or who send back the proceedings for
revision, may be somewhat likened to a governor
of the East Indian Company, who, in writing to
an officer who had been appointed judge of civil
affairs in India, told him, "I expect my will and
orders shall be your will, and not the laws of
England, which are a heap of nonsense, compiled
by a number of country gentlemen who hardly
know how to govern their own families, much
less to regulate our affairs."

A man named Spooner was reported for
some trivial affair to his troop officer, who
awarded him three days' drill. The sergeant-
major confined the man afterwards for having
said to him, "Why did you report me to the
officer?" and he was tried for this. The men
upon each side of him swore that he never made
any such remark. Spooner himself pleaded
"Not Guilty," and the President and members
of the court returned that he was "Not
Guilty" of the charge preferred against him.
In defiance of this, the commanding-officer
ordered the court to reassemble, and to
reconsider the finding: stating, likewise, that as
the sergeant-major, who was within four yards of
the prisoner, had sworn that he had made use
of those words, the sergeant-major's evidence
was to be taken before any other. The court
accordingly reassembled, found the prisoner
"Guilty," and sentenced him to "twenty-eight
days' imprisonment, with hard labour." Yet
each of the officers composing the court had
sworn to "duly administer justice."

There have been instances in which courts-martial
have been threatened with the charge
of contumely, for refusing to augment an
already awarded sentence, when the reasons for
mercy were well founded. In rare cases, the
members have refused steadily to alter their
sentence. Dr. Marshall tells that, The
members of a regimental court-martial, who had
disappointed the commanding-officer by acquitting
a soldier, were ordered to wait upon a general
officer to account to him for their decision. To
an observation made by the general, one of the
members replied, like a true officer and gentleman,
"When I became a member of the court-
martial in question, I swore that I would duly
administer justice without partiality, favour, or
affection, according to the best of my under-
standing, and having done so, I did not expect
to be called before any tribunal in regard to our
decision, but my own conscience, with which I
am at peace." "That will do," said the general;
"you may all go." We can, of course, make
allowance for those who submit to undue influence.
Officers joining the service are generally
only boys of sixteen or eighteen. In a few weeks
they are considered eligible, and placed on the
roster for court-martial duty, when they can
know nothing about the regulations, or the
articles of war. As the sentence to be awarded
is first given by the junior member, and so on
upwards, the absurd severity of some sentences
need not be wondered at.

Sir Robert Wilson, whose authority is of the
best, says rightly, that, "The judgment of a
regimental court-martial does not interpose a
sufficient check upon the severity of some
commanding-officers. Young men are allowed to be
members who have never considered the moral
effects of punishment; they are familiarised to
severity by the recorded instances of their
predecessors; they are instructed to consider
particular offences as forcing de se a precise award
without the consideration of a man's previous
character .... they too frequently assemble
without a thought upon the important trust
committed to them; they hear with levity, and
decide without reflection."

There was a case in India that will show
how true this is. In 1848, Private Gallaghan,
Tenth Hussars, a man of irreproachable
character, was confined for insubordination; the
facts were clearly proved, and he was sentenced
to some months' imprisonment. No sooner was
his time expired, than he was again confined on
a similar charge, found "guilty," and again
awarded imprisonment. On his release,
precisely the same thing occurred again,
insubordination, with the same result. Immediately
after the third term of imprisonment he again
committed himself, and then at last it was
discovered that the poor fellow had been all along
insane. About a week before the commission
of the first offence, Gallaghan, with some others,
had been ordered to take a drunken man of the
name of Howard to the guard-room: a ruffian
at any time, but a most dangerous ruffian when
drunk. He had seized poor Gallaghan, and
thrown him heavily on the head. He fell with
his head on a door-step, was taken up insensible,
was in hospital for a few days only, and came
out apparently all right, but in reality with his
skull fractured. The acts of insubordination,
the courts-martial, and the imprisonment
followed. It never appeared to strike any of the
members of the court, chiefly officers of his own
corps, who knew the man, that it was strange
for a man hitherto of exemplary conduct, and
mostly quiet and inoffensive, all at once, and
without provocation, to become one of the most
desperate characters in the regiment. Not a
man on the court had used his brains.

Let us not be misunderstood. We have the
warmest respect for military officers, and most
heartily esteem their noble sense of duty. The
objections to courts-martial that we have here
recorded, do not for a moment imply that we
in the least doubt there being great numbers of
men who bring honour and tender conscience to
the court-martial table. The army has its
Clydes as well as its solemn and absurd
martinets. How many fine, true-hearted, conscientious
bits of duty made up the sum of Lord
Clyde's simple and heroic life! Let us listen to
the noble and wise rebuke of his to a court-martial
in which the Commander-in-Chief righted
the scales of justice for an unconsidered private
in the ranks. The letter tells its story for itself:

"Adjutant-General's Office, Allahabad,
21st December, 1858.
"The Commander-in-Chief has under his
consideration the proceedings of a court-martial