The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-10 00:00:00

to expose him to the derision of his brother officers, and
of the men under his command."
Afier some further observations, the same able docu-
ment goes on to say :—" Such practices cannot be per-
mitted ; they must be repressed ; for they are degrading
to the character of an officer. They render him unfit to
command his men, for they cannot feel for him that rc••
spect which is the only basis of enduring authority.
They render him unfit to associate with his brother offi-
cers, who must hold him in contempt, if they have not.
themselves sunk as low as not to shrink from contact
with men of such coarse vulgarity. It can never be en•
dured that the names of brother officers should fall below
the standard recognised by gentlemen."
In another portion of the same document—which, be
' it remembered, is put into the hands of every officer
entering the service as the code of laws by which his
coilduct is to be regulated— we a!so find the following
passage :

"It would be a fatal mistake to infer that because
duelling has been prohibited, that any lower standard of
morals would be tolerated i❑ the British army. The
language and behaviour which formerly were held to jus-
tify a challenge, must, therefore, be visited by the re-
moval of the offender from the society of which he has
shown himself to be an unworthy member. Every as-
sistance and support will be given to a young officer in
his endeavours to avoid rendering himself liable to these
consequences."

The document further calls attention to an appendix,
in which we find a letter of instruction emanating from
the Judge Advocate General's Office, signed "J.
Nichol," and countersigned by the late Commander
in Chief, who expresses his perfect concurrence in its
statements. The letter contains the following pas.

sage : _
"An officer who allows the stigma of dishon-
ourable conduct to rest upon him—who passes over
without notice an insult cffered to him—is liable him-
self to be brought to trial before a court-martial ;
not because he declines to fight a duel, but because,
having failed to obtain speedy atonement through
intervention of mutual friends, or by other lawful
means he neglects to report the matter to his command.
ing officer, and thereby invite a searching investigation
into his character and conduct. By such neglect he
seems either to acquiesce in the justice of the imputation
cast upon him and to admit that there is something in
his conduct which he tears to lay before honourable men
or to show that, regardless of his own reputation and
honour, he knows not what is becoming the character cf
an officer and a gentleman ; and that, indifferent to the
peace and order of the regiment, he is unmindful of the
rules of military discipline. His conduct then becomes
a proper subject of inquiry and adjudication before a
court-martial."
Such are the facts, so far as we can learn, of the re.
cent transactions at Brighton, and such are the regula-
tions laid down by the Horse Guards for the governance
of gentlemen entering the army as officers. Should our
inforaiation be authentic, of which we see no reason to

doubt, there can be but one opinion as to the course
which ought to be pursued towards the offenders. It re-
mains for the court-martial to hold the even balance be-
tween the accuser and the accused ; but unless we are
grievously misled, the evidence to be adduced at the
forthcoming inquiry will reveal the existence of a state of
things amongst the "officers arld gentlemen" of the
British army for which, notwithstandirg all that has
transpired, the public are by no means prepared.