receiving gratuities from purveyors of forage or
other stores; or even administering bribes
to obtain the support of witnesses who could
assist them with valuable false evidence. We
note, moreover, instances of shady transactions
with accommodation bills, or what looks rather
like sharp practice in connexion with the sale
of commissions. A gentleman whose name has
not been down for purchase, and who has been
passed over several times, suddenly takes
advantage of his seniority to declare himself for
purchase, on finding that a certain commission
which, under ordinary circumstances, would
have been worth four thousand five hundred
pounds, was to be had for the regulation price
of one thousand eight hundred pounds, because
the holder of such commission had been forced
to resign on account of some act which had
rendered him unpopular in his regiment.

And what other inconsistencies do we note
in the conduct of these models who are so
continually held up before our eyes as patterns of
what gentlemen should be? We actually find
that on some occasions they fall under the
influence of intoxicating liquors. We read of a
certain lieutenant, quartered in India, who, by
way of cooling his blood, gets so drunk that he
goes to a place of public entertainment, where
there are ladies, whom he insults grossly,
getting into all sorts of personal altercations
with their protectors; and of another in such
a state of complicated drunkenness that he is
brought before a court-martial for being actually
too much intoxicated to appear at a court of
inquiry into his own conduct. These are not
isolated cases, and there are others on record of
idiotic and disgraceful conduct which make us
almost hope that the perpetrators may have had
the excuse of being " in liquor" when they
acted so contemptibly. Can one do otherwise
than hope that men are drunk when they
go into a mosque at Cairo and disturb the
congregation, showing their wit by addressing the
priest with the inquiry, " How are you, old
fellow?" and finally falling to work at breaking
the lamps outside till they succeed in getting up
what they call " a row"? Or this other party
of officers, on whom a court of inquiry is held
to investigate a charge brought against them of
getting into a church at Kurrachee, and ringing
the bells, and burlesquing the Litany at
midnight—can we wish that they should prove to
have been sober, and in possession of their
right senses at the time of doing such things?
This tendency to get into "rows" when
quartered in foreign stations seems to be
developed rather strongly among our junior
officers (and gentlemen), as witness those
disturbances which took place not long since at
Malta and Valetta, and which, beginning with
an altercation between some officers of the
100th Regiment and a Maltese shopkeeper,
ended in serious riots, in which several policemen,
hindered in the performance of their duty,
received black eyes, and were otherwise
maltreated.

But besides such cases as these, or that of
the gallant officers in the Guards, who (this in
our own country) pretended to be highwaymen,
and robbed one of their own comrades in fun—
in addition to cases of this sort, which perhaps
savour as much of mere folly and imbecility as
of any more dangerous quality—we meet with
a certain proportion of instances of conduct
which cannot be attributed to simple idiotcy, but
which show a spice of the ruffianly element as
well; as when we find a certain lieutenant
tried by court-martial and convicted for having,
apparently in a mere ebullition of foul temper,
ordered his sergeant-major in one case, and one
of the engine-drivers on the East Indian railway
in another, to be made prisoners, handcuffed,
and leg-ironed for no offence, as the court
decided, whatever; or when we discover another
officer (and gentleman), a cornet this time,
assaulting and kicking a mess-waiter for very
slightly misunderstanding an order which had
been given him. But this last instance of
eccentric behaviour deserves to be treated of a
little more at length.

In a well-known Indian newspaper, called
the Bangalore Herald, it is chronicled that on a
certain day in the year 1865, one Cornet W.
ordered dinner in the mess-room for himself
and two friends, and that soon after this small
party had sat down to their meal, the chinniah
(mess-waiter) was told by Cornet W. to call
the butler. The chinniah, slightly misunderstanding
the order, goes out of the room and
fetches the butler; whereupon our cornet
furiously inquires, " What did I say to you?"
And when the unfortunate waiter, confounding
the words " call" and " fetch," replies that he
had called the butler as desired, Cornet W.
swears at him in the most furious manner,
gives him a severe kick in the back, and throws
a loaf of bread at him. The bewildered native,
staring a little, as well he might, after
experiencing this treatment, manages, as it
appears, to give further offence by so doing.
At all events, we find our irritable cornet
demanding " why he" (the chinniah) " stares at
him," and then administering two or three
more kicks, with a view of correcting him of so
bad a habit, and a blow in the side into the
bargain. The chinniah, under all this provocation,
does not utter a sound, but the next day
goes and complains before a magistrate, when
the cornet pleads guilty to the kicking, but
shelters himself under extenuating
circumstances (the provocation he had received), and
is only fined twenty rupees, no part of which,
the magistrate takes care to specify, is to go to
the wretched chinniah, on account of his
impertinent conduct (in staring?) after receiving
the kicks!

A pretty strong case this, the reader will
admit, against Cornet W.; but we have not
done with him yet. It appears that the editor
of the Bangalore Herald, moved to indignation
by the base treatment of the miserable chinniah,
produced an " editorial" on the subject, in
which Cornet W. was spoken of as a
"bumptious young cornet," and otherwise somewhat