and being on intimate terms with Lieutenant
Shervington, Perry says that what he did was "merely
meant as a joke," "an unthinking boyish trick,"for
which he had apologised to Lieut. Shervington and Major
Fyffe. Colonel Garrett was not satisfied with this—
believing the contempt to have been "designed, wilful.
and premeditated;" and called for statements other than
those of Lieutenant Perry; "whose acts," he added,
"were a tissue of opposition to the authority of the
commanding-officer, and could not be allowed to pass."
Perry wrote to Shervington, calling upon him to state
his belief as to the intention with which the gesture was
performed. Shervington replied—"I have to acquaint
you, that the opinion, I gave, when reporting the
circumstance, remains unaltered, namely, that you acted
in a thoughtless and inconsiderate manner, without the
most distant intention of showing contempt for authority,
or committing a breach of discipline." Although
unconvinced, Colonel Garrett did not press the court-
martial, as Major Fyffe was willing to accept the apology.
As an illustration of Lieutenant Perry's impertinent
familiarity, Captain Campbell said he had called him
"Colin," his Christian name; and he did not wish to
be called so by Perry. But it was shown that this only
occurred once. The case for the prosecution occupied
eleven days. Lieutenant Perry then proceeded with
his defence. The witnesses called by him were Mr.
Darvill, his solicitor, Captain and Paymaster Alexis
Corcoran, Captain John Chambers, late of the forty-
sixth but now of the fourth West York Militia, Adjutant
M'Alister, Lieutenant W. T. Waldey, Major
Stuart, late of the forty-sixth, Private Edward Lawler,
Mr. Perry's servant, and Lieutenant Lennard, late of
the forty-sixth. Mr. Darvill deposed that he wrote the
letter to Colonel Upton, upon the statements of which
the present charges against Perry are based, and that
Perry signed it. The letter was drawn up on
information given to Mr. Darvill by a reporter of the press,
upon whose statements he thought he could rely; and
it was necessary, because Perry had not been permitted
to cross-examine the witnesses. Captain Corcoran
deposed that practical jokes were common in the regiment;
that Mr. Perry complained to him, and that he advised
Mr. Perry to carry his complaints first to the field-
officers and next to the colonel. Mr. Perry told him
that on reporting, Colonel Garrett said he was a fool for
his pains, and like a child just escaped from his mother's
apron-strings. He then advised Perry to apply to the
general of the district: and he believed Perry had
threatened to do so. He further stated that he believed
Lieutenant Perry was shunned because he reported the
officers who annoyed him. He had always found him
kind and obliging, and remarked that he spent "the
greater part of his time when off duty in playing on the
cornopean with another young officer." Captain Chambers
also spoke to the habit of practical jokes. Lieutenant
Curtis had told him that Colonel Garrett said Perry was
a fool for his pains; he had heard it stated that Perry
had threatened to report to the general of the district.
Captain Chambers described how much he and others
had "drawn" Knapp and Waldey; but he was positive
that Captain Nicholas was not present. He further
stated that Mr. Perry had always behaved "like a
gentleman." The above-mentioned letter of Lieutenant
W. T. Waldy, handed in to the court by the prisoner,
was now read. It was as follows:—"Windsor, June 12.
My dear Perry,—If you are really going to exchange,
I wish you would mention to your servant, Lawler, that
I should wish to take him after you leave. These are
very jolly quarters: lots of women, and we have a drag
for Ascot, and are going in grand style. You owe me
£3—that is, I owe it to you. I hope you may live till
you get it. I have a good mind to exchange myself,
being pretty well tired of the 'South Devon.' The drill
is worse than ever, beginning at 7 A. M., and very olten
till 6 o'clock P. M. We are obliged to ask leave to go
to London; although there may be no parade on that
day, it is all the same. How does Knapp bear his
lieutenancy? I think he will be taken down a peg or two;
but you need not tell him so, popular feeling being very
much against him here. Coote has had several takings
down here already; the other day Nicholas told him he
was ' a d——d son of a bitch of an ensign.' This was
at mess, he having given Nicholas the lie direct. Believe
me, yours truly, W. T. Waldey." Cross-examined,
Waldey could see no discrepancy between his evidence
and his letter, which he did not remember to have
written: he afterwards admitted the discrepancy, but
could not explain it; only saying that it was done
without "forethought." A letter written by Mr.
M'Gregor, the army-agent, was also read, testifying
in strong terms to the "honourable conduct" of
Mr. Perry 'in several pecuniary transactions."
This was done to meet the evidence of Captain Sandwith,
who had impugned the honour of Mr. Perry
in that respect. Major Stuart's evidence went to show
that no efficient steps were taken to suppress practical
jokes, but that, on the contrary, they were encouraged.
Private Lawler showed that the charge brought by
Captain Colin Campbell against Perry, that he absented
himself without leave, was unfounded; for he himself
obtained the leave required from Captain Campbell.
The evidence being closed, the prisoner, on the 17th
ult, read bis defence; a long and able paper. It sets
out with alleging a conspiracy, pre-arrangenient of
evidence, combination, and perjury among the witnesses
for the prosecution. It complains that when Mr. Perry
asked for the production of Lieutenant Shervington's
letter, all the correspondence respecting the "digusting
gesture" was produced, although Lieutenant Shervington
and Major Fyffe had agreed to treat the matter as a
thoughtless jest. Then entering into an examination of
the evidence in support of the four charges prefened
against Peny, it takes the witnesses seriatim on each
charge, dwells on the "non mi ricordo" style of the
evidence,—the want of memory in all the officers wiih
regard to any facts that might tell in the prisoner's
favour, and the freshness of recollection in all that seems
to tell against him. On the first charge—that when
Mr. Perry reported, Colonel Garrett called him "a fool
for his pains"—the evidence of eight witnesses is
examined; and as their evidence amounted to this, that
they had never heard or did not recollect hearing Colonel
Garrett use the words, the conclusion come to is that the
charge fails because the evidence is negative; whereas
Mr. Perry's statement is an affirmative statement, and
quite consistent with the witnesses', that they had not
recollected or did not hear Colonel Garrett use the
language imputed to him. On the second charge—that
Mr. Perry had falsely stated that he had threatened to
appeal to. the general of the district—the evidence is
equally negative. On the third and fouith charges—
alleging that Mr. Perry had falsely accused Captain
Nicholas of ill-treating young officers—Waldey's letter is
dwelt on; arid the tendency of the defence is to shake
the credit of the witnesses who spoke well of Captain
Nicholas. Much stress is laid on the admitted fact that
the officers, under pretext of meeting to audit the mess
accounts, which they did not do, consulted together on
the evidence on all the charges, and the letter out of
which they arose, many of them before giving evidence.
Having gone through the evidence, Mr. Perry gives a
summary of his case. He describes his endeavours to
lead a quiet and blameless life. He tells how, instead
of occupying his time in debauchery and in disturbing
the comiort and wounding the feelings of his brother
officers, he occupied his leisure hours in the improvement
of his mind, in the cultivation of music, drawing, and
the modern languages, in the study of his profession;
and how he looked forward to the time when he should
serve the Queen as a brave and able officer. He describes
the degradations put upon him, their frequency, his
complaints to Captain Corcoran, his reports to Colonel
Garrett, the reply he received, and his threat to report
to the general of the district; and tells how he consented
to forbear at the officers' request. Although he is not
morally liable for the contents of his letter, as he only
signed it at the request of his legal adviser, yet he does
not shrink from it, because he believes that its allegations
are true. He dwells on the fact that certain companies
were sent to Turkey out of their turn, the officers of
which were needed for his defence; and he makes the
most of the evidence of those gentlemen who did not
appear for the defence. He submits that the charges
have not been proved, and he closes wiih a solemn
asseveration of innocence. "I have now done, and I