HISTORY

OF THE

ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY.

VOL. II.

HISTORY
OF THE
ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY.
COMPILED FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORDS.

By CAPTAIN FRANCIS DUNCAN, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.,
ROYAL ARTILLERY.
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY REGIMENTAL RECORDS;
FELLOW OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,
AND OF THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY.

“L’histoire de l’Artillerie est l’histoire du progrès des sciences, et partant de la civilisation.”
Napoleon III. Chislehurst, Nov. 22, 1872.
VOLUME II.
WITH A FRONTISPIECE.

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1873.
The right of Translation is reserved.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

TO
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
FIELD-MARSHAL THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE,
K.G., G.C.B., K.P., G.C.M.G.,
COLONEL OF THE ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY,

THIS

HISTORY OF ITS SERVICES

IS RESPECTFULLY, AND BY PERMISSION,
DEDICATED BY
THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

Unforeseen circumstances having arisen since the publication of the First Volume of this work, which rendered it possible that the Author might be unable to complete the narrative while holding the appointment of Superintendent of the Regimental Records, it has become necessary to modify the original plan. There were two alternatives,—either to compress the history between 1783 and the present date into one volume, sacrificing many matters of minor interest,—or to write, as fully as in the former volume, the history of a period additional to that already treated of, leaving the subsequent years and their campaigns to be described either by the Author’s successor, or by himself at some future time. After consultation with some of the senior officers of the Corps, the latter alternative has been adopted; and the addition of certain statistical tables, and of a copious index to both volumes, will, it is hoped, render the work, as far as it goes, a complete one. Unless anticipated by an abler pen, the Author does not despair of being able to avail himself at some future time of the continued access to the Regimental Records, now systematically arranged, which has been promised to him by the Deputy Adjutant-General of the Corps,—with a view to compiling narratives of the War in the Crimea, and of the Indian Mutiny.

The almost unanimously kind reception given to the first volume, not only by the press, but to a most cheering extent by his brother officers, demands the Author’s grateful acknowledgments. It has encouraged him in the labours, the results of which are now submitted to the public; and has satisfied him that he did not err in the estimate he placed upon a Regimental History, as a means of awakening and intensifying esprit de corps.

CONTENTS OF VOL. II.

INTRODUCTION.

Having in the Preface stated the plan of this volume, it is incumbent on the Author now to acknowledge, with gratitude, the assistance he has received during its execution. Acting on a suggestion made by one of the reviewers of the first volume, he has noted in the margin the various authorities on which the narrative is based; and, as in many instances these are manuscript letters in the Record Office, he has given the dates of such,—to facilitate access to them by any one anxious to obtain information in detail.

Among those to whom the Author is chiefly indebted, Sir Collingwood Dickson—for the reason stated in the body of the work—stands first. Not only the Author, but the Regiment at large, is indebted to him for the generous confidence with which he entrusted the letters and journals of his distinguished father to the writer of this history. The labours of Captain G. E. W. Malet, R.A.—so visible in the tables at the end of this volume—demand the next place in the Author’s acknowledgment;—and the Reader will be able to judge how great has been the value, to this narrative, of the published writings of Captain H. W. L. Hime, R.A.

Sir J. Bloomfield, Sir E. C. Warde, Sir D. E. Wood, General Burke Cuppage, Major-Generals W. J. Smythe and C. J. B. Riddell, Colonel Lynedoch Gardiner, Major H. Geary, and Lieutenant J. Ritchie, have contributed valuable information connected with the history of the Regiment to which they belong, and have greatly facilitated the Author’s labours. The assistance of Sir Edward Perrott, and of Captain H. W. Gordon, C.B., is also gratefully acknowledged.

To Mr. James Browne, the author of ‘England’s Artillerymen’ a double debt is owing. His labour produced the Index to the first volume; and his published work has been a mine of reference, the value of which became more apparent, the more it was explored. Written without the adventitious aids at the disposal of the custodian of the Regimental Records, it is yet so exhaustive and accurate, that, when admiration of it has ceased, it is only because that feeling has passed into envy.

The admirable Index to the present volume is due to the skill, ability, and industry, eminently possessed by the Assistant-Superintendent in the Record Office, R. H. Murdoch, Esq., R.A. These talents were generously placed at the Author’s disposal, with a view to this work being made as complete as possible.

The conducting a work of this description through the press,—although the last occupation in point of time,—is not the least in point of importance. Careful comparison with the MSS.,—much patient and merely mechanical labour,—and watchfulness, lest errors of style should be overlooked in the anxiety to secure rigid accuracy, or lest the latter should be sacrificed to attempts at literary embellishment,—all these are involved in the process. And all these have been displayed by one who has assisted in this operation,—the Rev. G. Martyn Ritchie, Chaplain to the Forces, whose services the Author acknowledges with gratitude.

Not unfrequently the official letter-books differ from Kane’s List of Officers in the spelling of proper names. Where the correct reading is doubtful, that found in the letter-books is given in the body of the work, and both are given in the Index.

History moves so rapidly, that even while this work has been in the press, a slight alteration in the pay of the non-commissioned officers and men of the Regiment has been made, making the rates given in the following pages as those of the year 1873, accurate only up to the 1st of October in that year. The reader can with ease make the requisite corrections.

HISTORY
OF THE
ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY.

CHAPTER I.
Reaction.

Reaction and retrenchment followed the Peace signed at Versailles in 1783; and with them came dullness and despondency in the Regiment. Until 1787, when the state of France caused universal alarm in Europe, and preparations for possible hostilities already commenced in England, the prospects of promotion had been most disheartening. During the American War, a large number of subaltern officers had been appointed by the Generals serving with the English armies, and it was found, in 1783, that in this respect the establishment of the Regiment had been considerably exceeded. With somewhat distorted ideas of justice, it was ruled that the pay of the supernumeraries should be provided by means of stoppages from the officers of all ranks on the proper establishment, and that no new appointments should be made until all the supernumeraries had been absorbed,—an event which did not take place until the 14th February, 1786.

Dullness, therefore, reigned during these years in the Warren at Woolwich,—dullness in the Academy,—dullness in foreign stations, where the detachments were at times forgotten altogether,—and dullness the most stupendous in the offices of His Majesty’s Ordnance.

Uneventful, however, as this period of the Regimental History undoubtedly was, it possesses to the student a peculiar interest. Its domestic details invite attention, as representing the transition stage of the Regiment from a past which had been glorious, to a future which was to be more glorious still,—the last act, so to speak, of a drama in which Artillery meant many things, but rarely implied mobility; and a breathing-time, which admitted of much internal organisation being perfected, which had been forgotten or overlooked in the midst of war.

In the years between 1783 and 1792 there was much to interest, much to amuse, and not a little to cause pain; but the details, although necessary to be told, are wholly domestic.

The strength of the Regiment remained until 1791 at four Service Battalions, each consisting of ten companies, and ten companies of invalids. In March 1791, two additional companies were formed for service in the East Indies, but they belonged to no particular Battalion. The companies, which had been reduced to a minimum in 1783, were raised to a greater establishment in 1787, a year in which recruiting on a considerable scale was ordered, and never was wholly suspended until after Waterloo. The bounty allowed to each R. A. Reg^l. Orders.recruit was five guineas.1

The promotion consequent on the formation of the East India Companies mentioned above was as follows:—1 Major, 3 Captains, 5 Captain-Lieutenants, and 9 First Lieutenants.

On the reduction in 1783, all men who were eligible were transferred to the invalids, or to the out-pension list; and men who were not entitled to that privilege, but who were ordered to be discharged on reduction, received donations:—“If M. S. Reg^l. Orders. going to his home in Ireland, 38 days’ pay; to Scotland, 28 days’ pay; and if to any part of England, 14 days’ pay.”

Prior to the general recruiting in 1787, a special company of artificers was raised—in 1786—for service in Gibraltar. As these men were put under the officers of Engineers, a Royal Warrant was issued on the 25th April, 1787, to define the proper position of that Corps, the name of which was then changed from the Corps of Engineers to the Corps of Royal Engineers. The Warrant said: “Our said Corps of Royal Engineers shall rank in our Army with our Royal Regiment of Artillery; and whenever there shall be an occasion for them to take part with any other Corps of our Army, the post of the Royal Corps of Engineers shall be on the right with the Royal Regiment of Artillery, according to the respective dates and commissions of the officers belonging to the Royal Regiment of Artillery, and the Corps of Royal Engineers.”

The vagueness of this Royal Warrant, and the inconveniences which might arise from it, were not lost upon the officers of the senior Corps, who communicated their opinions to the Master-General through Colonel Macbean, the Commandant at Woolwich. On the 25th October, 1787, the Duke of Richmond, having taken His Majesty’s pleasure, replied: Duke of Richmond to Colonel F. Macbean. I have received the King’s commands to acquaint you that His Majesty only meant the said Warrant to relate to the circumstance when officers have occasion to parade by themselves without their men, for a funeral or any other military purpose; but that the directions contained in the said Warrant are not to be understood to authorize any officer of the Corps of Royal Engineers to take the command of any detachment of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, although he may be senior in rank to the oldest officer of the said detachment, unless such officer of the Corps of Royal Engineers should be the senior officer of the whole Garrison or Command, when, by virtue of his commission, he would of course take the command of the Royal Regiment of Artillery with that of other troops. I am further to signify to you His Majesty’s pleasure, that when any companies or detachments of Royal Military Artificers and Labourers are to take post, it is to be next to the Royal Regiment of Artillery, and upon their left. And the officers of the Corps of Royal Engineers are on such occasions to take post and fall in with such companies or detachments of Royal Military Artificers and Labourers.”

Prior to the raising of this question of precedence between the two Ordnance Corps, the general question of precedence over the rest of the Army had been raised at Gibraltar in 1783, owing to the Governor having directed the Artillery Guards to parade in the centre of the others, on general guard-mounting parades. The commanding officer of Artillery, Major Thomas Davies, having in vain protested, referred the matter to the Master-General, who ordered the four Colonels-Commandant of Battalions to assemble at Woolwich, and report to him on the origin of the privilege claimed and exercised by the Royal Artillery. The result was, that on the 1st July, 1784, the Secretary at War wrote to the War Office, 1/7/84, to Sir G. A. Eliott. Governor of Gibraltar as follows: “The Duke of Richmond having put into my hands your letter to him of the 24th February last, together with the papers it refers to, touching certain claims of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, first stated in a representation of the officer commanding that Corps at Gibraltar; and His Grace having desired me to take the King’s pleasure thereon, I have accordingly had the honour of submitting them to His Majesty, and am commanded to acquaint you, that as the privilege claimed by the Royal Artillery of taking the right upon all parades appears to have been acknowledged and confirmed by a Regulation given out in public orders to the Army by His Royal Highness the late Duke of Cumberland, when Commander-in-Chief; and, as that Regulation hath not yet been cancelled, His Majesty considers the same to be still in force, and is therefore pleased to direct that it shall be adhered to on all occasions, when the compliance with it will not be attended with material injury to the public service.”

Next in importance to these questions of precedence, among the Regimental events contained in the period of which this chapter treats, comes the formation of a Head-quarter office for the Regiment. Prior to 1783, each Battalion was ruled by its own Colonel-Commandant, wherever the companies might be serving; and details, which should have been under the control of the senior Artillery officer on the spot, were regulated from a distance. The Ordnance Office was, in one sense, a Head-quarter office for the Regiment; but a want existed of some one military and regimental channel through which the wants and correspondence of the Battalions might reach the Board. In a letter to Captain Macleod, who was the first to hold this much-needed office, the want was well expressed. “The Officer commanding R. A., Canada, to Captain Macleod, 7 Aug., 1783. officers and men of different Battalions, that generally compose commands of Artillery abroad, make the post of a Brigade-Major obviously useful to prevent a multiplicity of returns to different Battalions, which must often fall short of the information required at home. The enclosed return, for instance, will show that we have officers here without a knowledge of what Battalion they belong to.” The appointment of Captain—afterwards Sir John—Macleod was a very fortunate one. He was styled Brigade-Major, when appointed in 1783; and in 1795 the designation was altered to that of Deputy-Adjutant-General. In 1806 an Assistant-Adjutant-General was added to the office; and in 1859, a Deputy-Assistant-Adjutant-General. When Captain Macleod was first appointed, he was under the orders of the Commandant of Woolwich Garrison; but in a very short time he made himself so useful to the Master-General and the Board, and was so conversant with all those details which could not possibly be familiar to officers, who were so frequently changed, as the Commandants were in those days, that most of the Regimental correspondence soon passed direct between him and the Board. So delicate a position required great tact, and this quality Captain Macleod eminently possessed. Appearing to act under the orders of the Commandant, and courteously anticipating his wishes, he really was the mouthpiece of the Board in controlling the affairs of the Regiment. His correspondence is a masterpiece of courtesy, skill, and clearness. “The leading feature Memoir of Sir J. Macleod, ‘United Service Journal,’ July 1834. of his character was the confidence he inspired in others, and the unbounded trust they reposed in him; and thus, whether called upon for counsel, or to act under unforeseen or sudden emergencies of service, he was ever ready and prepared to meet its exigencies.... Of every soldier he made himself the friend. To his equals in rank he was a brother; to those beneath him a father in kindness and counsel; and to the private soldiers a benefactor, ever watching over their comfort and their welfare.... Throughout his long career he was never known to act with the slightest approach to severity; and yet he never failed to maintain discipline, to reprove fault, or to check irregularity. He animated zeal, excited energy, and aimed at perfecting discipline by always appealing to the better and nobler feelings that prevail with the soldier’s character.” An office, which, with an ordinary man, would have remained always subordinate, was raised by him so as to be the very centre of the Regimental life; and although there have been times in its history, when the progress and success of the Regiment have been rather in spite, than by means of it, these occasions have been rare; and—as in the case of the commencement of the Peninsular War—were forgotten in the exertions which followed them. In a Regiment so large, and so scattered, the value of some central organization, not merely for routine, but also for maintaining and encouraging esprit de corps, can hardly be overrated.

It has been said that Captain Macleod commenced to hold the new office, as a Brigade-Major. It may be added that the ideas of a Brigade-Major’s position were not exalted. From 1783 to 1790, Captain Macleod conducted all his business in one small room, shared by his clerks, two in number; but in 1790, offices having been provided for the Adjutants of the Battalions, who had hitherto been made to work together, the Brigade-Major was allowed the same privilege, and drew lots with the others—according to custom—for a separate apartment. In a long official correspondence, extending over a long lifetime, the only irritation displayed by Sir John Macleod was at the official delays of the Board for which he laboured. But, even then, his indignation took the form of gentle irony. Whether writing, as he did in the end of the year 1786, requesting that his travelling allowances for 1783 might be sent him with as little delay as possible, or reminding the Board of a demand for stationery sent in many months before, he was never disturbed into strong language. “I hope you will forgive me,” he wrote, To B. of Ordnance, 9 Dec., 1784. with reference to his last-named demand, “for begging you to give orders for its going through the different forms with as much expedition as possible, the stationery of last year being now entirely exhausted.” An amusing instance of his quiet way of answering criticism from underlings at the Ordnance occurred in 1785. Many people who had assisted the troops during the American War came to England, and generally applied for Government assistance. A negro, named James Buchanan, presented himself at the Ordnance, and requested assistance, on the plea that he had been employed during the war as a labourer with one of the companies on service. The case was referred to the Brigade-Major, who replied that no such man was to be found on the rolls of the men so employed. The man, still adhering to his statement, was told to go to Woolwich and endeavour to substantiate it. On doing so, he was at once recognized by Captain Macleod as a man who had done duty with his own company; and he reported accordingly.

The opportunity could not be resisted; and some official of the Board wrote an offensive demand for explanation of the contradictory statements made by the Brigade-Major. With quiet sarcasm, Captain Macleod wrote: “The Board will easily understand my inconsistency in disclaiming one day and acknowledging the next, when I inform them that their petitioner has acquired the name of James Buchanan, by being christened since his arrival in England.”

The dullness at the Board, consequent on the retrenchment which had to be practised, was cheered by the genial kindness of the Master-General, the Duke of Richmond, who displayed the greatest interest in the military branch, down to the humblest individual. To the student it is also varied by exasperating anecdotes, illustrating the perfection of official doubt and criticism. The return from America of the companies, many of whose men had been in prison at various periods during the war, offered admirable opportunities for the practice of virtues which were strongly represented at the Honourable Board. To a man landing at Woolwich, the sympathy of the Ordnance took the doubtful form of a peremptory order to refund, it might be, certain moneys which had been drawn for him while a prisoner of war,—their welcome home was a disallowance. As for the Captains of the returning companies, they were allowed no peace. No consideration was given on account of their men having been scattered over a whole continent; the same minuteness of detail, the same superabundance of vouchers for every charge, was demanded, as if their companies had never left Woolwich Warren. One Captain, unable to give the exact dates and sufficient proofs of the deaths of certain men, who had been killed on distant detachments, was rash enough to question the justice of such a demand, and to point out the difficulties in the way of its compliance. Misguided, miserable man! Little did he know the system of audit, which prevailed in the year of grace 1784. Argument was inadmissible; the full pound of flesh, in the form of vouchers and authorities, was insisted on by the official Shylocks; and if circumstances rendered this an absolute impossibility, their remedy was simple. Of this wretched Ordnance Letter-book, 1784. Captain, we read that “an order was sent to the agent to stop his pay until the sum of 223l. had been paid.”

In the correspondence of the period, this officer’s name does not appear again for some weeks,—but then in a startling manner. In a letter to the Commandant of Woolwich from the Surgeon of the 4th Battalion, we find that the ill-fated Captain “was so violent last night that I had to put a strait waistcoat on him.” Had he received notice of a fresh disallowance from his unfeeling auditors? This, indeed, does not appear; but from the fact that he had been perfectly sane before this correspondence, and recovered his sanity afterwards, it almost appears as if his reason had tottered under the admirable system of audit, which made no allowance, and would listen to no argument.

The consistency of these examiners was as admirable, as their pertinacity or their indifference. They were no less reluctant to part with money except on abundant evidence, than they were determined to have it refunded unless similar evidence could be shown for its retention. From the dull pages of the Brigade-Major’s letter-books we learn of a just and lawful claim made by a gunner on his return from New York. It does not appear that the claim was denied, but the line taken by the suspicious officials was to doubt the man’s identity. The difficulty of proving this may be imagined from what followed. The usual evidence which the man himself could produce was, like his assertion, scornfully rejected. A certificate from an officer under whom he had served, and who was then at Woolwich, was not considered sufficient, even when followed by a second and third of the same description, and from different officers. According to their own documents, the examiners said the man had died in New York; and they would hear of no resurrection. The matter reached the Commandant, who took it up warmly. A little alarmed, but not convinced, the auditors wrote to Bath to ask General Pattison, who had commanded at New York at the date of the man’s supposed death, whether it had not taken place. But they mistook their correspondent. He replied that he had no means of answering their question, but he added, “I should hope that certificates from three respectable officers, accompanied with a recommendation from the Commanding Officer of the Battalion, who I am very confident would not have offered any but on the very surest grounds, will be deemed sufficient vouchers of the poor man’s pretensions.” From the subsequent cessation of the correspondence, it is presumed that the claimant’s identity was at last admitted.

At no period of the Regiment’s history was the paternal rule of the Board more detailed, and more inclusive of the veriest trifles. The incessant references which had to be made by the Commandant, before he could make the slightest change in the Garrison, and the constant petty collisions between the civil and military departments, picture to the student an intolerable régime. Nor was the overbearing of the civilian officials confined to offensive correspondence. A story is handed down of a mighty servant of the Board, rejoicing in the title of “Clerk of the Cheque,” who paid periodical visits to Woolwich, and evinced his scorn for the military branch in every way. On one day, the Commandant had ordered the troops to parade for his inspection; and sentries were placed at various points to keep back the crowd of sightseers, which had assembled. Just as the Commandant came on the ground, a scuffle was observed taking place between a sentry and one of the crowd. The Garrison Sergeant-Major was sent to ascertain the cause; and on his arrival he found the Clerk of the Cheque insisting on his right to ignore any military control. The Sergeant-Major argued, but without success; the intruder said he was Clerk of the Cheque, and demanded admission. From verbal to physical persuasion was the next step; and both the military individuals flung themselves on their civil rival. It was without result; strong in the majesty of his office, the Clerk of the Cheque held his ground. The disturbance at length drew the Commandant himself to the spot, and he took up the discussion; and, like the Sergeant-Major, resorted to the argument of physical force. It was an awful moment; as he reads of it, the student’s blood runs cold; for the battle was now condensed into a fight for the superiority of the civil over the military branch of His Majesty’s Ordnance. And for the moment the Clerk of the Cheque prevailed:—pushing the Commandant on one side, he swaggered across the enclosure. But his triumph was short-lived; the matter was reported to the Master-General, who ordered the offender to proceed to Woolwich and make a public apology. Doubtless, however, he expiated the humiliation by some of the many ways of paper irritation, which he had at his disposal.

The delay in executing repairs and meeting demands was excessive. Twelve months were not considered too long a period to answer a requisition, and much longer was generally taken. A fence happened to require repair in front of the barracks, and its dangerous state was repeatedly pointed out by the Commandant. But not until years had passed and an officer had killed his horse, and broken his own collar-bone, did any steps occur to the Board to remedy it. Even then, while they were brooding, accidents continued, coming to a climax one night, when “the Chaplain, in walking General Cleaveland to B. of Ordnance. home, fell in and broke the principal ligament of his leg.”

A temporary chapel existed in the Warren, and, although the duties of the Chaplains will be discussed hereafter, it may be mentioned, while considering the Board’s delays, that in 1783 the Chaplain applied for “a cushion and furniture for the pulpit, a surplice, Bible and prayer-books, and a few hassocks, those in use having been purchased in 1753.”

After patiently waiting for four years, the Chaplain again sent in a demand, stating that it was impossible to use those he had any longer.

The procrastination of the Board led, as may be imagined, to many inconveniences. A company in the Bahamas was ordered to be in readiness to return to England, and no clothing was sent to it for the year 1784, as the Board Colonel Macbean to Master-General, Feb. 9, 1787. promised to make immediate arrangements for its transport; but 1784 passed, and also 1785, and then 1786, and no transport was forthcoming, nor was any clothing sent for these three years.

It is a relief, however, to turn from the Board and its shortcomings, and to study the purely Regimental details of the period. Tame, and uninteresting, as they may appear beside the terrible seedtime in France, where the dragon’s-teeth of discord, licence, and rebellion were being scattered, to bring forth a thirty years’ harvest in Europe of armed men, they cannot be passed by in any work pretending to tell the story of the Regiment. They speak of an interior economy which has utterly disappeared,—of a time which might fitly be called “the age of the Colonels-Commandant.” So completely honorary has that rank now become in the Regiment, that the exercise of one small piece of patronage—the nomination of the Brigade Adjutant and Quartermaster—is the only link which connects those who hold it with the active duties of the Corps.

On the 30th January, 1873, the Colonels-Commandant were invited to leave their retirement, and to meet their brother officers once again at the Regimental mess. This rare réunion formed a marked contrast to the days referred to in this chapter. Then, the Colonels-Commandant of the four Battalions were entitled to live in barracks in the Warren; and an attempt was made to place them on the same roster for duty as the Colonels. Thanks to the conscientious and far-seeing judgment of the officers who then held the rank, this order was cancelled. The following protest, submitted by them to the Master-General, will sufficiently explain the situation:—

“With respect to the proposition of the 1st and 2nd Colonels of the Battalion quartered at Woolwich to take the duty alternately of being always on the spot, and commanding there, we beg leave to say (if by 1st Colonel is meant Colonel-Commandant) that, as General Officers, we are under the necessity of dissenting from it. We wish to look up to your Grace as the guardian and protector, under our gracious Sovereign, of the Corps of Artillery, as well individually as collectively; and, therefore, as this measure would be derogatory thereto, we trust that your Grace, having condescended to ask our opinions, will be pleased to relinquish it. Your Grace is sensible that by the custom of the Army immemorially established, and confirmed by the Royal sanction, Colonels having the rank of General Officers are exempted from being stationary with their Regiments; and that, by a late regulation, even Lieut.-Colonels having the rank of Major-General are not required to be with their Regiments any further than they may judge necessary for becoming responsible for their being in good order and discipline, the care and command devolving upon the Major or senior Captain. However faint, my Lord, our prospects may be of deriving equal advantages with other General Officers, from the rank we have the honour to hold, we have yet every reason to believe and expect that the privileges annexed to it will be equally preserved to us. In the year 1773, the late Master-General was pleased to give an order, which seemed to require the residence of the Colonels-Commandant at Woolwich, whereupon the late Generals Belford and Desaguliers had an audience of His Majesty, and laid at his feet a memorial praying for redress, which His Majesty was graciously pleased to grant.”

Although, however, relieved of a duty beneath their rank, the connection of the Colonels-Commandant with their Battalions remained of the closest description. No officer was allowed to be promoted, under the rank of Field-Officer, without a recommendation from the Colonel-Commandant of the Battalion in which he might be serving; nor was any exchange allowed without the consent of both the Colonels-Commandant concerned. The recruiting, clothing, and discharges of the men were under the same control; and the private affairs of the officers were also frequently the subject of their official consideration. It has been already hinted, at the commencement of this chapter, that for some reasons the period between 1783 and 1792 is a painful one to study. It is impossible to give a sufficient reason; but as to the fact, there is no doubt that there was then a bad spirit among some of the younger officers, which manifested itself not unfrequently in acts of open insubordination. The pages of the Ordnance letter-books of this time bristle with accounts of courts-martial on officers, an occurrence most rare before or since. Nor were they due to any stern, unforgiving discipline, visiting slight offences with heavy punishment. The offences were all of one description,—distinct and grave insubordination. Whether sufficient care had not been taken in the appointment of officers during the American War, or whether this war had engendered among some an unruly, ill-disciplined, and impatient spirit, it is impossible now to say. Nor was tragedy wanting. One case occurred, in 1785, of an officer who had been commissioned in America during the war, and who, on his return to England, had been repeatedly guilty of minor offences. A prolonged absence without leave brought matters to a crisis. He was, after some difficulty, traced to a low lodging-house in London, and, after many unavailing orders to return to Woolwich, was at last brought down by escort. A general court-martial was assembled for his trial at the Horse Guards, where all such courts were then held; and from the official registers it can be traced that he was convicted. Before, however, the sentence was promulgated, we learn from a letter in the Brigade-Major’s correspondence that he was found one morning dead in his room. No explanation is given,—merely a brief report of the occurrence, leaving the reader to his own conjectures as to the manner and the cause.

But, painful as it is to come across such passages, the pain is almost forgotten in the pleasure which the same correspondence affords, when treating of the earnest fatherly interest displayed by the Colonels-Commandant in the young officers under their control. In later days, the life and progress of the Regiment have been, as a rule, in the keeping of its younger members; but, at the time now spoken of, it was emphatically the devotion of the fathers of the Corps, which tided it over the shoals of discontent, stagnation, and despair. A jealous love of their noble traditions animated them; they had all shared the toils and the honours, which had so welded the Regiment into a glorious unity; and they laboured with an unselfish love to inspire the younger members with an esprit, which should make them worthy channels of their own deep feelings.

They expressed in the earnestness of their lives that which was said in words by one of the Colonels-Commandant at the réunion in 1873, mentioned above: “The glory of our Regiment General B. Cuppage. has been in our keeping; but we are now old and passing away, and we commit it to you.” How much of the noble spirit which animated the Corps in the commencement of this century was due to the unwearying teaching of the older officers at the period now treated of can never be told; but the student of the correspondence still preserved cannot but attribute to it an abundant share.

One of the duties always performed at this time by the Field-Officers of the Corps was the testing the value of new inventions. The list of such during this period is long and quaint. The inventors were both professional Artillerymen and amateurs; although it must be confessed that the latter received greater encouragement than the former. It seems hardly credible, but it is a fact, that in the year of grace 1790 the Field-Officers of Artillery were repeatedly assembled to examine into the merits of a 3-pounder leather gun, invented by Sir John Sinclair. Nor were rifled guns unknown at this time. One of the most persistent inventors was a Mr. Wiggins, who produced rifled guns to fire belted spherical shot. He succeeded with the smaller guns, 1 and 9-pounders; but was not successful with the larger. An 18-pounder which he produced before the Board was certainly not a success; for, on firing two rounds with common proof-charge and one shot, “on the second round it burst into a great Inspector of Artillery to Commandant. number of pieces.” Although, however, the Field-Officers were available for this duty, any interference with the manufacturing departments in the Arsenal by the Garrison officials was not allowed nor tolerated. There were repeated attempts made by successive Commandants to assume a control over the Arsenal, but without success.

Another duty which occupied the senior officers at this time was connected with the Regimental Hospital and the medical officers of the Ordnance. Complaints were repeatedly made by the Surgeons, and not without reason; and complaints were often made of them, but generally without cause. The system of making the Surgeon find medicines for the sick, out of a fixed and inadequate money allowance led to much correspondence; and attempts made to extort from the military surgeon any charges made by a civil practitioner for attendance on men on furlough led to very stormy remonstrances. On the other hand, the varying rate of stoppages made from the pay of the sick led to discontent on their part. It was actually proposed by the Board to take away the whole of a man’s pay when in hospital, lest the Captains of Companies should be induced to send men when in debt into hospital, and to appropriate the balance of their pay. This unworthy suspicion was resented by the Colonels-Commandant in the following dignified words: Dated 4 July, 1786. With regard to the temptation which might induce a Captain to send his men to the hospital, and keep them there as long as he could, in order to clear their debts by stoppages—we hope, and, indeed, are confident, that there is no Captain now in the Corps of so illiberal a mind as to be thus unworthily attentive to his own interest in preference to that of His Majesty’s service; and should there ever be hereafter any one of such bad principles, a collusion must take place between him, the Surgeon, and the Soldier, before his base purpose could be accomplished.”

The Regulations for the Ordnance Medical Department were embodied in a distinct form in the years 1786 and 1787, but not without much meeting of committees and examination of witnesses. Much of the labour and expense which fell upon the medical officers at Woolwich were caused by the presence in that Garrison of 150 men of the Invalid Battalion, who were incessantly under treatment. It cannot be said that men were driven out of the service in those days without every endeavour being made to effect a cure. From the lists of men recommended for discharge in the year 1791, which are deposited in the Record Office, we find that one had been “sick in the country for four years;” another suffered from rheumatism, loss of sight and of hearing; another had “an inveterate sore leg of many years’ standing;” another was “insane, and burthensome to the Battalion;” another “hectic, and subject to fits;” another “hurt in the back, and otherwise infirm;” while a very common epithet was “completely worn out.” There were other grounds, however, for discharging men, than mere medical. One man has been handed down as having been discharged because “he was unsightly,” another was “unpromising,” a third “irregular,” while of a fourth the curt characteristic placed against his name is the word “thief.”

History frequently repeats itself in small matters as well as large. The legislation suggested by the present Secretary of State for War, with reference to men who have occasion to go to hospital on account of their own indiscretion, was in force in Canada for many years prior to 1791,—a fine of 10s. 6d. being levied from every Artilleryman in such a position. A commanding officer, however, went to Canada who declined to enforce this fine; and the question as to the origin and duration of the custom was therefore referred to the Commandant at Woolwich. He replied: “From the Brigade-Major I learn the custom has long been abolished in Woolwich, and in other places, as tending to induce the soldier to conceal his complaint, or apply to quacks for a cheaper cure; both of which may be prejudicial to his constitution.”