which constitutes courts-martial empowers the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to appoint officers in the ports of Great Britain or Ireland to hold those courts "as there shall be occasion:" who is to judge of the occasion, except the party to whom the complaint is preferred, and from whom the order for trial must emanate. The commanderin-chief of a fleet on a foreign station may be considered as the chief magistrate of the community placed under his command; if a frivolous, vexatious, malicious, or ill-founded complaint is brought to his notice, and one on which he believes no conviction could legally follow, he should exercise the discretion which a magistrate in a similar case on shore would exercise, and decline to send the case before a jury. The discipline and the efficiency of the navy would be ruined if litigious people could, as a matter of right, demand that all their trivial complaints and bickerings should be made the formal subjects of inquiry at courtsmartial; it would encourage such people in quarrelling, by investing their disputes with an importance which they never deserved. The more often these courts are held, the more often will they be required; by a constant repetition, the minds of both officers and men will become familiarised with them, and the effect produced by the solemnity of the proceedings will be lost.

As soon as the commander-in-chief issues his order for the trial, he appoints some person (usually the master-at-arms of the flag-ship) to act as pro

vost-marshal, whose duty it is to take charge of the prisoner, and keep him in safe custody until he shall be delivered by due course of law. This officer brings the prisoner before the Court, and, during the trial, stands beside him with a drawn sword. The 32nd article of war enacts, that "No provost-marshal belonging to the fleet shall refuse to apprehend any criminal whom he shall be authorised by legal warrant to apprehend, or to receive or keep any prisoner committed to his charge, or wilfully suffer him to escape, being once in his custody, or dismiss him without lawful order, upon pain of such punishment as a court-martial shall deem him to deserve; and all captains, officers, and others in the fleet, shall do their endeavour to detect, apprehend, and bring to punishment all offenders, and shall assist the officers appointed for that purpose therein, upon pain of being proceeded against and punished by a court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offence." The duty of executing the final sentence of the law devolves upon the provost-marshal.

CHAP. XX.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE FRAMING OF THE CHARGES.

AT courts-martial, the indictment, or, as it is commonly called, the charge, is a written accusation against some person or persons for a breach, or an omission, of the laws relating to the government of the navy. In a former chapter we endeavoured to point out under what circumstances these laws are applicable to persons in the fleet; we now proceed to explain the forms proper to be observed in framing the charge.

1st. It must specify some particular act or omission which constitutes a crime; and the defendant must be positively charged therewith: for instance, in uncleanness, scandalous actions, fraudulent behaviour, unofficer-like conduct, cowardice, disrespect, &c., it would not be sufficient to accuse the defendant generally of these offences, but the precise facts on which the complaint is founded must be set forth, so that the accused may distinctly know on what points he has to defend himself.

It is a rule of law that "every indictment must charge a man with a particular offence, and not with being an offender in general.”*

* Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, b. 2. c. 25. s. 59.

66

Every indictment ought to be so framed as to convey to the party charged a certain knowledge of the crime imputed to him." "It is part

of the duty of those who administer justice to require that the charge should be specific, in order to give notice to the party what he is to come prepared to defend, and to prevent his being distracted amidst the confusion of multifarious and complicated transactions."*

An order for a court-martial to inquire into the conduct of the officers and men of a ship lost is no charge; and a sentence given thereon would be null and void: it would be a mere court of inquiry, and therefore could not legally award any description of punishment. (Opinion of Law Officers on Courts-Martial held on the Officers and Crews of H.M.S." Centurion" and " Diomede," April, 1795.)

2ndly. The Christian name or names and the surname of the defendant must be written in full. If he be known by two names, and it be doubtful which is his proper name, both must be inserted; thus, "Charles Johnson, otherwise called Henry Jones." If two men of the same name are borne on the books of a ship, they are distinguished by numbers; as, “John Smith (the first)," "John Smith (the second)." The rank or quality of the accused, and the ship to which he belongs, must also be stated.

3rdly. It must be equally certain as to the person against whom the offence is alleged to have

* Lord Ellenborough, in the Case of the King v. Perrott, 2 M. & S. 379.

been committed; as, for the murder of "Edward Hammond." But if the party killed have no name, or the name cannot be ascertained, the charge should be for the murder of "a certain person whose name is unknown." The 20th section of the Act 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. enacts, "that if the party injured be designated by a name of office, or other descriptive appellative, instead of his proper name, judgment shall not be stayed on that account."

(N. B. If it appear in evidence that the party murdered is misnamed in the charge, or that it is a different person to the one mentioned who has been murdered, the defendant must be acquitted; but if the spelling only of the name be wrong, so that the pronunciation be the same, it would be immaterial. And if the party murdered be described as a person unknown, and it appear in evidence for the prosecution that his name is known, and that the prosecutor, by reasonable diligence, might have known it, the defendant cannot be convicted.)

4thly. The day of the month on which the offence was alleged to have been committed should be inserted in words at length. If there be any doubt as to the precise time, the charge should be laid on a certain date, "or on or about that date." The place, in many instances, is material, inasmuch as the Act 22 Geo. 2. gives courts-martial jurisdiction only over persons in the fleet who commit crimes in certain situations therein expressed. And time is material, because the statute contains a limitation within which com