The Com. in chief disapproves the above decision; not from any defect in its justice, but from inaccuracy in the terms of the sentence.

The court found the prisoner guilty of the 1st charge, purporting that he had challenged his superior officer to fight, and having found the prisoner partially guilty of the 3d charge, have adjudged the said Serjt.maj. R. Gibson to be reprimanded in such manner as the Com. in chief shall think fit. In the first place, a reprimand from the head of the army, to a non-com. officer is not suited to the situation of the latter. The efficacy of such a reproof to a com. officer, depends on his feeling that, as it is rarely resorted to, and thence implies serious misbehaviour in him to whom it is addressed, it will materially affect him in the estimation of the society in which he moves. The application, therefore, of a reprimand to a non-com. officer, is not only objectionable, from rendering it common, but it is idle with regard to an individual, whom it will little disparage, in his humble circle of acquain

tance.

There is more than simple unsuitableness in the sentence; it is inconsistent with the Arts. of War. In declaring the prisoner guilty of the charge, the court must have found his criminality in the breach of art. 2, sec. vi. (11) of the Arts. of War for the H. Co.'s forces. The penalty awarded by that art. against any non-com. officer or soldier who shall challenge a superior, is corporal punishment (12). The court probably considered the language, as coming only by a considerably forced construction, within the meaning of the charge, in which view the Com. in chief concurs.

But when the court pronounced the prisoner guilty, the nature of the punishment did not rest with them-the amount alone was left to their discretion.

On the 2d charge, the court have very properly acquitted the prisoner. By the wording, it was evidently meant to be understood, that the offensive expressions had been used directly to the prosecutor.

It must have been under this impression, that the officer comg. the regt. was induced to usher such a charge: which observation is made by the Com. in chief, in order that it may be remarked, how much inconvenience to the service, by assembling a gen. ct.-mar. at a distant station, would have been avoided, had a previous investigation taken place in the regt. The true state of the case would have been immediately apparent; and matter so comparatively frivolous, as that which was the foundation of this trial, would have been far better dealt with, by reprehension from the officer at the head of the corps. From the evidence on the proceedings, it appears, that if there was intemperance in the conduct of the prisoner, there was much wish to provoke it, on the part of the prosecutor. It is incumbent on the comg. officer

(11) Now sec. vii.

(12) By sec. vii, art. 2, Ann. Arts. of War. Corporal punishment or imprison

ment.

officer of the regt, to warn both parties, that any future indication of such dispositions in either, will be severely noticed.

(Signed) J. NICOL, Adj.gen. of the army.

CASE 5.] G. O. C. C. 11th Dec. 1821. At an European gen. ct.mar. at Meerut, on 5th Nov. 1821, Lieuts. A. G. and P. D. P. of the 1st batt. 26th regt. N. I. were severally arraigned as follows:

Charge.] "Lieut. A. G., of the 1st batt. 26th regt. N. I., ordered into arrest by H. E. the Most Noble the Com, in chief, for having, at Delhi, on the 13th or 14th Sept. last, sent a written challenge to fight a duel to Capt. P. P. M., of the same corps." Upon which charge the court came to the following decision:

FINDING-Guilty. SENTENCE-To be cashiered.

Approved :

(Signed)

HASTINGS.

Charge.] "Lieut. P. D. P., of the 1st batt. 26th regt. N. I., ordered into arrest by H. E. the Most Noble the Com. in chief, for having, at Delhi, on the 13th or 14th Sept. last, sent a written challenge to fight a duel to Capt. P. P. M., of the same corps." Upon which charge the court came to the following decision.

FINDING-Guilty. SENTENCE-To be cashiered.

The court having closed the trials of Lieuts. G. and P., consider it due to the character of the prosecutor, Capt. M., to record their conviction of the propriety of his conduct, in bringing forward charges against those officers, for challenging him to fight a duel with them, after their unprovoked and outrageous conduct, as proved in evidence.

Approved and confirmed:

(Signed)

HASTINGS.

REMARKS and further Orders by H. E. the Most Noble the Com. in chief. The Com, in chief entirely concurs in the approbation of Capt. M.'s procedure, which has been so justly expressed by the court. The respective sentences upon Lieuts. G. and P. are approved; but in the cases of those officers there is a difference, which may justify a degree of mitigation, relatively to the former of them. Lieut. P. has twice before been found guilty by a gen. ct.-mar. of offences against discipline; therefore the operation of the present sentence, is confirmed in his instance. Respecting Lieutenant G., the Governor-general in council will be solicited, to replace the commission, which the sentence cancels, by a new one, bearing a date which will place Lieut. G. as youngest of the lieuts. in the 26th N. I. Lieut. P. D. P. is to be struck off the list of the army, from the day on which these orders shall be promulgated at Meerut, and directed to proceed to the Presidency without delay, and place himself under charge of the Ft.maj. of Ft. Wm.

CASE 6.] G.O. C. C. 30th April, 1814. Lieut. R., 69th regt., placed under arrest by me, for a breach of discipline in the following instance, viz.

"For going out to fight a duel with Lieut. W., of the 69th regt., on

the

the afternoon of the 14th Jan. 1814, in direct violation of the Arts. of War."

FINDING-Guilty. SENTENCE-To be cashiered.

Approved and confirmed; but sentence remitted.
(Signed) MOIRA.

REMARKS by H. E. the Com. in chief. The above sentence is approved; but, in compliance with a recommendation received from the president and members of the ct.-mar., the Com. in chief is pleased to remit the penalty.

-CASE 7.] G. O H. G. 10th Sept. 1813.-The Com. in chief is persuaded, that the late trial of Ens. E. M'G., 6th W. I. regt. Ens. J. G., 6th W. I. regt. Lieut. A.D., 101st regt. Ens.D. O'B. 101st regt. for the heinous crime of murder, has excited the liveliest interest and anxiety throughout the army; H. R. H. has therefore been pleased to direct that the following letter, which he has received from Ld. Visct. Sidmouth, one of H. M.'s Principal Secretaries of State, shall be published in G. O.

66

Whitehall, 8th Sept. 1813.-In obedience to the commands of the P. R., I have the honour of acquainting your R. H., that it is H. R. H.'s gracious intention, not to order the sentence upon the four officers of the army, who were capitally convicted at the last Assizes at Winchester, of the murder of Lieut. B., of the 101st. regt of foot, to be carried into execution; but to grant them the royal pardon (13).

"I think it incumbent upon me, at the same time, to lay before your R. H. a copy of the evidence adduced upon the trial of those officers; from which it appears, that the original disagreement between Lieut.B. and Ens. McG., arose from a trivial cause; that no attempt was made to reconcile the parties; but, on the contrary, that, instead of those efforts, which, if properly and seasonably exerted, might have had the happy effect of preventing the meeting, which led to the fatal result, great pains were most unwarrantably taken to instigate and promote it: this observation I am bound to state, refers more especially to Lieut. D., who from his rank in the regt., and his standing in the army, was peculiarly called upon to exercise his influence and authority, for a purpose very different from that to which they were applied.

"I deem it my indispensable duty to submit this representation to your R. H., and I do so, in the full persuasion, that your R. H. will be pleased to cause such steps to be taken upon this painful occasion, as the circumstances of the case shall, upon consideration, be found to require.

While the awful sentence of the law was pending, the Com. in chief abstained from expressing any opinion on this most distressing occasion. H. R. H. now feels it incumbent on him to take that part, which a due regard to the discipline and the character of the army demands.

(13) Blackstone, vol. iv, p. 400. See Murder, Chap. XXII, art. 4, for cases.

The

The Com. in chief is sincerely rejoiced, that the clemency of H. R. H. the P. R., acting in the name and on the behalf of H. M., has been graciously extended to these officers, and has prevented their suffering an ignominious death.

The offence of which they have been guilty, cannot, however, in a mil. point of view, remain unnoticed.

On a due consideration of all the circumstances attending this transaction, the Com. in chief is induced to think, that of all the parties concerned, the unfortunate officer who lost his life, and the yet more unfortunate one, by whose hand his comrade fell, the least culpable; they appear not to have been actuated by any personal animosity, but to have been instigated and governed by the advice of others.

The Com. in chief is greatly concerned to observe, that no such palliation can be adduced in the cases of Lieut. D., Ens. G., and Ens. O'B.

Their interference was equally uncalled for, and unnecessary, and tended not, as might have been expected, to settle the trivial difference which existed between their brother officers, but to magnify its impor tance; and to instigate them to the measure which has led to so fatal a result.

The Com. in chief, therefore, has it in command; to convey to all these officers, the highest displeasure of the P. R., for conduct so unmily. and disgraceful; and to notify to them, that they are no longer officers in H. M.'s service; but H. R. H. being disposed, in this decision, to attend to the distinction which appears in their conduct, and observing that Lieut. D., who, from his rank and standing in the army, ought to have set a different example, has, throughout, taken the most prominent part in these outrageous proceedings, and greatly influenced the conduct of Ens. G. and O'B.; is pleased to limit the declaration of being incapable of ever serving H. M. in any mily. capacity, to A. D., late lieut. in the 101st regt.

The Com. in chief directs, that this order shall be entered in the orderly books, and read at the head of every regt. and corps in the service. He hopes it will prove an useful and impressive lesson to the young officers of the army, and a warning to them of the fatal consequences, of allowing themselves to be misled by erroneous notions, and false principles of honour: which, when rightly understood, and leading to its legitimate object, is the brightest gem in the character of a soldier.

By command:

(Signed) H. CALVERT, Adj.gen. CASE 8. G. O. C. C. August 10, 1822. At an European gen. ct.-mar. Ft. Wm., 13th June 1822, Capt. J. S, of the 20th regt. N.I., was arraigned upon the undermentioned charges, viz.

1st. "For having on the 5th day of Sept. 1821, endeavoured to provoke Capt. M., of the same regt., to fight a duel with him.

2d. "For pertinaciously continuing a strain of hostility against Capt. M., after the Com. in chief had, upon a careful inquiry into the circumstances

circumstances, ordered the affair to be set at rest, and the letters on both sides to be withdrawn."

"The conduct of Capt. S. being, in each instance, contrary to the Arts. of War, and subversive of discipline."

Upon which charges the court came to the following decision :

FINDING 2d charge-Guilty of so much of it, as charges him with not having withdrawn his letters after the Com. in chief had, upon a careful inquiry into the circumstances, ordered that such should be done; but the court is of opinion, that in so doing, Capt. S. was influenced solely by an honourable and anxious desire, to be placed in a situation to clear his character, from the injurious reports which had been circulated to his prejudice. SENTENCE-3 o'clock striking before the court came to a decision, it was adjourned till 11 o'clock tomorrow, Tuesday, the 30th inst.

Ft. Wm., Tuesday, 30th July 1822.-The court met pursuant to adjournment. President and members as yesterday.

The court proceed to deliberate, and to pass sentence; but there being an equality of votes on the question, as to whether any punishment shall be awarded or otherwise, and the Act. Judge Adv.gen. having, when called upon by the court, declared his opinion, that a majority of voices is absolutely requisite to pronounce an award; the court suspend their proceedings, and adjourn until the pleasure of the Most Noble the Com, in chief is obtained.

REMARKS by the Court.-In advertence to the extraordinary mass of matter, which the present proceedings exhibit, the court feel themselves called upon to explain; that in a question like the present, involving not only the character and feelings of the prisoner, but from the course which the defence has taken; the character and feelings of several of the witnesses and others, who were incidentally connected with the circumstances introductory to the preferring of the charges, against the prisoner; it has not been in the power of the court, without a total disregard to the ends of justice, to abstain from going into the examination of matter; which, under other circumstances, would be totally irrelevant to the points at issue.

It is with no ordinary degree of concern, that the court feel themselves compelled to remark upon, the extraordinary discrepancy which the testimony of some of the witnesses exhibit, and respectfully to solicit the attention of H. E. the Com. in chief thereto, more particularly to the depositions of Capts. M. and C., diametrically opposed as they appear to be, in most instances, to the points in which they have respectively sworn; instances arising, not merely from the different light in which two individuals may often view the same circumstances, but manifest in their testimony, to almost every fact, respecting which they were examined by the court; and such as to leave in the minds of the court, no room to believe, that they could be the result of misapprehension or mistake.

The court would have thought it their duty, to notice these extraordinary