Dickson remained unpunished, and then the
whole matter came to the ears of the colonel
of Captain Robertson's regiment, and from
that time this ill-starred personage had no peace
of his life.

The details of this case are still fresh in the
public memory. The reader of newspapers
remembers what a bitter time Captain Robertson
had of it; how he was sent to Coventry
by his brother-officers; how a large section of
them (almost all in fact) sent him a round robin
requesting him to retire; the colonel himself
being active in promoting the signature of this
document—insomuch that one officer, more
merciful than the rest, who had declined three
times to sign, on being told that the colonel
wished it, gave in at once, and signed " under
protest"—how all sorts of small indignities
and annoyances were heaped upon him; the
aid of his subaltern withdrawn when the regiment
was on the march; his leave of absence
stopped without sufficient reason; an order
given, when he was not on duty, that he should
attend both morning and evening stables; a
refusal sent, to his request that his complaints
of ill-treatment might be forwarded to the
proper authorities; a junior officer invested by
the colonel, in Robertson's presence, with the
temporary command of the regiment during the
colonel's absence—the command properly
devolving on Robertson as the senior captain then
in barracks. The annoyances seem, however,
to have reached their culminating point when
one day Captain Robertson—an officer of
sixteen years' standing—was required to exercise
in the riding-school with a backboard on; a thing
which the riding-master of the regiment said
was almost without precedent in the case of
an officer, he remembering but one instance of
such a thing, the instance of a subaltern only
fifteen months in the service.

This pressure was altogether, it must be
owned, rather sharp and strong, and, upon
the whole, we are none of us surprised to
find that one day when the deputy-something,
Colonel Brownrigg, got the unfortunate
Robertson into his office—Colonel Bentinck, his
own colonel, being present too—and told him
that he must either send in his resignation or
submit to a court-martial on his behaviour at
the time of the altercation at the Army and
Navy Club with Colonel Dickson—we are not
surprised, I repeat, to find him—he having
only a quarter of an hour given him to decide
in, though he pleaded hard for more—yielding
at last to antagonistic circumstances and
consenting to send in his resignation. Still less
are we surprised to find him shortly afterwards
recalling the same, and stating that he had only
forwarded it to the Horse Guards " under
intimidation." It was that last statement which
brought about the court-martial, in the course
of which so much curious matter was dragged
into the light.

Now, it is not unlikely that Captain Robertson
may have had his faults—indeed, the
impression left on the reader's mind by some of
the evidence which came out on the trial is that
he had. It is not unlikely that he may have
been unpopular in his regiment, though it must
be owned that such unpopularity seems to have
dated from the time of Colonel Bentinck's
assuming the command; but supposing that
he was unpopular, supposing even that there
were reasons why it was desirable that he
should be got to retire, was this reiteration of
small persecutions and vexations the proper
way in which to bring the thing about, or was
such a course of proceeding characterised by
that straightforwardness and love of fair play
which one expects to find the rule of action in
a society of gentlemen?

And yet this system of small persecutions
does seem to be the approved method, according
to present ideas, of inducing an officer to
send in his resignation when he is disliked in
his corps. We were speaking but now of
Colonel Dawkins and his case, as somewhat
analogous to the case of Captain Robertson.
And, indeed, in many respects it seems to be
so; both these officers having been unpopular in
their regiments, and both regarded with an
especial dislike by their respective commanding
officers. The chief difference between the two
cases seems to have consisted in the number of
enemies which each of the officers managed
to make in his corps; Robertson having every
man's hand against him, while Dawkins had
only to contend with some three or four of the
officers of his regiment. These, however, were
a host in themselves, and were, with the exception
of an adjutant, who managed to inflict a
great variety of annoyances on Colonel Dawkins,
high in office. They seem with one accord to
have fixed on his temper as the cause of his
unfitness to remain in the regiment, or at any
rate to advance to a position of authority in it.
Lord Rokeby, commanding the regiment, accuses
Dawkins at a certain interview of having such
an ungovernable temper that he (Lord R.)
should have great hesitation in recommending
him for a higher position—a reprimand which
seems to have given rise to a serious quarrel
between the two; Lord Rokeby shortly
afterwards offering his hand to Dawkins, and
receiving in return only a military salute, for
which behaviour to his superior Colonel Dawkins
was put under arrest for eleven days.

As in Captain Robertson's case, so also in
this of Colonel Dawkins, all sorts of old charges
are raked up to tell against him, such as that
once in Bulgaria, in the year 1854—the inquiry
at which this evidence was adduced taking
place in 1865—he had pitched his tent in front
of that of another officer. Nor are the small
annoyances wanting; as when the officer, who
has the arranging of the invitations to a Queen's
ball, writes to ask him if he wishes to go, and
then as he did not happen to be at home at the
moment when the proposal came, fills up his
place without waiting for the answer, which
arrives only a few hours later.

But it is with Colonel Newton, who
commanded Dawkins's division, or was in some