things I've wanted to learn and things I didn't even know I could learn about. My favorites are the extraordinary people stories like the Lycaw family, D.B. Cooper, Jeannie the Farrell Child, Mad Jack Churchill, etc. I'm also a history teacher and love all the history content you present. Thank you. Well, thank you, Rachel, Mom of Josh. As a new member of the Sok, Complacionist Club, you can now go to the clubhouse. To get there, all you got to do is to hop onto Ocean Avenue, take that all the way down past the 3rd Street promenade, then make a sharp left on Wilshire, but not the first Wilshire, the second one, after that weird gas station

with the sushi place attached. Then you merge on to the 405 north, but only during off-peak hours, like after 11 a.m. but before 2 p.m. Then take the 405 down to 101 south, which feels wrong, but trust me, it's the way you want to go. Then veer left, not right, left, to get onto the Hollywood freeway, and you're almost there. It's easy. Remember, if you leave a review or send me a boostagram, you too can have it read on the show.