Northern Times. — 1857-08-21 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

ROSE. We have heard:and read much of the tortures of the Inquisition ; but nothing ever laid to the charge of that ecclesiastical tribunal, nor the atrocious cruelties of the Austrian and Italian dungeons can surpass, if equal, the doings on, board the-Martha Jane; and when we reflect that all this occurred on board a British ship, and that the perpetrators- were men belonging to a land which, prides itself as being the pioneer of civilisation and Christianity, we cannot help being appalled at the mere mention of such unheard-of cruelties, and ashamed that there belongs to the British Crown three subjects whose principles, dispositions, and every-day practices stamp- them as fiends in human form. Their answer to the charge preferred against them, as given by their able and zealous counsel, only aggravates their crime. The captain contends that what he did was for the sake of discipline,. and to guard against incompetent men undertaking the duties of able seamen when unfitted to perform the task. As far as ROSE IS concerned', the witnesses proved that thpy—never observed` him disobeying orders, or 'acting in a mannei..l which manifested incompetency. The counsel for the other prisoners adopted an extraordinary course by attempting to exonerate them on the ground that the part which they had taken in the nefarious transactions arose from the position in which they were placed as officers bound to carry out the captain's orders ; and although not compelled to do any illegal act in fulfilling these orders, it was difficult to discriminate as to the exact amount of punishment which a disobedient or negligent seaman should receive. This was paltry pleading. The facts of the case belied the supposition that ROSE was either disobedient or negligent.  The defence put forward by the counsel for the two mates raises a most important question —the right and power of any captain or officers of a ship to inflict corporeal punishment on sailors for alleged offences at sea. We hold that such a principle is unconstitutional. Every man accused of crime, or any deriliction of duty, is entitled to a fair hearing in defence of his conduct before any punishment is awarded. To allow captains and their mates at sea to become accusers, judge, and the executioners of their own sentences, is fraught with the most dangerous consequences both at sea and on land. No class of society should command from the laws and constituted authorities of the country greater security for life and property than the hardy and weather-beaten mariner, he who ventures forth upon the watere, of the mighty and the trackless deep, encountering many and severe privations, yea, even risking life itself, to brim.; to England the luxuries and the riches of foreign climes. At present, the necessary safeguards are not accorded to seamen, else Mr. ASPINALL would not have talked of the exact amount of punishment which may be legally inflicted upon a disobedient and negligent seaman! Nor would Mr. MONCK, have justified in the eyes of the Court and jury, Captain ROGERS, for treating It)sE as he would "a filthy dog or cat." Cases of a similar character, but devoid of many of the disgusting brutalities, as that which took place on board] the Martha Jane, have come before our criminal courts during the last year. Not long since., the perpetrators of a murder at sea were executed at 'Winchester ; and the criminals connected with the outrages on board the James 1. Bogart, tried at Chester, are now undergoing the punishment due to miscreants of such magnitude. But these cases, bad although they were, when compared with that of Captain ROGIIRS, and his guilty companion, possess some redeeming qualities. When PALMER and Do rs were convicted of their systematic poisonings—when