horseback, and to accompany the king wherever he went. In return he was to receive yearly forty marks, or pounds, to be paid at the rate of ten marks every quarter. He was allowed also twelve pennies per day as subsistence money, and each of his archers had twenty marks a year, and six pennies daily for subsistence. The chief army surgeon, Morstede, was engaged with fifteen men, three of whom were to be archers, and the remaining twelve surgeons. He received also ten pounds quarterly as pay, and twelve pennies daily for subsistence. His archers and surgeons were placed on an equal footing; each was to receive quarterly five pounds, and six pennies daily as subsistence. Both Colnet and Morstede could receive prisoners and plunder; but when the latter amounted to more than twenty pounds in value, a third part of it was to be given to the king. Both these head-men got a quarter's pay in advance; and that they might always have security for the next quarter, the king engaged to put into their hands, by way of pledge, as many jewels or other articles as might be equivalent to one quarter's pay and subsistence. The Rev. Walter Harte, in his Life of Gustavus Adolphus,* seems to believe that this prince first appointed four surgeons to each regiment, which • According to the German Translation, Leipzig 1761. 4to. ii. P. viii. he reduced from the number of two or three thousand, first to 1200, and afterwards to 1008; and he is of opinion, that it may with certainty be believed that the imperial troops at that time had no surgeons, because Tilly himself, after the battle at Leipsic, was obliged to cause his wounds to be dressed by a surgeon established at Halle. He adds, in a note, that he was told that the Austrians, till about the year 1718, had no regimental surgeons regularly appointed. However this may be, it is certain that the field hospital establishments of the imperial army, till the beginning of the eighteenth century, were on a very bad footing. Even in the year 1718, they had no field surgeons; but at this period the company surgeons were dismissed, and a regimental surgeon, with six assistants, was appointed to each regiment; and besides the field medicine chest, surgical instruments were provided at the emperor's expense.* The establishment of field hospitals in Germany is certainly much older; for Fronsperger, who wrote in the middle of the sixteenth century, does not speak of field surgeons, army surgeons, and their servants, as if they had been then newly in See Hoyers Geschichte der Kriegskunst, Göttingen 1799. 8vo. ii. p. 176; the author of which refers to C. F. von Khevenhillers Observationspunkte bey dem ihm anvertraucten Dragoner-Regiment, Wien. 1734. 4to. troduced; but in such a manner as shows that the need of them had been generally acknowledged long before that period.* According to his statement, it was necessary that there should be along with the commander-in-chief, or according to the modern phrase, the general staff, a field surgeon in chief, a doctor who had the inspection of the field surgeons, the barbers, and their servants, whose duty was to drag the wounded from the heaps of slain, and to convey them to the former. He was obliged to keep by him instruments and medicines, and at each mustering to examine the instruments and apparatus of the field surgeons; he decided also, in disputed cases, how much soldiers whose wounds had been cured ought to pay to the field surgeon. During marches he was bound to remain with the commander-in-chief. Fronsperger says also, that there ought to be with the artillery a field surgeon of arckelley, and with each company a particular field --- * The title of the book is, Kriegsbuch, erster Theil. Von Kaiserlichem Kriegsrechten, Malefiz und Schuldthändlen -- durch Leonhart Fronsperger. Ander Theil. Von Wagenburgk umb die Veldleger. The author calls himself a citizen of Ulm, and provisioner to his imperial majesty. He says, in a notice prefixed to the second part, which was printed for the first time at Franckfort, 1573, that the first was printed there in 1565, by George Raben, at the expense of Sigismund Feyrabends. That this was the first edition is proved also by the date of the first part, January 2, 1565. Of the first part I possess a Franckfort edition of 1571, folio. The passage I have quoted is found here, i. p. 53 and 85. There is no edition of 1555 and 1557, as is said in the additions to Hoyers Geschichte der Kriegskunst, i. p. 25. surgeon, not however a paltry beard-scraper (bartscherer), but a regularly instructed, experienced, and well-practised man. This person was bound always to accompany, with able servants, the ensign, and he received double pay. COCK-FIGHTING. Ar present, the English are almost the only people among whom cock-fighting is a favourite amusement; and on that account it is considered as peculiar to them, though it was esteemed among various nations many centuries ago. It is not improbable that it was first introduced into England by the Romans. That it, however, has been constantly retained there, though the practice of inciting animals to fight has been long scouted by moral and enlightened nations, is as singular an anomaly, as that the Spaniards should still continue their bull-fights, and that princes who wish to avoid the appearance of cruelty should nevertheless pursue, with immoderate passion, the detestable and so often condemned hunting with dogs. I shall leave to others the task of moralising on these contradictions in the character of whole nations as well as individuals, and shall here only give the history of cock-fighting as far as I am acquainted with it. This pastime is certainly very old; but I agree in opinion with Mr. Pegge,* that Palmerius† has made it much older than can fully be proved. The latter supposes that Adrastus, the son of Midas, king of Phrygia, killed his brother in consequence of a quarrel which took place between them in regard to a battle of quails. Adrastus on account of this murder fled to Croesus; and as that prince lived about 550 years before the Christian æra, quail-fighting, according to the opinion of Palmerius, must have been customary at that time: and in this case one might admit that cockfighting was of the same antiquity, because the battles of the domestic cock are still more violent, and can afford more amusement. Herodotus,‡ who relates the story of Adraštus, does not mention the cause of the quarrel; but it is given by the historian Ptolemy, the son of Hephestion, called also Alexandrinus, who lived about the time of Trajan and Adrian. He however only says In the Archæologia, by the Society of Antiquaries of London, vol. iii. p. 132: A Memoir on Cock-fighting, by Samuel Pegge, M. A. Rector of Wittington. As this learned antiquary, whose works are mentioned in Reutz Gelehrtem England, made use of what was collected by others on this subject, I have taken the same liberty with his paper; but in the like manner have rectified some mistakes, made new additions, and arranged the whole in my own way. Jac. Palmerii Exercitationes in auctores Græcos. Ultraj. 1694. p. 21. Græcis. Lugd. Bat. 1651. 4to. lib. ii. m this book of Ptolemy, περὶ παράδοξαν |