It is difficult to take a cool, dispassionate view of this affair; our sympathies are naturally with the young lieutenant, but we must endeavour to be just. No one can find fault with the officers of the 64th for writing such a letter: to a soldier reputation is everything; and the fair fame of a regiment, like that of a woman, if once lost can never be regained. Every regiment in the service has its distinctive character, as much as every soldier who belongs to it; it was clearly, therefore, the duty of the officers of the 64th to protest against a measure which reflected on them and the soldiers under their command. Their silence would have been a tacit admission that there was ground for such reflections; their protest was a natural appeal against them. We have the sincerest respect for the memory of General Havelock: no one can read his life, or trace his career, without being convinced that he was a good man and a gallant soldier. This conviction, however, does not imply that he was perfect, or exempt from those weaknesses to which the very best men are subject. A father is always liable to the charge of partiality when judging of the merits of his own son, and is often blinded by paternal affection to the actual merits of the case. It would be improper for him to form one of a jury while his son was being tried, much more so to sit upon the bench as the presiding judge. This was the position which General Havelock occupied on this occasion, and we must not blame him too much if, in his anxious desire to do justice to his son, he inadvertently failed to do justice to Major Stirling, and the officers and men of the 64th Regiment. He acknowledges that Lieutenant Havelock placed himself on his horse in front of the centre of the 64th, and that he did so without any orders from him. He admits the fact: the only question is, was he justified in doing so? If the regiment had been repulsed, or had hesitated to carry out the orders they had received, any officer of the staff would have been justified in taking the command, and in leading them on to victory. It has never been attempted to be shown that such was the case. The 64th were steadily advancing under the command of Major Stirling, when Lieutenant Havelock, acting on the impulse of the moment, rushed forward and placed himself at their head. The general, in his telegram, contrasts the position occupied by Major Stirling with that occupied by his son:—“Major Stirling, commanding the regiment, was in front, dismounted; but the lieutenant continued to move steadily on in front of the regiment, at a foot pace, on his horse.” It is unfortunate that he should have omitted to state that Major Stirling was dismounted because his horse had been wounded by the bursting of a shell; there would thus have been no ground for the suspicion that he was dismounted from choice, and not from necessity. It may be that the general was ignorant of this fact; but he ought to have ascertained why