all, they were suffered as means supposed to be conducive
to the end of maintaining in the barrack and mess-room
the language and behaviour of gentlemen. But it
would be a fatal mistake to infer that because duelling
has been prohibited, any lower standard of manners
will be tolerated in the British army. The language
and behaviour which formerly were held to justify a
challenge, must now, therefore, be visited by the
removal of the offender from the society of which he has
shown himself to be an unworthy member.—9. Every
assistance and support will be given to the young officer
in his endeavours to avoid rendering himself liable to
these consequences. In May last, before the spring
inspections, the general officers and staff officers, inspecting
regiments, were ordered to report "whether any
practical jokes have been carried on at the mess table,
or elsewhere, or any steps taken to prevent them."
The reports are satisfactory; few regiments, however,
have been inspected, owing to the greater part of the
regiments having previously embarked for foreign
service.—10. The captain of the company to which the
ensign, on joining, is appointed, will give him advice
and support. The major entrusted by the commanding
officer with this branch of the interior discipline of a
regiment will do the same, and be held responsible that
he does it effectually; and if any case should arise
requiring interference or a reprimand, the terms of the
reprimand and the record of the letters must be
forthcoming, to be shown to the general officer, and sent up
to the Horse Guards. The necessity is apparent after
the recent trials in the 46th regiment, and all serious
cases will at once be reported to the Adjutant-General,
for the decision of the General Commanding-in-Chief.—
11. No case of a practical joke appears to have occurred
in the 46th regiment since October, 1853, with the
exception of the case of Lieutenant Dunscombe, 46th, at
Weedon, in 1854.—12. General Viscount Hardinge
confidently asserts that the regimental system of the
British army, now so long established, has proved its
efficiency as being admirably adapted for all the varied
duties of war and peace. He trusts that the
irregularities and mischievous tendencies resulting from
practical jokes can and will be corrected, and disappear
for ever. A firm but temperate exercise of authority
on the part of commanding officers of regiments
will effect the object desired; they will find, by a
faithful discharge of their duty, that they will obtain
the respect and support of their officers, and the esteem
of their fellow-subjects. The previous cases alluded to
by Lord Hardinge are described in two confidential
memoranda. In the case of the 50th regiment, it
appears that in a dispute arising from some discussion
unstated, four officers first applied disgusting language
to an ensign, and then forcibly placed him under the
pump and pumped upon him. A court-martial was
held at Preston in 1853, when one of the officers, a
lieutenant, was found guilty of offering personal violence
to the ensign, but acquitted of conduct unbecoming an
officer and a gentleman. Holding that such a doctrine
could not be accepted, Lord Hardinge referred the
finding back to the court; the court-martial revised the
finding, and decided that pumping on an ensign was
unofficerlike, ungentlemanlike, and a gross insult to
the said ensign. The Queen approved of this finding,
and two of the officers were reprimanded. The other
case occurred in the 62nd regiment, stationed at Carlow.
The specific character of the outrages inflicted on a
lieutenant by two captains and another lieutenant is
not stated. On this occasion, however, Lieutenant-
Colonel Trollope, having admonished one of the
captains, and finding that it produced no effect, but
that he still led the way in what he called "practical
jokes," insisted that he should quit the regiment. This
was approved by Lord Hardinge; and in addition, the
lieutenant received a similar order, while the other
captain was, on account of distinguished services
in the field, permitted to escape with a reprimand.
Two other documents are given as appendices; one
from the Secretary-at-War in 1844; the other from the
then Judge Advocate-General, Dr. Nicholl, both
showing that duelling in the army is strictly forbidden
by the Articles of War,—in correction of an erroneous
notion that an officer could be brought to trial and
punished for not challenging another. The amended
Articles of War referring to duelling are also given.
They are these—15. All officers, of what condition
soever, have power to quell all quarrels, frays and
disorders, though the persons concerned should be of
superior rank, or belonging to another corps, and either
to order officers into arrest, or soldiers into confinement,
until their proper superior officers shall be acquainted
therewith. 16. No officer shall use any reproachful or
provoking speeches or gestures to another, upon pain of
being put in arrest. 17. We hereby declare our
approbation of the conduct of all those who, having had
the misfortune of giving offence to, or of injuring or of
insulting others, shall frankly explain, apologise, or
offer redress for the same; or who, having had the
misfortune of receiving offence, injury, or insult from
another, shall cordially accept frank explanation,
apology, or redress for the same; or who, if such
explanations, apology, or redress, are refused to be made or
accepted, and the friends of the parties shall have failed
to adjust the difference, shall submit the matter to be
dealt with by the commanding officer of the regiment
or detachment, fort or garrison: and we accordingly
acquit of disgrace or opinion of disadvantage all officers
who being willing to make or accept such redress, refuse
to accept challenges, as they will only have acted as is
suitable to the character of honourable men, and have
done their duty as good soldiers who subject themselves
to discipline. 44. Any officer who, being concerned in
any fray, shall refuse to obey any other officer, (though
of inferior rank,) who shall order him into arrest, or
shall draw his sword upon or offer violence to such
officer, shall, for each and every one of the aforesaid
offences, on conviction thereof before a general court-
martial, be cashiered. 101. Every officer who shall
give, send, convey, or promote a challenge, or who shall
accept any challenge to fight a duel with another
officer, or who shall assist as a second at a duel, or who,
being privy to an intention to fight a duel, shall not
take active measures to prevent such duel, or who shall
upbraid another for refusing or for not giving a
challenge, or who shall reject or advise the rejection of a
reasonable proposition made for the honourable adjustment
of a difference, shall be liable if convicted before
a general court-martial, to be cashiered, or suffer such
other punishment as the court may award. In the
event of an officer being brought to a court-martial for
having assisted as a second in a duel, if it shall appear
that such officer had strenuously exerted himself to
effect an adjustment of the difference on terms
consistent with the honour of both parties, and shall have
failed through the unwillingness of the adverse parties
to accept terms of honourable accommodation, then our
will and pleasure is that such officer shall suffer such
punishment, other than cashiering, as the court may
award."—A subscription has been set on foot to form a
"Defence and Testimonial Fund" for Lieutenant
Perry. The Mayor of Windsor undertook to receive
the contributions, which already amount to above £1,500;
and the subscription is still in progress. The Earl of
Shaftesbury, Lord Ashburnham, and many other noblemen
and gentlemen of eminence have subscribed. The
Duke of Cleveland, a Major-General in the army, sends
£50, "feeling great sympathy for that young officer,
whose name I never heard before, as having been made
a victim, whatever may have been his faults, by an
unjust cabal on the part of his brother officers, to gain
favour with the commanding officer of the regiment."
He adds—"I know nothing more of the evidence given
at the Windsor courts-martial than what I saw published
in the Times, which I carefully perused every day—but
something more may have transpired than what met the
public eye, to induce the members of the court to decide
upon the verdict they thought proper to give, which
certainly surprised me, not as a civilian, but as an officer
of long standing in the army; and, I hope I may add,
of some experience, having served in every regimental
rank from a cornet of dragoons to that of lieutenant-
colonel commanding an infantry regiment, the seventy-
fifth Foot, in which latter capacity I served for two
years. I have always studied, to the best of my ability,
the duty of a regimental officer, in every progressive
rank; and of this I speak with great confidence, that