N.B. The Ordnance Corps, Household Brigade, Military Train, and Marines are not included in this list.

The following corps have also been omitted:

Those like the Royal Irish Artillery, always on the Irish Establishment-the Irish Brigade being the only exception.

Those like the Hanoverian and Hessian Troops, and certain corps of American Provincials in 1778-83, which were subject to special arrangements as to pay, and not included in the English Army List.

Those formed out of portions of other regiments for temporary purposes, as Depot or provisional Battalions, &c.

Those raised under the different Militia and Volunteer Acts both at home and in the colonies.

COMMENTS ON THE NAVAL ARTICLES OF WAR.

(With Memorandum on the American Bill of Costs.)

BY TRISTRAM.

The Navy, in its various ramifications, has happily been greatly improved under its present administration, aud in one particular of national importance that of the several amendments in the Naval Articles of War, modernized by Act of Parliament to the title of "The Naval Discipline Act," yet by the heading of Part I, still denominated" Articles of War," of which there are in the new Code 95, in seven parts, viz. Part 1. "Articles of War," from 1 to 42. Part II. "General Provisions," 43 to 47. Part III. Regulations as to Punishments," 48 to 53. Part IV. "CourtsMartial, 54 to 65. Part V. Penal Servitude and Prisons," 66 to 79. Part VI. "Supplemental Provisions," 80 to 92. And Part VII." Saving Clause," from 93 to 95.

It may be considered presumptuous in an individual officer to submit his comments on the several amendments in the "Naval Discipline Acts" passed since 1860 for the Government of Her Majesty's Forces by Sea, after having been prepared by the Lords of the Admiralty, and revised by the Law Officers of the Crown. There may, however, be points which have escaped notice, and require amendment, in order to perfect a code, so that no misconstruction could possibly arise in the true intent and meaning of any one word in its 95 Articles.

During many years, Tristram has exercised his opinion on Naval subjects to benefit the Navy in general, in the columns of the United Service Magazine. The imperious necessity of amending the old Naval Articles of War of 1749, urged him to submit several papers in that periodical to prove that the antiquated Code required important revision suitable to a more civilized age, and the great improvement of the seafaring classes in the Royal and Mercantile fleets of Great Britain, and her vast over-sea dominions; and when the first draft of the Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Government of the Navy was in circulation, he was favoured with an interview by a distinguished Flag-officer then in office, since deceased, to whom it was submitted, that words in the several clauses of "Misconduct in the presence of the enemy," could be inserted to the effect that, it is the duty of every person in the fleet to engage the enemy, whether afloat in ships, or ashore in forti fications; but the result of that interview was the insertion of only the word "any" before the word "action" in the first line of the 4th Article.

"An Act to amend the Laws relating to the Government of the Navy," was passed the "28th August, 1860."

"An Act for the Government of the Navy, 6th August, 1861."

"An Act to make provision for the Discipline of the Navy, 29th July, 1864;" and " An Act to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 5th July, 1865."

To elucidate where the additional words are required in order to make it the bounden duty of every person in the fleet to engage the enemy ashore as well as afloat, let us copy the 2nd Article of War, and place in brackets the words to be introduced.

"Misconduct in the presence of the enemy."

"2. Every Flag-officer, Captain, Commander, or Officer commanding, subject to this Act, who, "upon signal," (or orders) "of battle" (with an enemy afloat, or ashore)" or on sight of a ship (or ships) of an enemy which it may be his duty to engage shall not use his utmost to bring his ship into action, &c.

The words, or orders, are indispensable after the word, "signal," as a commanding officer, of whatever rank, may receive orders to battle with the enemy-where a signal is not made, or to be seen;-the words, with an enemy afloat or ashore, after the word "battle" would be indicative of his duty to engage the enemy's defences, or forces on shore; and the words " or ships," after the word " ship" would point out, that it is his duty to fight a ship, or ships, according to the strength of his armament, the number of his fleet, or squadron, or the size of his ship and his true British courage. By that Act of Parliament no traitorous, or cowardly, offender could be punished for not engaging more than one ship.

The 3rd Article is obviously applicable "to pursue the chase of any enemy, pirate, or rebel, beaten or flying" (afloat), for the officer in command cannot chase a castle, or other fortification, and if he beats either, one or the other, it cannot fly from him; and to "relieve and assist a known friend in view to the utmost of his power," evidently apply to the ship of a known friend in view, &c. and not to a friend, or ally, with whom he may be cooperating against the enemy, pirate, or rebel on shore.

If, after the word "action" in the 4th Article, the words in brackets were inserted, there could be then no doubt that the naval forces would be, by law, bound to engage the enemy ashore as afloat, viz:

"4th. When any action" (with the enemy afloat or ashore) "or any service is commanded, every person subject to this act, who shall presume to delay, or discourage the said action, or service, upon any pretence whatsoever, or in the presence, or vicinity, of the enemy shall desert his post, or sleep upon his watch, shall suf fer death, or such other punishment as is herein-after mentioned."

Also, if the words in brackets were inserted after the word "action" in the 5th Article, then no flaw in the indictment, or lawyer's quibble, could save the life of a traitor, or a coward, in action, with an enemy, pirate, or rebel, on shore.

"Every person subject to this act, and not being a commanding

officer, who shall not use his utmost exertions to carry the orders of his superior officers into execution when ordered to prepare for action," (with the enemy, pirate, or rebel afloat, or on shore), "or during the action, shall, if he has acted traitorously, suffer death; or such other punishment as is herein-after mentioned; and if he has acted from negligence, or through other default, be dismissed from Her Majesty's service with disgrace, or such other punishment as is herein-after mentioned."

And with reference to the 3rd Article, "to pursue the chase, of any enemy, pirate, or rebel, beaten or flying," of course, afloat, let the following question, for no other reason, than just for the fun of the answer, be submitted to the Crown Lawyers, or Serjeantsat-Law-but not to the Corporals-at-Law, the attorneys-Tristram having been entitled to the stripes of a Serjeant-at-sea-law since his authorship of the article "Magnanimity of Mind essential to Naval Command." By any clause in the Naval Discipline Act, under heading, "Misconduct in the presence of the enemy," could any person on board of the gun-boat, which shelled the he and she black rebels on shore in an island in the West Indies-be tried by Naval Court-Martial, under the 5th Article of War, for "any misconduct in action" against those savages in arms on shore, taking the context of the 2nd and 3rd Articles of War, by its true intent and meaning-which can only apply to action with the enemy, pirate, or rebel afloat, decidedly by the 3rd Article of War?

The latter part of the 42nd Article of War was enacted to take in all offences therein enumerated, committed by any person subject to the said Act, viz., "and for all offences herein specified under the headings "misconduct in the presence of the enemy," communications with the enemy," "neglect of duty," mutiny," "insubordination," "desertion and absence without leave," or "miscellaneous offences," if committed by any person subject to this Act at any place on shore, whether in or out of the said United Kingdom, the offender may be tried and punished under this Act." It is, therefore evident, that the 3rd Article of War was enacted for the penalty of misconduct in forbearing "to pursue the chase of any enemy, pirate or rebel,"―afloat.

The commander of the gunboat, his officers and crew, did what all others would do, without a thought of the law or the prophets, assist known friends in view, the soldiers on shore, to the utmost of their power, by sending successively three shells point-blank, "to pursue the chase of the enemy, the rebels beaten or flying," until beyond the range of the shells, or a hill between them and the gunboat.

This question originates another. Could any person under the naval lieutenant in command of the battalion of seamen and marines, co-operating with the military forces on shore against

Vide United Service Magazine, June, 1843.

the rebels in arms, be tried by any one of the Articles of War, from 2 to 5 inclusive, under the heading, "misconduct in the presence of the enemy," when in four of those Articles of War, the duty of a commanding officer of any one of Her Majesty's ships is confined to the engaging of any enemy afloat, and not against any enemy, pirate or rebel in a fortification or any place on land, shore, rock, or shelf.

One word may defeat the legitimate intention of several Articles of War, and by a flaw in the indictment, clear an offender of treachery, cowardice, negligence, or other default in action, ashore or afloat, at a critical moment, when his loyalty, bravery, zeal and skill night have been of the utmost consequence to the honour of his country's standard, the safety of his ship, and the lives of his comrades in actual fight with the enemy, armed rebels,* armed mutineers and pirates-and that word is "Ship."

Let us take the Articles of War, seriatim, wherein the word ship" or "ships" is inserted, when either word is intended to apply also to a vessel or vessels, or any craft belonging to Her Majesty, but without a "supplemental provision" being enacted expressive of such intention. In the draft of the bill to amend the laws relating to the Government of the Navy, presented by the Duke of Somerset, and ordered to be printed 29th of June, 1860, the "supplemental provision" is actually made, viz: "Ship shall include any boat, raft, or other vessel."

It is, therefore, singular that so important a "supplemental provision" should have been omitted in the Naval Discipline Act of 1860, in the draft for the amendment of that Act, 4th June, 1861, in the Act 6th August, 1861, in the Act 29th July 1864, and in the recent Act to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1864. [5th July, 1865.]

The consequences which may arise by the word "ship" only being named in the 2nd Article of War have been already suggested, we will proceed to the Article enacting

"Penalty for civilians endeavouring to seduce from allegiance.”

"18. Every person not otherwise subject to this Act who being on board any ship of Her Majesty, shall endeavour to seduce from his duty or allegiance to Her Majesty any person subject to this Act, shall so far as respects such offence be deemed a person subject to this Act, and shall suffer death or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."

Suppose a Fenian from Yankee land, or the Emerald Isles was caught in flagrante delicto seducing any person subject to the present Naval Discipline Act of 29th July, 1864, on board any vessel, but a "ship" of Her Majesty, viz: brig, schooner, cutter or gun-boat, floating-battery, mortar-vessel or rocket-boat, steamtug, water-tank or floating factory, anchor-hoy, mooring-lighter

* Vide Article of War.