General Commanding-in-Chief could not omit to mark
with the expression of the severest displeasure the
gambling propensities of Lieutenant Greer. But, without
reference to these propensities, the misconduct already
adverted to is fully sufficient to call for his removal
from the army. On these grounds, the General
Commanding-in Chief humbly submitted to her Majesty
that Lieutenant Greer should be removed from the
service by the sale of his commission, which recommendation
her Majesty has been graciously pleased to sanction.
——THE CONDUCT OF LIEUTENANT WALDY, in giving
evidence on Lieutenant Perry's trial, is thus noticed by
the Commander-in-Chief—The General Commanding-
in-Chief cannot close his observations on these proceedings
without noticing the letter of Lieutenant W. Waldy.
This letter, addressed to Lieutenant Perry, on the 2nd
of June, 1854, is not to be reconciled with his evidence
given before the court-martial which tried Lieutenant
Perry a few weeks afterwards. In the letter he states
that Captain Nicholas had applied a very insulting
epithet to Ensign Coote, at the mess table, and that the
latter had given the lie direct to Captain Nicholas. As
a witness on oath, before the court-martial, he denied
or forgets that, he had written such a letter; even if
he did forget, his levity is deserving the severest
reprehension. After the court had closed its proceedings,
Lieutenant W. Waldy was called upon by his
commanding officer to explain his conduct in this matter.
He stated in his explanation, that "he must have given
a higher colour to the affair than it merited"—that
"since the affair scarce an officer has spoken to him"—
and that in a foolish moment he wrote the strong
language recorded against him in his letter." Lieutenant
W. Waldy, appears to be a weak, gossipping young
man, insensible of the duty of a rigid adherence to the
truth in describing the conduct of others; and incapable
of estimating the mischievous consequences of
exaggerating a contradiction at the mess table into the lie
direct, by which departure from the truth the character
of his brother officers might have been seriously affected.
He does not appear, however, to have been actuated by
any malicious motives, and in the absence of any proof
of corrupt intention, the General Commanding-in-
Chief hereby directs, with her Majesty's sanction,
that Lieutenant William Waldy be severely
reprimanded, and cautioned, for the rest of his life to adhere
strictly to the truth.——A Horse Guards' memorandum,
of the 2nd inst., under the head of "Instructions for
Officers on first joining a Regiment or Depôt," explains
the course which Lord Hardinge has thought proper to
take in the bringing the questions relating to the
discipline of the 46th regiment to an issue. 1. The
General Commanding-in-Chief had in the course of last
year been twice under the necessity of expressing to
every regiment at home and abroad his apprehensions
that a few inconsiderate officers might bring their
regiments into disrepute, unless, in their social conduct
towards each other at their mess table and in their
barrack rooms, their behaviour should be regulated by
a higher standard of what is due to the honourable
position in which they stand, as the holders of
commissions in her Majesty's army.—2. The first case which
required Viscount Hardinge to assemble a court-martial
on any officer was that of the 50th regiment, on which
occasion four subalterns were tried for forcibly seizing a
young ensign, taking him to a pump, and there pumping
on him. Two of these officers were sentenced to be
dismissed the service, and two were reprimanded. The
memorandum containing Viscount Hardinge's
comments was dated 5th of July 1853, and was read to the
officers assembled of every regiment in the service.—
3. The second instance occurred in the 62nd regiment,
in October, 1853. A captain in command of two
companies had repeatedly annoyed and disturbed the
subaltern of his own company, and accompanied by
other officers, had been in the habit of bursting into his
room and taking his bed to pieces, &c. The lieutenant
had the proper spirit to make his report to the major of
his regiment. The officer commanding the regiment
did his duty firmly; he supported the subaltern, and
reported his case to the Horse Guards. The captain
was removed to another regiment, and lost five steps
towards his advancement. Another subaltern was also
removed, and the other captain was retained in the
62nd, at the intercession of the commanding officer, on
account of his good services in the field in India. The
facts of the case, and the punishment awarded, were
printed and circulated, and read to the officers of every
regiment assembled.—4. A third instance has now
occurred. It is that in the 46th regiment. The case
originated in a disgraceful scene of deep gambling
in a barrack-room at Windsor, between Lieutenant
Greer and Lieutenant Perry, terminating in a violent
assault in the course of which the most disgusting
language was applied by Lieutenant Greer to Lieutenant
Perry.—5. At the close of the trial of Lieutenant Greer
a letter was handed in to the President of that court-
martial by Lieutenant Perry, charging his commanding
officer, Colonel Garrett, with grave acts of injustice, and
stating that he (Lieutenant Perry) had sent a letter to
his commanding officer, threatening to appeal to the
general officer of the district, &c. Colonel Garrett
denied these acts of injustice imputed to him, and he
denied that any such letter had ever been sent to him
by Lieutenant Perry.—6. The General Commanding-in-
Chief took the same course in this case as he had done
in that of the 50th, and for the same reasons, viz.,
his determination not to consent to a compromise in any
of these cases, but to eradicate the unmanly system.
The charges made by Lieutenant Perry against Colonel
Garrett were specific. They amounted to a breach of
her Majesty's regulations, and apparently were in
defiance of the admonitions and orders circulated in
July and December, 1853. The General Commanding-
in-Chief resolved, therefore, that the truth or falsehood
of these charges should be investigated by a court-
martial on oath.—7. The result of that court-martial,
as well as of the two preceding trials in the 46th
regiment, is given in the appendix, in order that every
young officer may have on his first joining his regiment,
by means of these examples, a clear understanding
of his own position. He will carefully read the Articles
of War, given in the appendix, together with a letter of
the Judge-Advocate General of 1844, which was
published to the army, with the Mutiny act, and Articles of
War of that year. If the ensign is firm, and has the
proper spirit of an officer and a gentleman, he can have
no difficulty, without loss of honour or of temper, in
resisting coarse practical jokes. But if he submits to
them on the plea that they are the customary probation
of an officer entering the British army, he will justly
subject himself to the charge of having tamely submitted
to insult; and it is his duty, on every account, and
especially for the purpose of ensuring his military
efficiency, which depends upon character, that he should
not suffer any liberties to be taken calculated to expose
him to the derision of his brother officers and the men
under his command.—8. These coarse irregularities,
termed practical jokes, and the use of disgusting language
have increased, it is said, since the introduction of
those Articles of War in 1844, which more strictly
prohibited duelling in the army. Public feeling had,
in the preceding year, been greatly shocked by two
officers, who were brothers-in-law, having fought a
duel, in which one was killed. The better and truer
reason, however, for the increased strictness of the
articles prohibiting duelling was that the tone of society
had improved, and that all men were united in
reprobating so barbarous a mode of settling a dispute. A few
men of coarse and ungenerous tempers, since the severer
Articles of War have been published, may have sought
to take advantage of the apparent impunity which the
prohibition afforded, and have taken greater liberties
with their brother officers than they did when under
the apprehension of immediate personal consequences.
Such practices cannot be permitted; they must be
repressed, for they are degrading to the character of an
officer. They render him unfit to command his men,
for they cannot feel for him the respect which is the
basis of all enduring authority. They render him unfit
to associate with his brother officers, who must hold him
in contempt, or must have themselves sunk so low
as not to shrink from contact with men of such coarse
vulgarity. It can never be endured that the manners
of British officers shall fall below the standard recognised
by gentlemen. As far as duels were permitted at