evidence threw no further light on the affair. The following statement, signed by the prisoner, was then put in and read :—

"What I state is the whole truth. I was acquainted with Mr. Clayton. I saw him receive a horsewhipping which he did not resent. I mentioned it to Mr. Clayton on Christmas evening last, and after that he sent me a message, to which I returned another by Mr. Odell. Another person nearly a fortnight after took it up, and was my friend in the business. After that the meeting took place, and Mr. Byrne, when on the ground, came up to me and said, 'Is it come to this?' and I said I would make a written apology to no man. After the business took place, I went up to Mr. Clayton and shook hands with him, and he said, 'I forgive you, my dear friend, I forgive you.' The message to me by Mr. Odell was from Mr. Clayton; but Mr. Odell advised Mr. Clayton not to fight, refused to have anything to do with it, and was not on the ground. I offered an apology through my friend. I said I regretted what had taken place; that the words were uttered in a moment of intemperance; and that I was willing to apologize, which was refused by the other party. I sent this message through my friend. The answer I received was, that it must proceed, as nothing would be taken but a written apology. As far as I knew about the business, both our pistols went off about the same time. It was a chance shot, as it was dark and we could not see."

Several witnesses were called who had long known the prisoners, and described them as persons of a humane and peaceable disposition. After the judge had summed up, and given his opinion that a verdict against the prisoners should be returned, the jury retired, and after deliberating three hours and a half, gave a verdict of "Not Guilty."

On the 15th January, 1821, a general court-martial assembled in the mess-room of the 1st regiment of Life Guards at Knightsbridge barracks, for the trial of Captain G. C. Gough of that corps, who was

brought before that tribunal upon six charges preferred against him by his commanding officer, Colonel Cumac. All the charges seem to be trumpery ones, five of them having reference to the payment of a debt to the mess waiter, a man named De Costa, and the sixth and additional charge was for going on leave the year before without having left his address with the Adjutant. The court, we need scarcely say, acquitted Captain Gough of all these charges; and as he could not challenge his superior officer without risking his commission, his brother, Richard Gough, sent a hostile message to Colonel Cumac; and the following is an account of the duel, taken from the "Military Register" for March 21, 1821 :

"A meeting took place on Saturday last," (March 17th)" on the ramparts of Calais, between LieutenantColonel Burgos Cumac, 1st Life Guards, and Richard Gough, Esq., brother of the officer at present in command of that corps, whose extraordinary trial and honourable acquittal we lately gave in this paper. The cause, however, had no relation to that trial, but we appreheud was owing to some whispers which have been long afloat, unfavourable to the most delicate point in a soldier's character, and which must now be for ever at rest.

"The parties left London early last week, and we believe the intended rendezvous was Boulogne. The wind, however, not being fair, it was arranged by both parties to lose no time, and in consequence they met at seven o'clock on the morning after their arrival at Calais.

"Colonel Cumac was attended by his relation, Lieutenant Newburgh, and Mr. Gough we believe by Captain Melville or a similar name. This gentleman obtained the chance of choice of ground. The parties fired together at a signal given by mutual agreement by another friend of the former.

This must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. It is not likely Mr. Gough could have taken up his brother's quarrel with Colonel Cumac openly; but he could easily enough bring about a meeting by imputing cowardice to that officer, which we think was the course followed.

H 2

597

"The first fire was without effect, when Mr. Gough's second interfered, and used all proper means to produce an amicable arrangement, which, however, could not obviously take effect, unless Mr. Gough made an ample apology in writing, which he of course utterly refused to do.

"They then fired a second time, when Colonel Cumac received his adversary's ball in the calf of his left leg; the second of Mr. Gough immediately bandaged it, and the Colonel with great gallantry attempted to walk off the ground, but after moving some paces could get no further. He was then carried away by some French soldiers who witnessed the affair.

"Nothing we understand could have been conducted in a manner more honourable to all parties. The principals acted with the utmost spirit, and as perfect gentlemen; the seconds as perfectly acquainted with their duty, and the individual who attended besides with the most correct honour."

On the second of November, 1810, a general courtcourt-martial assembled at Montreal for the trial of Captain Peter Latouche Chambers, of the 41st Regiment of Foot; the first charge being for having on first of the previous month used most reproach ful language in the mess-room at Montreal to Captain True, the mess president. A second charge accused Captain Chambers of pulling Captain True's nose; and about these the Court came to the decision that the prisoner was guilty of the first charge, except that he did not call the prosecutor a "d--d rascal," about which there was not sufficient evidence. With respect to the second charge, the Court did not consider the act of pulling Captain True's nose had been satisfactorily proved, but found the prisoner guilty of raising his hand to the other's face (rather a nice distinction), and sentenced him" to beg Captain True's pardon, and further to be suspended from rank and pay for three months."

We mention this to show that although at that time

the Articles of War were particularly strict against duelling, or of officers striking or threatening to strike a brother officer, or of making use of reproachful language one to another, yet it could all be done nearly with impunity.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

STAFF OFFICERS OF PENSIONERS.-But few, if any, Warrants which have ever emanated from the War Office were looked for with greater anxiety than that which inaugurated the new re-organization scheme. The old officers who had spent the best of their days in the Service were especially anxious. They were, however, to some extent reassured by the public utterances of the Secretary of State which immediately preceded the issue of the Warrant of the 25th June, 1881. Those utterances, in and out of Parliament, induced old officers to hope that the rights secured to them by previous Warrants-by Warrants under the conditions of which they had grown grey in the Service-would be respected, at least in as far as was compatible with the requirements of the pending change. But unfortunately the hopes of many, including some with strong claims, were doomed to be disappointed.

The New Warrant conferred on the Secretary of State the power of withholding the rank of Colonel from Lieutenant-Colonels who were incumbents of certain appointments, and to the surprise of all experienced military men, the appointment of Staff Officer of Pensioners was included in the list of those which disqualified for the higher grade. Why this should have been done is a puzzle, not only to the officers affected, but to the thinking portion of the Service generally, and all the more so as those officers are not only still on full pay, but they are still in the exercise of executive military functions. They have not only to pay and generally to supervise the pensioners in their district, but they have also to enroll and drill