Legal Definitions - marque, law of

The law of marque refers to an ancient and now obsolete legal principle that allowed an individual who had suffered a wrong, and was unable to obtain justice through conventional legal means, to seize the property of the wrongdoer.

This extraordinary measure was permitted only if the wrongdoer's property could be found within the aggrieved party's own territory, and its purpose was to compensate the wronged party for their losses. Essentially, it was a form of authorized retaliation when standard legal remedies were unavailable or ineffective, often used in times or places where central authority was weak or international relations were strained.

Here are some examples illustrating how the law of marque might have applied:

• A Merchant's Retaliation: Imagine a merchant from the Kingdom of Eldoria whose valuable cargo was unjustly confiscated by a port official in the hostile neighboring nation of Veridia. Despite repeated diplomatic appeals, the Eldorian government was unable to secure restitution through normal channels. If, at a later date, a high-ranking Veridian official or merchant vessel carrying goods belonging to Veridian subjects entered an Eldorian port, the Eldorian government might have granted the wronged Eldorian merchant permission to seize a portion of those Veridian goods. This seizure would be considered a lawful act under the law of marque, intended to compensate the Eldorian merchant for their original loss.

  This example illustrates the law of marque because the Eldorian merchant suffered a wrong (confiscated cargo), could not obtain ordinary justice (failed diplomatic appeals), and was then authorized to take the goods of the wrongdoer (Veridian property) found within their own territory (Eldorian port) in satisfaction for the original wrong.

• Feudal Border Dispute: Consider a farmer living on the border of two rival feudal lordships. Raiders from the neighboring Lordship of Blackwood repeatedly stole livestock from the farmer's lands. The farmer's own liege lord, Lord Greycastle, attempted to negotiate with Lord Blackwood for justice, but Lord Blackwood refused to acknowledge the claims or punish his subjects. If a group of Blackwood subjects later traveled into Lord Greycastle's territory for trade, Lord Greycastle might have issued a decree allowing the wronged farmer to seize a specific amount of goods from those Blackwood subjects. This act would serve as a form of restitution for the stolen livestock, sanctioned by the law of marque.

  Here, the farmer experienced a wrong (stolen livestock), was unable to receive ordinary justice (Lord Blackwood's refusal), and was then permitted to take the goods of the wrongdoers' subjects (Blackwood traders' property) found within Lord Greycastle's precinct, to satisfy the claim for the stolen animals.

• Colonial Frontier Justice: During the early establishment of a remote colonial outpost, a settler's newly built cabin and crops were deliberately destroyed by individuals from an unorganized, independent territory beyond the recognized colonial boundary. There was no formal legal system or authority in the independent territory to appeal to for redress. If, weeks later, some of these same individuals or their known associates crossed into the colonial outpost's market with valuable furs to trade, the colonial governor might have authorized the wronged settler to seize a portion of those furs. This action, taken under the principles of the law of marque, would aim to compensate the settler for the destruction of their property.

  This scenario demonstrates the law of marque as the settler suffered a wrong (property destruction), had no access to ordinary justice (no formal legal system across the border), and was subsequently allowed to take the goods of the wrongdoers (furs) found within the colonial territory, to achieve satisfaction for the damage.