in the carriage; and to-day, when she saw me in
the street, and stopped me to ask how Corda
was, I could not get rid of the impression that
I had known her long ago. Well, it don't much
matter. It's pretty clear I never have seen her.
As to long ago, why, she wasn't born long
ago."

And then Mr. Trescott also betook himself to
his rest, and Number Twenty-three, New Bridge-
street, Hammerham, was wrapped in slumber.

IN A FRENCH BARRACK-YARD.

FRENCH regiments do not consist, as most of
ours do, of one battalion from seven hundred
to nine hundred strong; but of three battalions,
each of which is divided into eight companies,
having a complete organisation in itself. The
cadre, or staff, of each company never varies.
It consists of a captain, a lieutenant, a sub-
lieutenant, a sergeant-major, four sergeants, and
four corporals. But the strength of the company
itself depends upon circumstances. The
weakest companies which existed in the days of
Louis Philippe, numbered as low as fifty-six;
the companies were strongest during the Crimean
war; when, at one time, they numbered two
hundred men each. Thus a French regiment is
elastic, and may be increased or diminished in
strength without any augmentation of officers in
the first case, or placing of them upon half-pay
in the second, as we are obliged to do in the
English army. A regiment which I saw much of,
numbered about one hundred men in every
company, so that each battalion was eight hundred
strong; and the three battalions formed a regiment
of two thousand four hundred men, quite
a force of itself, and fully equal in numbers to
a brigade of infantry in the English army.

This, the French, formation of regiments is
superior to our plan of having every battalion
a distinct corps, and is more economical to the
public. These three battalions had for their field-
officers one colonel, who commanded, and was
responsible for the whole regiment; one
lieutenant-colonel, who, as the name of his rank
implies, took the place of the colonel in the absence
of the latter, and assisted him in every way—
the chief's other self. Below these there were
the three commandants, or chefs de bataillon—
whom we call majors—each having the entire
supervision and command of his own battalion,
and responsible to the colonel for its discipline,
just as each captain commanded and was entirely
responsible for the discipline of his company.
This was the number of field-officers required
for a regiment of two thousand four hundred
men, which might have been augmented in time
of need to four thousand, without any increase
of officers. In the English army, instead of
one colonel, one lieutenant-colonel, and three
majors, we require, for three battalions, three
colonels,* three lieutenant-colonels, and six
majors; so that in an army of one hundred and
fifty thousand or two hundred thousand men,
the expenses of our system is very much greater
than those of the French. Our infantry of the
line consists of about a hundred and forty
battalions. The field-officers of this force
comprise a hundred and forty colonels, the same
number of lieutenant-colonels, and two hundred
and eighty majors. But if our regiments were
increased, or amalgamated into corps of three
battalions each, we should require only about
forty-seven colonels, the same number of
lieutenant-colonels, and a hundred and forty majors;
saving the pay and allowances of nearly two-
thirds of the colonels, the same number of
lieutenant-colonels, and of half the majors we now
employ, to say nothing of two-thirds of our
paymasters, quartermasters, and regimental bands.
It is therefore not to be wondered at if, as I
brought to public notice in this periodical some
years ago,* the French pay half a million sterling
less than we do, for four times our number of
men and seven times our number of horses.

* In our army the colonel's office is a sinecure,
with heavy pay.
*See MILITARY MISMANAGEMENT, vol. x.,
page 352.

The French have some corps which consist of
a single battalion. The Chasseurs à Pied and
the Chasseurs Indigènes, or Turcos, are thought
to be more handy in small than in large bodies.
But they have neither colonels nor lieutenant-
colonels. They are not called regiments, but
battalions, and have but a single chef de batallion,
or major, to command them. With us
they would each have a colonel, a lieutenant-
colonel, and two majors—four field-officers.

This mode of forming regiments keeps in readiness,
always fit for duty, a much larger body of
men movable at a moment's notice. Every
military man must know how much quicker and
easier—with how very much less pen, ink, and
paper—say ninety men, under one captain, and
belonging to one company, can be moved than
three detachments of thirty men each, from three
distinct corps, and under three different officers.
It is the same with larger bodies of men. The
deputy adjutant-general or the deputy quartermaster-
general of any military district could move
a battalion of nine hundred men with about a
third of the trouble than it would take to get
three detachments of three hundred men each,
from three different corps, under way. The
reason is obvious to all who have served. In
the same battalion, or regiment, the men are
under the same command, are governed by
the same discipline, and have but one leader
to look to. The French therefore make
their corps as large as is consistent with
the supervision of the one superior officer,
the colonel of the regiment. In the field, the
advantages of their system over ours are
immense. If we wanted, say, two thousand five
hundred men to go on service, we should have
to club together three distinct corps, form them
into a brigade, appoint a brigadier-general, a
brigade-major, and make sundry other temporary
appointments. The three regiments may be