Page:Royal Naval Biography Marshall sp2.djvu/111

each other; some of them embracing offences of no less criminal a dye than fraud on the government, and false muster; whilst others were of a description that, even if proved, censure should have been the extent of punishment attached to them; but, though one was altogether abandoned by the prosecutor, and most of the others disproved by his own witnesses, the court, by one sweeping clause, adjudged the whole to be in part proved, and sentenced Captain Browne to be dismissed from his Majesty’s service; a proceeding which, whether with reference to its informality as connected with charges of a serious nature, or to its sevetity, stands without a precedent on record.

It requires very little acquaintance with naval, or any other species of law, to discover, that such a sentence could not be legal: it would be absurd to comment on the hardship and injustice attendant upon a system which would at once confound all the varieties of offence, whether they were of a nature derogatory to the honor or moral character of the party, the result of a moment of irritation, or the consequence of a blameable warmth of temper. The following opinion, however, of an eminent counsel, places the subject in so clear a light, that we think it cannot fail to be acceptable to our readers:–

“The proceedings of naval courts-martial, as they are at present constituted, cannot reasonably be expected to adhere strictly to legal forms, or technical accuracy; all that can be looked for is, that the charges should be specific, and the proofs of each charge should be separately, as well as satisfactorily made out. I say separately, because the courts are bound to come to a decision on each, each being a distinct issue, on which they must decide; it is, therefore, essential to justice that this should be observed in naval courts, because they have not the same advantage which attends a military court-martial, where, if any inaccuracy occurs (as the court is not dissolved) the sentence may be sent back for revisal before the result is made public: but where the sentence is promulged on the decision taking place, as in a naval court-martial, the prisoner is excluded from all redress (if it is irregular) except by the interference of authority, as far as goes to the restoration of those deprivations which such a sentence was calculated to inflict. Now, in the present case, it appears to me that the prisoner has much to complain of, for he is accused of various offences of different descriptions: some (as of false musters) are