The sailors consulted.
By the second article if a vessel lay in port, waiting for weather and a wind, the master was instructed, when the time for departure arrived, to call together his ship’s company and inquire what they thought of the wind and weather. A difference of opinion arising, he was bound to be guided by the majority, and was legally responsible, if any accident happened, to make good damages caused by his unsupported act. It was, in fact, a standing rule for the master to act with the advice of the greater part of his ship’s company and of the merchants, if any were on board.
The third clause provided, that if the ship’s crew should not, unless under compulsion, do everything in their power to save the vessel and cargo from shipwreck, they should forfeit their wages. If they saved a part of the cargo they were sent home, by raising money on the goods so saved.
The fourth article, relating to salvage, was very similar to that enacted by the Rhodian law, the allowance of the half, third, or tenth of the articles saved being regulated according to the depth of the water out of which they were raised. Any promises extorted by danger were either void or not too strictly interpreted.
The fifth article provided, that no sailors in port should leave the vessel without the master’s consent. The practice of the time required that the sailors should carefully look after everything that related to the preservation of the ship and goods; and if any damage accrued by their absence without licence, they were punished by a year’s imprisonment and kept on bread and water. If any accident happened so as to cause death, resulting from their absence, they were flogged. Special punishments were by law, as well as practice, inflicted for damaging the cargo; and very detailed instructions were given how certain goods were to be stowed and delivered. The laws in all cases against desertion were very severe. In some places the sailors were marked in the face with a red-hot iron, so that they might be recognised as long as they lived.
Laws relating to hiring.
Provision was, however, made for such seamen as ran away by reason of ill-usage;[533] while in the case of a double engagement, the master first hiring a sailor was entitled to claim him, and any master knowingly engaging a hired sailor, was amerced in double the amount of wages. The sailor became entitled to his discharge on four grounds: in the event of his being made master or mate of another ship; if he married, in which case, however, he was obliged to refund what he had received; if he made any proviso in his articles for quitting the ship; and if the voyage was concluded, and the ship disarmed and unloaded, with her sails, tackle, and furniture taken away and secured. Provision was also made for compensation to the sailor, in the case of a master giving him his discharge at his pleasure only and without lawful cause. A master, however, could dismiss a mariner for incompetency, especially a pilot, and in such cases no wages were payable. Unqualified persons were in many cases punished for having accepted situations on board for which they were incompetent; and a sailor proved by two witnesses to have any infectious distemper, could be put on shore. The law quaintly laid down that a master might turn away any quarrelsome or thievish, factious fellow, but as to the latter, “he should have a little patience to see if he can be brought to reason.”
Drunkenness.
Sickness.
Damage to ship and cargo.