by Stan Mason
The retention of these effects within the jurisdiction of the Court was a necessity, inasmuch as it was the duty of the Court to investigate and decide upon all claims which might be made thereto and condemn them as forfeited to the Queen, and to insure their delivery to the proper officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue if unclaimed within a certain period. There was a further reason why it behoved the Court to be especially cautious to retain these effects within its own jurisdiction, namely, that in the event of any claim being made to them, an opportunity would be afforded to the Court of asking a further and more rigid judicial inquiry into the fate of all persons known to have been in the vessel and especially whether any and if any, what violence had, as there was too much reason to fear, being committed against any of them and thus advance the administration of justice which could were accordingly delivered into your care and a receipt taken for them which was filed at the Registry. Shortly afterwards but before final judgement was given, namely on the 4th April, 1873, you favored me with the perusal of a letter which you had just received from a gentleman at Utersum in the Island of Fohr under date of the 24th of the previous month making inquiries respecting the condition and appearance of the vessel when found, which impressed me very strongly - I may almost say, convinced me, that it was dictated by or on behalf of some of the crew who had left the vessel conscious of having been guilty of a great crime and desirous to learn whether they could safely emerge from concealment. Feeling assured that if they were kept in total ignorance of the evidence given in the cause, the retention of their effects, within the jurisdiction of the Court, aided by silence would probably reveal the mystery on which the fate of all who had sailed in the vessel and the cause of her abandonment were involved, I immediately requested you to inform the parties that you were not at liberty to give any information whatever respecting the conditions or appearance of the vessel, and that all inquiries relating thereto should be addressed to me. I added that so great was the necessity of caution, that the Judge refused to permit a certain paper to be opened for the present, even for the purpose of furnishing a copy to the Governor who had officially requested a copy. Under these circumstances, I decided to postpone making a demand for remuneration for my services. There is no salary attached to the office of H.M.’s Advocate-General and Proctor or other emolument in suit(s) relating to derelict vessels except such as is customarily paid by the owners of the vessels, and of the cargo and other property found on board, for the recovery of which he has a lien which he may detail upon the vessel and upon cargo and upon all other property found in her if he has any fear that the owners or their bail are untrustworthy but having had personal experience of the high honor, liberality and trustworthiness of the Citizens of the United States, I had no such fears either of the owners who had appeared or of their bail and having in view that the suit so far as it related to the effects of the Master, officers and crew had not yet terminated and that the retention of those effects within our jurisdiction might lead to assist further inquiry by the Court into their fate, and being desirous to expedite the payment of the fees then due to the Judge and Registrar and of the Marshal’s disbursements, I wrote to the Counsel who represented the owners of the vessel and their bail, and the counsel who represented the owners (of the cargo) and their bail, the letters of which I enclose a copy. Neither of those letters has ever been yet answered or even acknowledged by either of the gentlemen to whom they were addressed, or by their clients or otherwise; it cannot therefore be denied that those letters were, and ever have been understood by them, not as an abandonment or offer of an abandonment of my right to remuneration by them, but merely as an offer of an intention on my part to waive my lien upon the vessel and cargo and place my right to remuneration by them on them footing of a debt of honour, for it is inconceivable that if my letters were understood as conveying an abandonment of my right to remuneration, any Gentleman should condescend to accept even an offer of that nature or, above all, to treat it as unworthy of acknowledgement. I refrained for some years from making any representation with reference to my remuneration, under the firm conviction that a proper time to make it would be when the retention of the effects and silence had elicited claims to those effects and renewed enquiry by the Court into the fate of the Master, officers and crew, or when all hope that the effects would be claimed had imposed upon Her Majesty’s Advocate-General and Proctor the duty of applying to the Court to condemn the effects subject to my lien, to the use of Her Majesty. The necessity for performing that duty had not arisen when in January last year, a Statement appeared in the Cornhill Magazine professing to have been written by an eye-witness, and to describe the master of the Captain of the Marie Celeste, his wife and child, and the death of all the crew. This was followed up by the insertion in a newspaper published at Kropp, a small village in Holstein, of false statement(s), the obvious object of which was to stifle inquiry into the fate of the Master, officers and crew of the Mary Celeste. I, and the German and Danish Consuls at my request, entered into correspondence with various persons, which is not yet completed, but which, as far as it has proceeded, has tended to confirm my belief that the letter which, in April 1873 you sent to me for my perusal was dictated by survivors of the crew of the Marie Celeste. In the meantime, I have learnt from you that the effects upon the retention of which, in Gibraltar, I had for so many years been relying, for a solution of the mystery, had unfortunately been removed from the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Gibraltar, in January, 1874, and consequently, that of prosecution of a Judicial Inquiry into the fate of the missing persons, in which I might have assisted, had become impossible, and I should then have felt it no longer necessary to forbear from making a representation of my claim for remuneration, but that an inquiry by means of correspondence was then in progress. That correspondence has been protracted and is still being continued , but as it may last for some time longer, I think further postponement of my claim unnecessary. While abstaining from considering from a legal point of view the non-acceptance of the proposal contained in my letters of the 18th April, 1873, I desire to express my unabated confidence in the honor, liberality and trustworthiness of all the American people, and that in response to this communication, means will not be found wanting to require my arduous labors and zeal not merely for the protection of the rights of individuals, but for the advance of public justice in which the whole American people are interested. I further transmit for your perusal a copy of my minutes of such of the proceedings in the cause as I took part in, down to the 18th April 1873, but those dry minutes exhibit to a very limited extent my efforts for the attainment of justice, and my special sympathy with the families of the Captain and his wife, and the Chief Mate and his wife I have the honour to be, my dear Mr. Sprague,
Yours most tryly,
(signed) Fred’k. Solly Flood.
Her Majesty’s Counsel and lately Her Attorney-General and also Her Advocate and Proctor.
P.S. 20th February 1885
I delayed transmitting this letter as I had no sooner written it than I was led to expect further information respecting the missing persons who had been in the Mary Celeste. I have now received some information, but it is so imperfect as to render further enquiries. However, I now transmit this letter as I think it contains all that is necessary for the present purpose.
(Signed) Fred’k. Solly Flood.
The views of Consul Sprague to one particular part of the letter became known as soon as it became public property at a later date. Towards the end, where Flood had written “..... the Cornhill Magazine professing to have been written by an eye-witness, and to describe the master of the Captain of the Marie Celeste, his wife and child, and the death of all the crew.”, the Consul had deleted the word ‘master’ and inserted ‘murder’ believing that to be Solly Flood’s intention. However, by altering it so, it would appear that this was Sprague’s view as well. The Queen’s ex-Proctor proved to be a puzzling person in many ways. A hot-headed Irishman
, he seemed unable to remember how to spell the name of the vessel on numerous occasions. Not only that, but he had a marvellous opportunity to exact remuneration from Consul Sprague after the inquiry, in 1873, when the American Consul was desperate to get the ship back into the hands of Winchester and the cargo delivered. Why, one asks, didn’t he make a deal then? The Consul would have been able to drum up some money and would have been delighted to pay Flood in order to retrieve the Mary Celeste. It is not difficult to understand the feelings of the American Consul after he had read the letter. Not unexpectedly, his reply was negative and, as far as he was concerned, final.
Consulate of the Unite d States
Gibraltar February 23rd 1985
Frederick Solly Flood Esqre.
& c &c Gibraltar
Dear Mr. Flood,
I beg to return herewith the enclosures contained in your communication of the 9th ultimo, with an appending postcript of the 20th instant, and to state in reply, that I feel wholly unauthorized to enter into the subject matter to which it refers. Any claims of the character or nature you may think proper to advance in the Mary Celeste case, can only be entertained or considered by the highest authority in the United States: therefore, it is obvious that I cannot enter into the case in any form whatsoever, and must respectfully decline any further communication on the subject.
Believe me, Yours most truly,
(Signed) Horatio J. Sprague,
U.S. Consul
Solly Flood, however, was not the kind of man to be easily discouraged. Perhaps he considered his letter merely the first broadside over the bows of the American Consul and that denial, when involving remuneration, was par for the course. For his part, he was determined to press his claim.
Gibraltar, 25th February 1885
Sir,
I have the honor to request that you will be good enough to transmit through your Consultate to the United States Minister the enclosed documents together with the letter from myself date 9th January ultimo, and a copy of your reply thereto having reference to a claim of which I am desirous of submitting to the favourable consideration of the Government of the United States in connection with services rendered by me in the case of the Marie Celeste. You are aware that I am only availing myself of the customary channel of official communication, and I shall feel obliged if you will make any recommendation or explanation you may think fit in transmitting the papers in question.
I have the honor to be Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) Fredk. Solly Flood
Her Majesty’s Counsel, and lately her Attorney-General and also Her Advocate-General and Proctor.
Although unworried by the persistence of the Irishman, the Consul decided, in his wisdom, to safeguard his position by consulting with the two Attorneys who had represented the cargo and vessel interests when the salvage claim was presented before the Vice-Admiralty Court, namely, Martin W. Stokes and George F. Cornwell. Both men were still practising in Gibraltar and Consul Sprague obtained their legal opinion in a prepared statement. In the first instance, he wrote to Solly Flood again.
Consulate of the United States
Gibraltar 26th February 1985
Frederick Solly Flood Esqre.
&c &c Gibraltar
Sir,
In returning the inclosed papers relating to your proposed claim in reference to the Mary Celeste I beg to confirm my letter to you of the 23rd instant, and to repeat that I feel unauthorized as Consul of the United States to enter into any correspondence with you as to any claim you may think yourself justified in submitting on this subject to the Government of the United States, and therefore I must respectfully decline forwarding the papers as requested by you.
I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,
(Signed) Horatio J. Sprague, U.S.
Consul.
A week later, he reinforced his refusal by sending the document signed by the two Attorneys as follows:
Gibraltar 3rd March 1885
We the undersigned Proctors and Advocates in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Gibraltar say, That we were retained in the action - Mary Celeste - on behalf of the owners of that Vessel and of the Cargo laden on board her. The Circumstances of the case were as follows: The Mary Celeste left the Port of New York in or about the month of Oct- ober 1872 (should have been 7th November, 1872) laden with a cargo of Alcohol bound for an Italian Port - The Wife of the Master was on board her and an infant child. The vessel was found derelict, and abandoned to the Westward (should be Eastward) off the Azores in the Month of November 1872 (should be 4th December or 5th December sea-time) by the British Vessel Dei Gratia which was bound to the Mediterranean. The Mate of the Dei Gratia and two seamen were put on board the Mary Celeste and both Vessels proceeded to the Strait of Gibraltar. The Mary Celeste had evidently met with very bad weather and appeared to have been left by the crew in a moment of sudden panic. There was not the slightest appearance of anything criminal having occurred. The Boat in which the crew had left her had not been hoisted up by Tackles but forced over the side of the Vessel. The Boat and crew had never been heard of since and there can be no doubt that in attempting to reach land, probably the Azores, the boat was swamped. The two Vessels arrived safely in the Port of Gibraltar and the Mary Celeste and her cargo were forthwith arrested as derelict by Mr. Solly Flood the Proctor and Advocate of the Queen in Her Office of Admiralty as perquisites of Her Majesty - property thus arrested if no claimants appear within one year is then sold and the proceeds paid over to the Consolidated fund; - if the property is claimed, and the Queen’s Proctor is satisfied with the title of the claimants, it is handed over to the claimants on their paying expenses (not the costs) of the Crown - and giving Bail to pay the amount awarded to the Salvors for their Services. The owner of the Mary Celeste appeared, claimed his Vessel and the claim was allowed - and the owners of the cargo appeared and their claim was allowed, they undertaking to pay the expenses of the Crown - and giving Bail to answer the claims of the Salvors - the property being restored to the owners. The action became one of Salvage and the Queen’s Proctor ought not to have interfered any further in the action - but Mr. Flood persisted in doing so, not on behalf of the American Government but as the Proctor and the Advocate of the Queen in Her Office of Admiralty. The action was in the instance side of the Court - a Civil Action - Vice-Admiralty Courts have no criminal Jurisdiction. Mr. Flood has no right to make any professional charges after the claims of the owners were allowed. When the suit finished, and the Salvors were paid the sum awarded them for their Service, Mr. Flood desired the owners of the Vessel and Cargo by their Counsel to pay the expense of the Crown Viz. the Judge’s, Registrar’s, and Marshal’s fees which were paid, but no claim was then made by him for his professional charges - in fact no such claim could be made - he should have obtained his fees from the Crown - as the Crown in Admiralty Courts neither receives nor pays costs. From that time to the present no steps have been taken in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Gibraltar in respect of Mr. Flood’s claims. The Court indeed could not entertain any question in the case which has been concluded since the date of the Judgement and the payment of the salvage and the Queen’s Expenses. Mr. Sprague has informed us that Mr. Flood is now claiming compensation for services rendered by him professionally in the Matter of the Mary Celeste from the American Government. Mr. Sprague having consulted us professionally in the subject, our opinion is that Mr. Flood has no claim on the American Government - that he never was authorized in the Mary Celeste suit to act for the American Government and he never intimated that he was, he acted solely as the Proctor and Advocate of the Queen. Under these circumstances we recommended Mr. Sprague to decline having any correspondence with Mr. Flood on the claims now set up by him for compensation from the U.S. Government and not to consent on any account to transmit officially, as Consul of the United States of
North America, the papers, which Mr. Flood is desirous of sending through the medium of the United States Consul at Gibraltar - as we are of opinion that Mr. Sprague by so doing would to some extent be countenancing and supporting the claims of Mr. Flood, now first made after the lapse of 12 years; the action - Mary Celeste - having been adjudicated on and settled in the years 1872 and 1873 - We beg to add that if any crime had been committed on board the Mary Celeste, the only Court which could have adjudicated - would be an American Court of Criminal Jurisdiction.
Martin W. Stokes, Advocate.
George F. Cornwell, Advocate
Lincoln’s Inn, London, practising in Gibraltar.
That was the end of the claim of the retired Queen’s Advocate who took twelve years to make up his mind on whether to claim or not. He died three years later, and a brass plate may be found in the Cathedral of Holy Trinity in Gibraltar commemorating him. It reads:
“Sacred to the Memory of Frederick Solly Flood of Slaney Lodge, County Wexford, Ireland, Esqr., Eleven years Attorney-General of Gibraltar. Born at No. 8 York Place, London 7th August, 1801. Died at Gibraltar 13th May, 1888.”
