1. The rank of sergeant and adjutant—an odd combination certainly—was not adopted. The senior non-commissioned officer was styled sergeant-major. The authority for this are the muster rolls and returns of the company. But it is not a little remarkable that, in opposition to the fact, evidence should exist of the best kind for veracity, to oppose the averment. The error appears on a tablet built in Charles the Fifth’s wall adjoining Hargrave’s parade at Gibraltar, to the memory of the widow of the first sergeant-major of the corps. Thus runs the epitaph:—

Excuse the stanza. Perhaps the sergeant-major was a tetchy man, obstinate in maintaining his rights, and took this private opportunity of asserting his warranted rank and publishing the military anomaly in imperishable marble.

2. The Warrant does not designate the company by such a title. It is there called “The Military Company of Artificers.” How the change took place, does not appear.

3. A real is equal to 4½d. English.

4. The order upon this subject is given at length, as it touches upon other matters besides the discipline of the company.

4a. No provision was made this year for extending the Mutiny Act to the company; nor, indeed, was it noticed in any subsequent Act till 1788, when its introduction gave rise to much discussion in the House of Commons. The idea of subjecting artificers to martial law was attacked with satirical bitterness by the eloquent Sheridan.

5. The more particular duties of the Sergeant-major, as described in the Chief Engineer’s Order of 31st May, 1772, were “to carry all the general orders to the Chief Engineer, and the officers of the company, through the means of the other sergeants; also to make known the general orders to the rest of the non-commissioned officers and private men.” These he was required to attend to, “in lieu of an adjutant.” By the royal warrant, he should have been appointed to that rank, and not designated “sergeant-major.” No reason can be traced for altering the title. The first adjutant was an officer of engineers—Lieutenant Evelegh. He was appointed 15th June, 1773. Bridges enlisted into the 30th regiment in 1751, from which he was transferred to the corps as Sergeant-major, and being reduced during the siege (28th September, 1781), was discharged from the company 10th October, 1781.

6. In Hay’s ‘Western Barbary,’ chap. x., Murray’s edit., there is a very pleasing anecdote of the “half-Irish Sultan,” Mulai Yezeed, in which the name of Brown of the Royal Sappers and Miners, properly Soldier-Artificers, is introduced. To controvert a particular point to which it refers, the anecdote in an abridged form, is subjoined.

Sidi Mahomed, soon after his elevation to the throne of Morocco, about the middle of the last century, was desirous of completing the defences of Fez, and knowing the superiority of the English in engineering, he applied to the British Government for the aid of some person skilled in the art. The request was acceded to, and an experienced sergeant of the Sappers and Miners having been selected as a fit person, was placed at the disposal of his Majesty. Sidi Mahomed received him with much kindness, and allotted a suitable house for his reception. The sergeant continued in the service of the Sultan for some time after he had completed the works at Fez, and at length died, leaving his wife without issue. After his interment, the widow, who was a pretty Irishwoman, sought an interview with the Sultan, in order to obtain a pension and the means of returning to her own country. His Majesty was much struck by her fair and comely appearance, treated her with condescension and benevolence, and expressed in endearing overtures his attachment to her. Under no promises of future greatness could she be induced to relinquish the faith of her fathers for the creed of Islam, and to take an exalted station in the imperial harem. Sidi Mahomed, old as he was, was too much fascinated to yield so choice a prize on a mere question of belief, and making the fullest sacrifices to satisfy her religious scruples, the poor, friendless, Irish widow, became the Sultana of Morocco!

Corporal Brown, afterwards promoted to be sergeant, is the non-commissioned officer alluded to. He was a mason by trade, and joining the artificers on the 2nd January, 1773, he seemingly soon acquired the reputation of being an able foreman and an indispensable man. It was in 1776 he was sent to Fez, not in the middle of the century as stated in the anecdote, and he died there early in 1781. That year, or probably later, Widow Brown became the Sultana of Sidi Mahomet, and Mulai Yezeed, the reputed son of the widow by the Sultan, was then 31 years old! The age of Mulai may be gleaned from Hay’s tale, but more directly seen in Dr. Lempriere’s ‘Journey through the Barbary States.’ According to the latter author, who was at Tetuan in 1790, Mulai was the “offspring of an English renegado,” and then about 40 years of age. The Sultan died at a patriarchal age in 1790, and Mulai Yezeed succeeded him.

7. General Boyd, attended by General Green, the chief engineer, and many officers of the garrison, laid the foundation stone of this bastion, with the ceremony usual on such occasions. When he had finished it, he made this remarkable speech. “This is the first stone of a work which I name the King’s Bastion; may it be as gallantly defended, as I know it will be ably executed; and may I live to see it resist the united efforts of France and Spain.”—Drinkwater’s Siege of Gibraltar, p. 290, 1st edit. The desire of the worthy general was realized. He not only lived to see what he wished, but materially to assist in the operations of the siege.

8. To carry on the work with vigour, an opening was made in the sea-line, which, as long as it continued so, made the fortress defenceless in that part. Similar openings were made in the line some years before by a storm, which, being observed by Monsieur Crillon, who commanded at St. Roque, he proposed a scheme for an attempt on the Rock. Remembering this, the General always kept an anxious eye upon the gap; but he concealed his fears, lest they should fill the people with alarm, and the French or Spaniards with notions of invasion. He would not post any additional guards or picquets there for its protection, but gave private directions that all the guns and howitzers that could be brought into position in that part should be attended to. He, however, did not conceal his uneasiness from the Secretary of State; and in urging upon Lord Rochford the necessity for his being furnished with the means for completing the bastion, he quaintly remarked, “there is an idea of glory, my lord, in the thought of being killed in defending a breach made by the enemy, but to be knocked o' th' head in the defence of one of our own making would be a ridiculous death.”

9. When the Hanoverian troops left Gibraltar, the company had the best character for efficiency and utility, and its numbers therefore were not reduced.

10. At this bastion the company worked, by express orders, from gun-fire in the morning to gun-fire in the evening, as also on Sundays. All the work was of cut stone, and skilfully executed. A model of it, exquisitely wrought in polished stone, is in the Rotunda at Woolwich. It formerly belonged to George III. In 1820, George IV. presented it to the Royal Military Repository.

11. The company wanted two privates to complete.

12. As foreseen by the Chief Engineer, disputes soon arose between the non-commissioned officers of the company and the line, with regard to superintendence and direction. The fact having come to the Brigadier’s knowledge, he renewed, on the 10th July, 1781, his former order in a more imperative tone.

13. The strength of the company, including officers, when the provision supplies arrived, under Admiral Rodney, in February, 1780, and again under Admiral Darby, in April, 1781, was, on both occasions, stated to be 124. See ‘An authentic and accurate Journal of the late Siege of Gibraltar,’ pp. 22, 170.

14. Captain Luttrell, in some remarks in the House of Commons in 1788, relative to the expediency of raising a corps of military artificers, stated, “that at Gibraltar, where a similar body had been kept up during the siege, they had been of infinite service. When our troops had, in a sortie, possessed themselves of some of the enemy’s works, they could not destroy them until they had sent back to the garrison for the corps of artificers, who soon demolished them.”—Gent. Mag. 58, part 2, 1788.

15. London Gazette, 12,256. 25 to 29 December, 1781.

16. London Gazette, 12,256. 25 to 29 December, 1781.

17. To narrate the different services performed by the company during the siege, would not only be tedious, but necessarily incomplete, from no detailed record of them being preserved. A reference, however, to ‘Drinkwater’s History,’ though particularization is not even there attempted, will afford a tolerable idea of their labours.

18. Whether the sergeant-major obtained the thousand dollars as a douceur from the General is a question never likely to be satisfactorily answered. The probability is, that he did not receive the reward for his suggestion in this form, but some daily allowance commensurate with his skill and the importance of the duty. I was informed by the late Quarter-master-sergeant Britton Francis, who possessed a remarkable memory, and whose father was in the company before him, that Ince contracted for the work, and—such was the story current in his day—received for all the excavations, one guinea per running foot! Judging from an expression in a letter from the Duke of Richmond to Captain Evelegh, the Commanding Engineer at Gibraltar, dated 4th August, 1784, this tradition is an extravagant exaggeration. His Grace observes, “I am told that the excavation of the galleries is now constructed for, all expenses included, at one rial per foot cube;” and he adds, “I am very glad to find that a work which promises to add such effectual defences to the place, can be carried on at so cheap a rate; and I make no doubt, that great improvements will still be made by the Governor in this system of defences and lodgment for stores and troops under the rock.”

19. The Chief Engineer’s orders for the performance of this service were as follows:—“22nd May, 1782. A gallery 6 feet high, and 6 feet wide, through the rock, leading towards the notch nearly under the Royal Battery, to communicate with a proposed battery to be established at the said notch, is immediately to be undertaken and commenced upon by 12 miners, under the executive direction of sergeant-major Ince.” Again: “5th July, 1782. A gallery of communication, 6 feet 6 inches high, and 6 feet wide, through the intermediate rock, between the cave at the head of the King’s lines, and the cave near the west end of the Queen’s lines, is forthwith to be commenced upon by a body of miners and labourers expressly appointed for that service.”—See also ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, pp. 112 and 117.

20. ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 118.

21. Drinkwater observes, page 118, that “the original intention of this opening was to communicate air to the workmen, who, before, were almost suffocated with the smoke which remained after blowing the different mines; but on examining the aperture more closely, an idea was conceived of mounting a gun to bear on all the enemy’s batteries, excepting Fort Barbara.” To ascribe it to this accidental circumstance is natural enough, but there is reason to suppose, the statement excusably differs from the fact. The galleries were begun with the express object of arming them with ordnance to play on the enemy’s works; and the formation of the embrasure alluded to, was simply the earnest of a settled scheme; the first hostile step in its development.

22. ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, note, p. 118.

23. ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 113.

24. It is not intended to give the names of the non-commissioned officers entire at any future period. In this instance they have been mentioned, not so much for the interest of the general reader, as to preserve them. With those whose names have already been noted, these constitute the first race of non-commissioned officers in the corps.

25. By the Chief Engineer’s Order of 27th October, 1781, sergeant Macdonald, an active and good non-commissioned officer, was appointed to inspect and take care of all the drains throughout the fortress in the room of sergeant-major Bridges, as also to keep the keys of the gratings, and to see them locked, to prevent ingress or egress by their means. This duty was considered a very important one, both from the facility the drains afforded for the entrance of the enemy and for desertions from the place, and also from the health of the garrison being in a great measure affected by their state. Not unfrequently during heavy rains, the gravel on the rock, washed down by the torrent, would rush into the drains and choke them up. To clear them, the company of artificers was invariably called upon, often at night; and on one occasion, in April, 1813, private William Liddle, who was foremost in one of the great drains, after unlocking the grating, was carried down the sewer with the flood into the sea, and drowned.

26. Blyth served fifteen years in the 2nd Foot, and joined the company 14th June, 1773. He was promoted to be sergeant on the 18th April, 1781, in succession to sergeant Brown who died at Fez, and whose widow became the Sultana of Morocco. By his industry and frugality he amassed considerable property, and expended about 20,000 dollars in buildings at the fortress. He was well known as a zealous freemason, and erected a wine-house at the corner of the Eleventh, since called South Parade, in which the meetings or lodges of the fraternity were held free of expense. He was much respected by the inhabitants, and became very popular among them. On the 31st January, 1800, he was discharged from the corps, after a service of nearly forty-two years, and died at the Rock about 1804, Blyth had a nephew in the Tripoline navy, of whom a few particulars may not be uninteresting. His name was Peter Lisle. When quite a youth, Peter was wrecked at Zoara, on the coast of Tripoli. He was one of three only who escaped. For a time he endured great hardships, but at length succeeded in getting on board a British merchantman. In 1792 he was at Gibraltar, on board the ‘Embden’ letter of marque, Lynch and Ross, owners. This vessel afterwards went to Tripoli with two consuls on board; and Lisle, then chief mate, was placed in charge of the cargo, some of which was corn. On arriving at Tripoli, the barrels containing the corn were found to have been plundered, and Lisle was called upon to account for the deficiency. This he could not do; a quarrel ensued between the captain and himself, and resigning his situation, he landed, and entered the service of the Bashaw. Having been chief mate of an English vessel was a strong recommendation in his favour, and he was at once appointed gunner of the castle. Associated with a strange people, he readily conformed to their manners and customs, embraced Mahommedan tenets—at least in appearance—and assumed the name of Mourad Reis. About 1794 he was nominated captain of a xebeck mounting eighteen guns; and in the course of time, by his naval skill and abilities, became the High Admiral of the Tripoline Fleet and Minister of Marine. He married one of the daughters of the Bashaw, Sidi Yusuf, had a fine family, and enjoyed an ample income. Besides a house in the city, he had a villa and gardens in the Meshiah among the date-groves, which exhibited evidence of great taste and care, and were enriched with many trees of various species brought by him from different places at which he touched in Europe. He was a prudent and sagacious counsellor, gave excellent advice to the Bashaw, which was always based on good common sense—a quality not superabundant in the Divan—and was of great service to Lord Exmouth during his Algerine expedition. His appearance was venerable, he dressed richly, commanded much respect, and when addressing British officers—whom he always treated with great courtesy and hospitality—spoke with a broad Scotch accent, and sometimes entertained them with a relation of his own stirring adventures. He was unpopular at times, as great politicians sometimes are. Blaquiere says (1813), “Poor Peter was no longer an object of consideration with any party.” During the stay of Captain Lyon at Tripoli in 1818, Peter was in banishment, but the consul and chief people gave him an excellent character. Later, however, he again rose into confidence, for when Captain Beechey was there in 1821, Mourad Reis was much considered by his Highness, and acted as interpreter on the occasion of the Captain’s audience with his Highness the Bashaw. He also proved of great service to Captain W. H. Smyth, R.N. On the fall of the Bashaw—Yusuf Karamanli—he retreated to Sfax in Tunis, since which his fate is uncertain. When in the zenith of his power and greatness he paid occasional visits to Gibraltar. On entering the bay, he always fired a salute of four guns in honour of his uncle, serjeant Blyth, whom he treated with marked respect. This practice, however, he at length discontinued, owing to a shot, fired by mistake from one of his guns, having struck the wall of a ramp just above Hargrave’s Parade whilst he was paying his relative the usual affectionate compliment.

27. Finch joined the company on the 21st October, 1782, at the request of the Duke of Richmond, in whose service he had been employed at Goodwood. Anxious to secure him for the company, his Grace promised not only to make him a sergeant at once, but to give him a written protection to preserve to him as long as he remained, irrespective of his conduct, the pay of that rank. Under these circumstances Finch accepted the protective credential, enlisted, and sailed with Lord Hood for the Rock. Holding such a charter, it was not to be wondered at if he sometimes overstepped the line of prudence. Not by any means particular in his appearance, nor scrupulous in his conduct or habits, he was not unfrequently brought before his officers; but no matter how flagrant his offence, the only punishment that could be awarded to him was suspension for a month or two from rank, but not from pay. Captain Evelegh, of the engineers, finding that Finch was becoming rather troublesome, and his sentences of but little effect, endeavoured to obtain the Duke’s warrant from its possessor, but he refused to surrender it, observing to the captain, “If you get hold of it, good-bye to my rank and pay.” Finch, however, was a first-rate carpenter and foreman, and these qualifications more than counterbalanced his occasional delinquencies. He was discharged from the corps on the 13th April, 1802.

28. Chambers joined the company 21st September, 1772, from the 2nd Regiment of Foot, in which he had served two years. In 1791 he was promoted to be sergeant-major, on the discharge of Ince. In the summer of 1796 he was sent to Woolwich in a deranged state of mind, and on the 1st December of that year was discharged. Soon afterwards he was domiciled in a madhouse, where, his malady increasing, he was—it has been reported—smothered according to the cruel practice then in vogue with regard to incurable cases.

29. Woodhead joined the company 16th May, 1774, from the 12th Regiment, in which he had served seven years and a quarter. In November, 1791, he was promoted to be sergeant, and was discharged 17th July, 1807, on a pension of 2s. 7d. a-day, after a service of upwards of forty years. At Gibraltar he was found to be invaluable in the construction and repairs of the sea-line wall. He possessed a good share of intelligence; was a strong, portly, blustering mason, and well adapted for the heavy and laborious duties for which he was always selected. At Woolwich he was the military foreman of masons for many years, and was intrusted by Captain Hayter, then Commanding Royal Engineer, with the building of the wharf wall in the Royal Arsenal—a work highly creditable to the Engineer Department, and to Woodhead as the executive overseer.

30. Afterwards anglicised to Anthony Francis, was wounded by a shell at Willis’s. He and his brother Dominick were natives of Portugal, and the only foreigners in the company. Antonio was a Catholic; and as it was desired to preserve the Protestant character of the corps, a simple but effectual plan was taken to win his adherence to the Church of England. He asked leave to be married. The indulgence was refused unless he became a Protestant. La Fiancée was also a Catholic; but as a great event in their lives—which promised them no end of happiness—was likely to be indefinitely postponed by a stubborn acquiescence to a creed for which, probably, they felt but little interest, both renounced the belief of their fathers, and were married as members of the national faith. Their family were baptized and educated as Protestants, but the old man on his death-bed, returned to Mother-Church and died a Catholic. Three of his sons, now old men, fill comfortable appointments at Gibraltar. Their cousins, merchants at the Rock, own the plain called the “Spanish Race-course,” above a mile beyond the Lines. One, Mr. Francis Francia, is British Consul at San Roque. Midway between the village of Campo and the consulate stands his farm, which is cultivated with enlightened taste, and enriched with rare exotics in fruits and flowers.—Kelaart’s Botany and Topography of Gibraltar and its neighbourhood, pp. 179, 183.

31. Joined the company August, 1776, from the 56th Foot, in which he had served eleven years. Discharged about 1789.

32. Reconnoitering appears to have been a duty that devolved upon sergeants of the company. On the 25th December, 1782, two soldiers attempted to desert from Mount Misery; one “got down, though the rope broke, which accident was the cause of the other being retaken. A few days after a sergeant of the artificers was ordered to reconnoitre the place where this deserter descended, and he got down far enough to discover the unfortunate man dashed to pieces at the foot of the precipice,”—‘Drinkwater.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 100.

33. ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ 58, part 2, 1788.

34.

The name of the other man killed cannot be ascertained, as the documents of the company from the commencement of the siege to the 30th September, 1781, are lost.

35. The names of the criminals were Artificers Samuel Whitaker and Simon Pratts.

36. Drinkwater’s ‘Siege of Gibraltar.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 163.

37. Called Lower, or Union Galleries; and Upper, or Windsor Galleries.

38. Walsh’s ‘Campaigns in Egypt,’ 1803, p. 5. Wilkie, ‘On British Colonies considered as Military Posts,’ in United Service Journal, Part ii., 1840, p. 379.

39. Maule’s ‘Campaigns of North Holland and Egypt,’ &c., p. 303.

40. Ince had a farm at the top of the Rock, which is still called by his name. He had an only son, a clerk in the Commissariat department at Gibraltar, under Commissary-general Sweetlove, who, together with his wife, died in the fever of 1804, leaving an infant son, who was brought up by his grandmother. The eldest daughter of Lieutenant Ince was married at Gibraltar to Lieutenant R. Stapleton, of the 60th Rifles, who exchanged with Lieutenant Croker into the 13th Foot, and then sold out.

One day Mr. Ince was trotting at an easy pace up the Rock, when the Duke of Kent, overtaking him, observed, “That horse, Mr. Ince, is too old for you.” “I like to ride easy, your Royal Highness,” was the subaltern’s meek reply. “Right, but you shall have another, more in keeping with your worth and your duties;” and soon afterwards the Duke presented him with a very valuable steed. The old overseer, however, was unable to manage the animal, and he rode again to the works on his own quiet nag. The Duke, meeting him soon after, inquired how it was he was not riding the new horse, when Ince replied, he was unable sufficiently to curb his spirit and tranquillize his pace. Ince then prayed his Royal Highness to honour his servant by receiving the noble creature into his stud again. “No, no, overseer,” rejoined the Duke; “if you can’t ride him easily, put him into your pocket!” The overseer readily understood his Royal Highness, and exchanged the beautiful steed for his worth in doubloons.

41. ‘Drinkwater.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 108.

42. Parsons joined the company in February, 1779, and was discharged, as a private artificer, 1st January, 1809, on 1s. 4d. a-day.

43. Order Book—Chief Engineer’s.

44. ‘Order-Book’ (Chief Engineer’s) of 21st June, 1782; and ‘Drinkwater,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 118.

45. Not Richardson, as Drinkwater has it, p. 108.

46. Brand’s father, a mason by trade and a Perthshire man, was the first artificer enrolled in the company.

47. ‘Order-Book’ (Chief Engineer’s), 8th May, 1789.

48. Assisted by sergeant James Shirres, an ingenious artizan and modeller. This non-commissioned officer, after serving at the capture of Minorca, was made a sergeant-major of the company that served there, 2nd May, 1800, and on the 31st December, 1804, was appointed overseer in the royal engineer department at Plymouth.

49. Assisted by Antonio Marques, a Minorcaen artificer.

50. ‘London Gazette,’ 13,494. 15 to 19 January, 1793.

51. The education of these youths is highly creditable to the officers of engineers. Many similar instances of boys in the corps acquiring distinction by their talents, have subsequently occurred, the honour of which, in great measure, is due to the officers. Assistance and encouragement they never fail to give in cases where their efforts are likely to meet with success, and numbers have thus qualified themselves to fill important situations with efficiency and credit, in their own profession, and afterwards in civil life. Richmond and Brand, however, are the only instances in which commissions have been given from the ranks of the artificers, or sappers and miners, into the corps of engineers.

52. Drinkwater says (p. 108), “that one of the works of these young men, while pursuing their studies at Woolwich, was to finish the large model of the rock of Gibraltar.” The historian has certainly been misled here: the model was finished before it left the fortress, and did not reach the Arsenal until after its makers had been commissioned, and left England for the West Indies. The placement and adjustment of its several parts were intrusted to a military artificer named Bethell. He was to have been assisted by another private, who accompanied him for the purpose, from Gibraltar; but having broken his leg at Woolwich, his services were thus lost. Private John McNaughton, a carpenter of the Woolwich company, was put to the model in his place. I knew McNaughton well, and he assured me that the model was not touched by any hands but his own and Bethell’s, and that on no occasion were the modellers present during its fixation. McNaughton seems to have been an excellent artificer, and always an active soldier. During the mutiny of Parker, he was employed in repairing Tilbury Fort, and in erecting temporary defences below Gravesend. He afterwards served under the great Abercrombie in Egypt; next was employed in constructing the towers on the Sussex coast, at the time of the projected invasion of Napoleon; and, lastly, was many years in Newfoundland. He was discharged 24th January, 1815, on 1s. 4d. a-day, and died at Woolwich in April, 1853, aged 84.

53. Hague was a tall, intelligent mechanic, a fine modeller, and a smart soldier. On account of these qualities, he was selected to take charge of the models for George III. Having put them together on their tables at Buckingham Palace, His Majesty, the Queen, and royal family, with other illustrious personages of the court, came to see them. Hague was cited before them to explain the model, and to point out the defences which, from their prominence in the late siege, had acquired historic identity. His observations were listened to with attention, and His Majesty awarded him a gratifying proof of his royal approbation. Soon afterwards Hague returned to Gibraltar, and on the 31st March, 1815, was discharged and pensioned at 1s. 8d. a-day. He was subsequently employed as a modeller in the grand store; was married in 1827; and died at the Rock about 1833, upwards of 100 years old.

54. ‘Drinkwater.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 108.

55. To this the visitor adds a description of the model, which is adjoined here, on account of the model itself having long since been destroyed. “First then,” says the writer, “are the Spanish lines; then the perpendicular rock, rising bold from the neck of the neutral ground, which is not many feet above high-water mark. On the east, or left hand, is the Mediterranean Sea; and on the west, within the mole or pier, is the Bay of Gibraltar, in which the largest ships in the British Navy may ride safe. The garrison, town, and forts, are to the westward, whence the rock rises with a more gradual acclivity to the summit,—the east side of which is also perpendicular, and inhabited by monkeys. On the highest point is the Levant Battery, which is nearly three times and one half the height of St. Paul’s church, or 1375 feet above the level of the sea. The southern extremity of the model of this rock towards Europa Point, being too large for the room, and less important, is cut off. This description ought to fill a volume.”—Gentleman’s Magazine, part 2, 1798, p.648.

56. This was on the 22nd May, 1802. The account given at the time of this disgraceful act is as follows:—“A dreadful fire broke out at Woolwich, and from the investigation which has taken place into this calamitous circumstance, there is but too much reason to believe that this disaster was not the mere effect of accident. The fire broke out, at one and the same time, in three different places, besides which a great mass of combustible materials have been discovered. The loss to Government will be immense. The damage done to the Model-room is particularly to be lamented, as several choice works of art have been destroyed, without the power of reparation; however, the injury done to the beautiful model of the rock of Gibraltar is not so great as was at first represented, it having sustained but a slight damage, which can be easily repaired, and the whole restored to its original state.”—Dodsley’s Annual Register, 1802, p. 404. The journalist is wrong in his remarks concerning the state of the model after the fire. It was completely destroyed, and not even the fragments are now in existence. Some persons, indeed, with whom I have conversed, bear out the chronicler in his record, and affirm that the model was repaired, and is now in the Rotunda; but they have given me a fair inference of the mistaken character of their recollections, by uniformly referring to the model of the north front, executed by Richmond and Marques, which, at the very time that the fire occurred, formed one of the curiosities of Buckingham Palace. Drinkwater (p. 108, Murray’s edit.) attests the fact of its destruction; and in this he is borne out by the ‘Repository Detail of Arms,’ &c., printed in 1822. In that catalogue (at p. 9-21) is a list of the arms, models, &c., of the original institution preserved from the fire of 1802, and collected by Sir William Congreve, but no mention is made of the model in question. This, then, is the best attainable evidence of the certainty of its demolition, coupled with the acknowledgment, at page 52 of the same catalogue, that the “North end of Gibraltar,” the model mistaken for the one destroyed in the Arsenal, was presented to the Repository by George IV. Had the large model of the Rock been preserved, Sir William Congreve would most certainly have noted it in the detail.

57. This anniversary supper was held by the non-commissioned officers annually, on the date named, at the Three Anchors. After the first year, the tickets of admission were 16s. 6d. each, or 5 dollars and 4 reals, which provided, in the language of one who used to have a seat at the table, “a sumptuous entertainment.” At that time the dollar was 3s., and the real 4½d. Each ticket admitted a married non-commissioned officer and his family, or a single one and his friend. The privates took no part in the celebration. On each occasion, the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, &c., honoured the company with their presence, and made gratifying allusions to their services at the siege. The night of the festival used to be familiarly termed Junk-ship night, both by the inhabitants and the soldiers. The custom was perpetuated till the year 1804, when, from the fearful epidemic that prevailed, it was necessarily omitted, and was never again held. It was a common opinion that the Duke of Kent interdicted these loyal anniversaries, but such was not the case. The last one was held in September, 1803, after his Royal Highness had been recalled from Gibraltar.

58. This sum seems to be a sort of standing equivalent, and has existed without alteration, through all the changes of advanced or reduced prices in material and labour, to the present day.

59. The regulation with regard to the wives and families of recruits going to Gibraltar, as established by the Duke of Richmond, is sufficiently curious, by comparison with the present very limited system, to be mentioned here. On the 9th September, 1786, the Duke arranged that to every 20 men, 10 women and 10 children should be allowed to accompany them. If there were more than that number with the party, lots were to be drawn, and those who did not gain prizes were to find their own passages; the lots were not to divide families, but were to be drawn by the men until the number allowed was completed. If encouragement had been given to any men to hope that their families would be provided with passages, the bargain was to be faithfully adhered to.