maintaining the full rigours of this instrument of
torture! I have known more than one regiment
stationed in India of which the men were
not allowed to sit down to dinner, even in the
hottest of the hot weather, with the thermometer
at a hundred and fifteen degrees in their
barrack-rooms, unless they had their white
jackets buttoned up and their stocks on. I,
who write, when a subaltern, was more than
once severely reprimanded by the captain of my
troop because, when inspecting my division
before parade or field-day, I had overlooked the
fact that one or two of the men had not their
stocks on. I have seen a dragoon ordered seven
days' confinement to barracks by the colonel,
because, during divine service, in a crowded
church, on a very hot day in India, he had slipped
his stock off. I have seen a whole corps of
officers shirk dining at mess, and therefore
form private parties at their own houses, which
ended in cards, quarrels, duels, and what not,
because, although during the hot months—this
was in India—they were allowed to dine in
white waistcoats and open jackets, yet the
colonel obliged them to wear stocks. In short,
had there been half the pains and trouble taken
to make our soldiers good cooks, and to teach
them to shift for themselves on occasion, that
has been taken to make them compress their
windpipes and suffocate themselves, we should
not have lost half as many men as we did from
want of good management in the Crimean war.

The tunic as at present worn in the English
army is, perhaps, the least objectionable of the
soldiers' garments; but it has the prevailing
fault of English military dress—it is too small,
too tight, too scrimp, in every way. Why could
not the regular army take a leaf out of the
great volunteer book in this matter? We
seldom, if ever—certainly not among the various
London corps—see a volunteer with his coat too
tight for him. Surely even the present style of
civilians' dress has done away with the old-
fashioned idea that to look well a man must feel
uneasy in his dress-coat. But it is manifest
that soldiers, of all men, should have their arms,
chests, shoulders, and loins, as free as
possible from anything like restraint; and for this
reason I am of opinion that if instead of a
tunic the upper garment were fashioned like a
blouse, perfectly loose, and only confined at
the waist by a belt, it would be a far more
useful form of clothing than that now worn in
the service. Moreover, it would have another
very great and real advantage: that of allowing
the soldier to wear under it a waistcoat or other
under garment, if he felt it requisite. The tight
uniform we have so long patronised makes no
allowance for individual differences of
constitution. Whatever the season, whether the
soldier be in good or indifferent health, just out
of hospital, or never sick in his life, all soldiers
must, according to the present fashion, have
just the same amount of clothing on their bodies,
because there is no room for more under the
tight-fitting regulation garment. Now, for
outward uniformity of dress I am as strong an
advocate as any, but I don't think that the secret
of making all men sensitive in the same degree
to cold or heat has yet been discovered. The
evil arising from the present system is very
great indeed, more particularly in tropical
climates, where fevers. are common, and where
a man may be well enough to leave the
hospital, but will nevertheless require for a time
warmer clothing and more care of his health
than a stronger comrade. I have often seen a
man just out of hospital shivering in the ranks
on a cold raw morning, while right and left of
him his robust companions were pictures of
health. It is the want of additional
underclothing that sends so many men back again
and again to the doctor, and ends by their
having to leave the service while yet young.

There is another matter in which the Horse
Guards authorities might with advantage take
a lesson from the volunteers: namely, the
bayonet and pouch belts. Throughout the
English infantry, we used to wear the white
cross-belts, so manifestly cumbersome and
inconvenient that they have been abolished, I
believe, by every army in Europe. We have
moved in the right direction in this matter, but
have got only half way. We have abolished
one of the two cross-belts, substituting a waist-
belt for the bayonet; but we still leave the
heavy pouch of the old pattern, most inconveniently
hung, and we still retain the old white
belt, which requires to be daily cleaned with the
filth called pipeclay. Nothing can be more
inconvenient than this way of slinging the pouch,
to say nothing of its requiring more than twice
the quantity of leather used for the belt worn
by the French troops and by most of our
volunteers: namely, the single black waist belt, on
which pouch and bayonet can both be slung,
and which the wearer can slip round to any
part of his body: thus enabling him to sleep
or lie in comparative comfort, even when fully
accoutred. I believe that ours is the only
army in Europe which has not discarded the
white belts, that require to be daily smudged
over with a thick mess of pipeclay, in favour
of the neat black belts that a damp sponge
readily cleans. Even the Turkish troops have
seen the advantage of the black belts, and have
adopted them. The French army discarded
white belts about thirteen years ago. When
the present emperor first formed the Imperial
Guard, he restored as far as possible the
uniform worn in the days of his uncle, and among
other things the old-fashioned white cross-belts
again came to light. But they were very soon
abolished. In our service, I believe more men
are punished for "dirty belts," than for any
other of our minor military offences, and that
pipeclay is the stupid occasion of great injustice
being done to the soldier. In India I have often
seen a sudden puff of wind raise dust about a
barrack-room, and cover with dirt the still wet
belts of a whole troop or company, after the
men had been busy for two hours in cleaning
them. Or, a man may come off guard at eleven
A.M.—when, as a matter of course, his belts are