Royal Naval Biography/Browne, Philip
PHILIP BROWNE, Esq.
[Post-Captain of 1810.]
The old and respectable family to which this officer belongs, have long been settled at Godmanstone, co. Dorset. His ancestor, Rear-Admiral Sir Robert Browne, Knt. was Captain of a ship attached to the squadron under Sir William Monson, at the capture of a Spanish galleon, in 1602[1]. His father, Captain Philip Browne, R.N. lost his life when defending Savannah, in 1779[2], and his two brothers also died in the eervice of their country, – one a captain in the royal regiment of artillery, aid-de-camp to Lord Seaforth, and governor of fort Needham, Barbadoes; the other a midshipman in the navy.
Captain Philip Browne, senior, married the grand-daughter of Joanna, wife of Edmund Dalby, Esq. and daughter and co-heiress of the Hon. John Finch, a son of Heneage, the first Earl of Nottingham, whose eldest son, Daniel, succeeded to that title, and also to the earldom of Winchelsea, both of which are at present enjoyed by his grandson. Heneage, next brother to the second Lord Nottingham, was created Earl of Aylesford, in 1714. The Dalby family (now extinct) were long seated at Brookhampton, in Warwickshire, and seised of the lordship of several manors in that county; likewise of the manor of Hurst, co. Berks. Speaking of the male branches. Sir William Dugdale and other authorities agree, that in 1293, they were esquires, bearing ancient arms from their ancestors; that they enjoyed the confidence of Edward III., Richard II., and Henry VI.; were entrusted by those monarchs with the keeping of Guienne and Calais; and held special letters of protection from them for their services.
Philip Browne, Esq. whose services we are now about to record, was born Sept. 16, 1772; and he entered the navy as a midshipman on board the Colossus 74, Captain Hugh C. Christian, in May, 1787. He afterwards served in the Racehorse sloop, successively commanded by Captain David Stow, and Captain (now Sir Thomas) Foley.
In May, 1789, Mr. Browne joined the Illustrious 74, flagship of the Hon. John Leveson Gower; and in Dec. following the Minerva frigate. Captain Robert Manners Sutton, with whom he proceeded to India. From June, 1790, until Dec. 1793, we find him serving under Commodore the Hon. William Cornwallis, in the Crown and Minerva; by which officer he was, at the later period, promoted into the Bien Aimé sloop, Captain (now Sir Richard) King. His subsequent appointments were, Mar. 1795, to the Nassau 64, Captain Herbert Sawyer; in 1798, to the Daphne 20, Captain Sir Charles Lindsay, Bart.; Feb. 1800, to command the Chatham cartel; and in the course of the same year, to the Ardent 64, Captain Thomas Bertie.
The Daphne formed part of the squadron under Captain John Lawford, at the capture of a Swedish convoy, in the summer of 1798[3]; and Lieutenant Browne acted as captain of that ship, for some time, after the death of Sir Charles Lindsay[4]. In the Chatham, he conveyed the Walloon guards, taken at Surinam, from that colony to Old Spain[5].
Early in 1801, Lieutenant Browne was appointed to the command of the Swan hired cutter, in which vessel he intercepted and seized several notorious smugglers. His next appointment was. May 1802, to the Vixen gun-brig ; and in her he made the following captures:–
“Eight smuggling vessels, one French privateer [6], one merchant brig laden with sugar, one ditto with marble, one ditto with wine, and two Dutch ships with cargoes of colonial produce. He also recaptured a Newcastle collier.
For his activity while holding these two commands. Lieutenant Browne was promoted into the Charwell of 18 guns, Sept. 25, 1806; and we shortly afterwards find him commanding the Plover sloop of war, in which ship he detained six homeward bound Danish West Indiamen, eleven other merchant vessels laden with timber, wine, fruit, and salt, and one brig in ballast. He likewise captured a very valuable smuggling lugger, and no less than seven French privateers; viz. –
L’Elize, 14 guns and 66 men; Jan. 1, 1807.
Le Bohemienne, 2 guns, pierced for 8, and 28 men; Oct. 30, 1807.
L’Amiral Martin, 4 guns, pierced for 16, and 104 men; Mar 22, 1809.
L’Aurore, 16 guns and 69 men, Sept. 18, 1809.
L’Hirondelle, 16 guns and 65 men; Oct. 22, 1809.
Le Lezard, pierced for 14 guns, none mounted, 67 men; Nov. 6 1809.
Le Saratu, 14 guns, pierced for 20, and 100 men; Jan. 10, 1810.
The Plover also recaptured, at various periods, twelve sail of merchant vessels, laden with spirits, wine, fruit, sugar, tobacco, provisions, fish, oil, coals, and timber. She likewise assisted at the capture of la Josephine privateer, mounting 4 guns, with a complement of 35 men.
In March, 1809, Captain Browne joined Captain George M‘Kinley, who was then most strenuously co-operating with the Spanish patriots under Don Pablo Murillo. On the 9th of that month, 84 French soldiers entered the town of Marin, in Vigo Bay, but a fire being opened on them from the Lively, Plover, and a gun-boat, they made a most precipitate retreat: the commander of the marauding party, and a few cavalry, benefiting by their being mounted, left their companions, who, outrunning their officers, a Captain and a Lieutenant fell into the hands of the Spaniards, and were by them delivered to the British.
During the operations against Flushing, in 1809, the Plover bore the broad pendant of Commodore Cockburn, who commanded the bombs and gun-vessels placed at the S.E. end of the town. The following is an extract of his official letter to Sir Richard L Strachan, reporting the proceedings of the advanced squadron:–
“I beg also to be permitted to recommend to your notice and consideration. Captain Philip Browne, of this ship, to whom I feel under great obligation, for the assistance he has at all times afforded me, and for the assiduity, skill, and propriety with which he has managed the various details and arrangements of the flotilla, at the frequent periods of my being otherwise occupied, in gun-vessels, on shore,” &c.
The total number of smuggling vessels seized by Captain Browne, while commanding the Swan, Vixen, and Plover, was twenty; and their joint cargoes yielded to the revenue a clear profit of 47,214l. 11s. 10d. All the Danish vessels which he detained were condemned as droits of admiralty, to the great benefit of government. No less than 795 French sailors were taken prisoners by him at different times, and upwards of 200 British seamen rescued from captivity:– adding to these services, the number of vessels saved from being captured through his extraordinary vigilance, it cannot be denied that he had, by this time, proved himself a very valuable servant of the crown: his promotion to post-rank, however, did not take place until June 19, 1810.
In the following year. Captain Browne was appointed pro tempore to the Dannemark 74, employed blockading Cherbourgh; and shortly afterwards to the Hermes 20, in which ship he captured an American laden with naval stores, for the use of the Brest fleet; and two vessels from New York and Baltimore, with tobacco, ivory, &c. He also made one recapture; ran down la Mouche French privateer, mounting 14 guns, with 51 men on board, of whom 39 perished[7] ; and’ assisted at the capture of the Sword Fish, American privateer, of 12 guns and 82 men[8].
In 1813, the Hermes escorted a fleet of merchantmen to South America, from whence she returned home, in March, 1814. On the 30th of that month, a court-martial was assembled at Plymouth, for the trial of Captain Browne, on seven distinct charges preferred against him by his first Lieutenant, Mr. Charles Letch, whom he had recently been obliged to bring before a similar tribunal for gross misconduct, of which the latter was fully convicted.
These seven charges were in no manner connected with 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 so criminal, that, if he had been adjudged intentionally guilty of them, on proper and undoubted proof, he would have been precluded from all hope of future employment; whilst others were of so inferior a nature, that, if guilty, a censure was the utmost to be deprecated: whilst this judgment is couched in terms so vague and uncertain, that it is impossible to collect whether he was found guilty of a part of every charge, or of some one, or of more than one of the whole charges of which one is a part. If it means the former, it is in direct contradiction to the minutes, which state, that the last charge was abandoned, and for reasons which must have acquitted the defendant. Again, if it means the latter, it is ambiguous and uncertain to which of the charges it is to apply; for it is as applicable in terms to that which was not tried, or to any of which they thought him not guilty, as to any others; and it would only prove that they perfectly acquitted him of some, by only finding him guilty of a part. The judgment, therefore, is so vague and uncertain, on a subject which imperatively calls for the utmost certainty, that I do not feel how the sentence founded on it can be consistently enforced. Having thus stated my impression on the case, I do not feel it necessary, nor would it become me, to analyse the evidence, in order to guess on what part of it the court formed their decision; for, after all, it would be but guessing. I shall, therefore, content myself with stating my opinion, after having attended, with all the care I am capable of bestowing on the evidence, as applicable to the charges, as well as to the sentence, as founded on that application, that it is informal, irregular, and illegal, notwithstanding which, I cannot, from the nature of the subject, point out any mode in which Captain Browne can procure redress: the only amends he can look to, must be found in the justice and honorable feelings of the Board of Admiralty, in whose power it lies to restore the situation he has been deprived of, and to the prevention of which I can perceive nothing on the face of these proceedings: to that tribunal he will have a right also to submit any of those facts which, although capable of proof, did not occur to his recollection at the time of the trial.
“Temple, Nov. 29, 1814.”(Signed)“Frs. Const.”
On receiving this most satisfactory legal opinion, Captain Browne presented a memorial to the Admiralty, containing not only the heads of the charges, but the whole substance of the minutes, and some official documents sufficient in themselves to refute the assertions of his accuser, that he had been guilty of fraud and a false muster. The following are extracts:–
“That the facts of the case were not fairly before the court-martial, is most evident, from the circumstances well known to the Commander-in-chief at Plymouth, and every member of th« court, that your memorialist was utterly incapable of making any sufficient defence to the charges, not only from severe indisposition of body and mind, but from his being in perfect ignorance of the existence of such an accusation till 48 hours before he was a prisoner in court. The charges were not transmitted through him, nor intimated to him, as is customary. He had no time to summon many witnesses whom he might have called for his justification, or to consult any friends or advisers as to his defence; but through au excess of reliance on his own innocence, disdained to delay the investigation a single hour; and thus he suffered heavy charges to pass under trial, without taking the means of repelling them, which common prudence rendered necessary[9].
“Your Lordships will be unable to discover the cause of the virulent malice, which so obviously pervades the whole of the charges, without a short explanation of the motives and character of the prosecutor. Lieutenant Charles Letch had sailed several years with your memorialist, and had enjoyed his confidence in a very great degree; Lieutenant John Kent had also been two years in the Hermes. Both had lived in the utmost harmony with your memorialist until a few weeks before the arrival of the Hermes, when these officers, especially the first, presuming on the friendship and protection with which your memorialiist had long distinguished them, fell into such relaxation of discipline, and into such habits of oppression towards the inferior officers, as made it absolutely necessary at last (however painful) for your memorialist to interfere; which they resented by the many instances of faction, animosity, quarrelling, and disrespect, which are fully detailed in the recent court-martial on Lieutenant Letch, and in many other papers before your Lordships, to which your memoralist refers; and if further evidence be necessary, that the charges originated in private pique and malice, and by no means for the good of the service, it would be found in this consideration, that the facts alluded to in the first and second charges, had occurred twelve and six months respectively before the Lieutenants ever thought of making them the subject of prosecution, although it is proved in the minutes that there were several opportunities at Rio de Janeiro of bringing your memorialist to trial, where witnesses and parties were on the spot, of whose evidence your memorialist was unfortunately deprived[10].
“The first charge is in substance,– ‘That on the 25th April, 1813, in sight of Madeira, your memorialist sent for the master of the merchant-brig Recompense, on board the Hermes, and in the presence of the officers and ship’s company abused him and challenged him to fight, took off his coat, and squared at him in an attitude, and aimed or made a blow at him; and the master then lying down on the deck of his own accord, that your memorialist ordered some marines to take off his coat, and oblige to him stand up, which attempt the master resisting, the marines tore his coat: and that your memorialist then challenged him to go on shore to fight at Madeira, by which conduct your memorialist was alleged to have violated the 23d and 33d articles of war.’
“The 23d article of war recites, ‘that if any person in the fleet shall quarrel or fight with any other person in the fleet, or use reproachful or provoking speeches or gestures tending to make any quarrel or disturbance, he shall upon being convicted thereof, suffer such punishment,’ &c. &c. &c.
“The 33d article of war alleged to be violated, recites, ‘that if any flag-officer, captain, commander, or lieutenant, belonging to the fleet, shall be convicted of behaving in a scandalous, infamous, cruel, or oppressive manner, unbecoming the character of an officer, he shall be dismissed his Majesty’s service.’
“Such are the crimes of which your memoralist is accused, and such is the law which he is stated to have infringed. The simple facts of the case, in as far as they are in evidence before your Lordships on the minutes, are these:–
“On the 3d April (three weeks before the time of the transaction), your memorialist, proceeding from Cork, in his Majesty’s ship the Hermes, with a convoy, happened to encounter the brig Recompense (not of the convoy), the master of which, by the most wilful mismanagement of his ship, ran foul of one of the convoy, which he also forced on board of his Majesty’s ship, which was in imminent danger of being lost thereby. It is sworn, that the master could have prevented the accident of entangling the ships if he chose, but that the Hermes could not possibly avoid them. That your memorialist, in the alarm which he felt for the safety of the ship, called vehemently to the master of the brig Recompense to let go his anchor, and warned him against the lubberly mode in which he was proceeding. That the master not only refused to desist from his misconduct, but actually forced the other vessel foul of the Hermes; and in reply to your memorialist’s desire to let go his anchor, it is sworn, even by the prosecutor’s own evidence, that the said master, without any provocation, in presence of all the officers and crew of the Hermes, called him a damned white-faced rascal, and said that if he had him on shore he would thrash him. At this time, from the dangerous situation of the Hermes, and the urgent necessity of putting his orders in execution, your memorialist had no possibility of communication with the ship-master. That three weeks after this outrage, when ia sight of the island of Madeira, the same vessel came close to the Hermes, and Lieutenant Kent pointed the master out as the aggressor, and offered to bring him on board the Hermes with his papers for examination; to which your memorialist consented. That the master, on coming on board, behaved even then with great insolence and effrontery; and that your memorialist, excessively irritated by his demeanor, and by the insolent threat of personal chastisement, by which the ship-master had so recently outraged his feelings, asked him what he meant by such abuse, and if he could now make good his threat, and face him as a man, and that he, the memorialist, would take no advantage, although in his own ship – and then threw off his coat for the purpose: that the ship-master, to avoid fighting, lay down on the deck of his own accord; and your memorialist declaring he would not strike him when down, ordered some marines who stood by to raise him up: but his clothes were not torn; he received no abuse except being called a damned Irishman, nor was the smallest violence offered to him; neither did the memorialist ever attempt to strike him. That your memorialist then asked the master if he would meet him on shore singly to execute his threat; which he refusing, your memorialist put on his coat and left him, desiring Lieutenant Kent to see him on board, to press any man that he might find liable, but gave him especial orders not to distress him in consequence of which none were impressed. That Lieutenant Letch, the prosecutor, remarked at the time, that the captain was too warm, but that the master of the Recompense deserved worse treatment than what he had received; and that he, as well as Lieutenant Kent, repeatedly afterwards approved of the circumstance.
“Such is every particular of evidence on the transaction in question, whether for or against your memorialist, which the minutes of the court martial afford; and he has the more carefully selected them, because, with the exception of the present charge, your Lordships will find, there ia not a shadow of blame to be imputed to your memorialist, that can arise, by any possibility, out of the other charges, which it will hereafter be shewn, were utterly false, malicious, and vexatious.
“With respect to the articles of war which your memorialist’s conduct on this occasion is alleged to have violated; he humbly begs to observe to your Lordships, that the 23d article is wholly inapplicable to the case, as this article prohibits one person belonging to his Majesty’s fleet from fighting with, or provoking, any other person belonging to the same fleet; whereas, in the present instance, only one of the parties is in his Majesty’s service; moreover, that it is an article seldom or never acted upon.
“But the 33d article is, in fact, that alone which is contemplated to affect your memorialist’s case; on which he has also humbly to observe, that he is informed, that the penal acts of parliament ought to be strictly interpreted according to the letter, and not to be in any case strained by inference against the accused. That, in this instance, the legal question is not, whether the transaction was in itself generally that which is said to be unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman; but, whether it was scandalous, infamous, cruel, oppressive, or fraudulent; and by being which, but not otherwise, it would be unbecoming the character of a gentleman; cruelty, oppression, and fraud, is here quite out of the question: and your memorialist most confidently submits to your Lordships’ superior wisdom, to your candour and justice, that the quality of the transaction did not deserve the character of scandalous and infamous, in the sense intended by the article of war; and he submits fully to your Lordships, that there is not in all the annals of martial law, in the navy, an instance or precedent, of scandal or infamy being attached by the sentence of any court martial to such a transaction as the present.
“But while your memorialist pleads not guilty to the charge in a legal sense – his own feelings as an officer and a gentleman, condemn him for the intemperance of passion, which hurried him into so improper an excess. He fully admits the indecorous and bad example of his conduct. He deplores with the utmost contrition, that unhappy violence of temper, which, acted upon by sudden and irresistible provocation, has led him, when threatened with actual personal outrage, to forget that he was an officer, and to remember only that he was a man, and by no means a coward, or one that would shrink from the personal violence of any man under heaven. To your Lordships, as men of high personal courage, he appeals for indulgence to this instance of human frailty. To such of your Lordships as are officers, and have been in his situation, he puts his case, and implores you to consider candidly the insolent abuse frequently offered by the low-bred masters of merchantmen, whose violence there is no law to punish, and whose vulgar excesses there are no feelings, except the fear of personal chastisement, to restrain. He asks your Lordships, whether allowance may not be made for a captain of one of his Majesty’s ships having his passions worked up almost to frenzy on such an occasion as that; where his ship, and the lives of his men, are wilfully put in imminent danger, as well as his character as a seaman; and when he is told, in presence of all his crew, that but for their protection the aggressor would have thrashed him! – The candour of your Lordships will not fail to make allowance for him: and your memorialist trusts, that when he shews that, with the above exception, he is entirely guiltless of every other charge, your lordships will deem, that he has, by the disgrace he has suffered in dismissal, been already most cruelly punished for the venial offence which he committed, and that the sentence of the court martial is severe beyond all precedent, and ought to be mitigated.” * * * * * * * *
In consequence of this memorial, the minutes of the court-martial were laid before Sir William Garrow and Sir Samuel Shepherd, the law officers of the Crown, who unhesitatingly declared that the proceedings of the court were informal and irregular, and that there was nothing in the evidence which could warrant the sentence passed against Captain Browne, who was at length restored to his former rank, but not until the attention of Parliament had been called to the subject by his noble friend, the Earl of Egremont, April 20, 1816.
Agents.– Messrs. Cooke, Halford, and Son.
- ↑ See Schomberg’s Naval Chronology, Vol. I, p. 34.
- ↑ See Royal Nav. Biog. Vol. I, Part I, p. 66 et seq. N.B. On referring to the official report of General Prevost, who commanded the British troops at Savannah, we find it stated, – “that owing to the zeal, vigilance, and exertion of Captain Philip Browne, of H.M.S. Roue, first by sinking; his ship on the bar of Tybee river, to prevent the enemy’s fleet under the Count d’Estaing crossing it, to co-operate with the land forces (which he effectually did); and secondly, by manning the batteries of the right wing of the place with his officers and crew, he principally compelled the enemy to raise, the siege.”
- ↑ See Vol. I, Part II. p. 497.
- ↑ Sir Charles Lindsay was drowned off Demerara, March 6, 1799. He had dined on shore; but though the night was dark and windy, could not he persuaded from going off to his ship in a small boat; the Daphne then at least ten miles in the offing. The consequence was, the boat filled; and the service lost a very fine young officer, together with several valuable men.
- ↑ Surinam was surrendered without opposition to the naval and military forces under Lord Hugh Seymour and Lieutenant-General Trigge, Aug. 20, 1799.
- ↑ Le Lyonnaise.
- ↑ See Nav. Chron. v. 26, p. 347.
- ↑ See Royal Nav. Biog. Vol. II. Part I. p. 282.
- ↑ See Nav. Chron. v. 34, p. 302.
- ↑ “Adverting to what had appeared at the military trials of Captains Cameron and Roy, in Mar. 1798, on several charges, his late Majesty expressed his extreme disapprobation of keeping charges (having an opportunity to prefer them) until they should have accumulated.and then bringing them before a court martial collectively, whereas every charge should be preferred at the time the facts on which it turns are recent, or, if knowingly passed over, ought neither in candour nor justice to be in future brought in question.” See Id. p. 303.