The 4-gun Troops in Ireland had 2 ammunition waggons, 1 forge and 1 store waggon. On the augmentation to 6 guns in 1852, there were allowed to each troop 6 waggons, 1 forge and 1 store waggon, and 1 captain’s cart.

The augmentations after 1847 were due to “the foresight and determination of Lord Hardinge, who was one of the best friends the Corps ever had, being utterly without Reports to House of Commons, and to Lord Panmure, by Sir R. Gardiner, in 1848, 1849, and 1856. jealousy, and fully appreciating the value of an efficient, and of sufficient, artillery.” But he was warmly aided by one within the Corps, whose motives were as single as his arguments were sound, whose voice was ever ready to plead for the corps in which he had spent a long, pure, and illustrious life, Sir Robert Gardiner. Owing to these augmentations, 42 guns of Horse Artillery were available for service R. H. A. Records. in the field in 1854: and the total strength of the Brigade stood at 1175 of all ranks, and 1054 horses.

The following was the establishment of a troop of Horse Artillery when sent on active service to the Crimea in the Spring of 1854:—

On the 29th November, 1855, the following was laid down as the detail of a troop of Horse Artillery with the army in the Crimea.

Of the troops which had been reduced after Waterloo, B was reformed as a reserve half troop in 1855, and completed in the following year: and G and K Troops were reformed in 1857.

The highest point reached between the reductions after Waterloo, and the year 1857, was in February 1856, when the total of all ranks reached 1950, and the number of horses was 1370. The amalgamation of the Royal with the Indian Artilleries brought the strength of Royal Horse Artillery available for service to an unprecedented standard: at the present moment there are in the regiment thirty-one service and two depôt Horse Artillery Batteries. But this chapter relates solely to the old Royal Horse Artillery.

As yet the numerical variations in the Royal Horse Artillery have alone been treated. But there are many other details, mainly of interior economy, which will doubtless be interesting to the modern representatives of the arm, and which may here be briefly stated.

At first, it was directed that recruits might be taken who were 5 feet 6¾ inches in height: but before six months had passed, the standard was raised, at the urgent request of the Captains, to 5 feet 8 inches. There was often difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of suitable recruits, and even when the troops were complete, it was customary to attach to each, when in the field, a few of the Driver Corps, with Lefroy. additional horses or mules. Extra pay was granted from the first to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and gunners of Horse Artillery.

The exact relative status of the new branch of the service was speedily settled. On 21st February, 1797, the Board of Ordnance granted the same allowance for forage to the officers, as was allowed to officers of Cavalry; and so early had it been decided that the Horse Artillery should take the right of all Cavalry, that, as will be seen by the following letter, the Master-General would not in 1804 allow the point to be disputed.

“Woolwich, June 9, 1804.

“Dear Colonel,

“I submitted to the Master General your letter of the 5th instant, relating to a conversation which took place with General Sir David Dundas, when the Horse Artillery marched past with the Cavalry, on the King’s birthday, in which Sir David, though the Horse Artillery then led, expressed doubts as to the precedence and rank of the Horse Artillery on such future occasions.

“Lord Chatham not being aware upon what circumstances Sir David’s doubts have arisen, and not considering the communication from you in any other light than as a wish to know how far, as commanding officer of Artillery, you are justifiable in making a claim to the right for the Horse Artillery when paraded with Cavalry, his Lordship has desired me simply to say that he considers the privilege so well established by practice, as well as opinion, that he is unwilling to suppose it can be disputed.

“His Majesty has never seen the Horse Artillery in any other place: they were encamped on the right of all the Cavalry (of the Blues) at Windsor: and in all parades of ceremony and honour, placed on the right of the Cavalry.

“I am, dear Colonel,
“Your obedient Servant,
“J. Macleod.”

Both by custom and regulation this precedence continued to belong to the Royal Horse Artillery until July 1869, when it was ordered that the Household Cavalry, when the Sovereign should be present, should have the precedence awarded to a body guard.

It was laid down as a rule, that no officer should be appointed to the Horse Brigade, who had not been on foreign service: but as this rule was occasionally broken, it was decided in July 1805 that any officers who had been appointed to the Horse Artillery, prior to having been on foreign service, should “(to avoid any officers being confined to one species of duty) be liable after three or four years’ service in the Horse Brigade to be exchanged again into the Battalions, so that they may take their share of duty on foreign service, and obtain that experience which is necessary to an Artillery officer, as he advances in the Regiment.” For the information of the general reader it should here be stated, that prior to 1861, when the amalgamation of the Imperial and East India Company’s armies took place, the Royal Horse Artillery never went abroad except on active service. Since 1861, however, India has opened a field of foreign service for this branch of the Regiment: and fifteen batteries of service Horse Artillery are to be found in that country, against sixteen at home.

The changes in the dress of the Horse Artillery may be gathered from the following statistics. An order dated 1st November, 1806, lays down the following rules for the dress of officers:—“Except at dress parades the blue Regimental overalls are to be worn till dinner-time in place of the blue pantaloons, which is to be the afternoon dress when at home. At all parades, whether mounted or dismounted, and during the day, the black velvet stock is to be worn, with an inch of shirt collar over it: no other white to be shown. In the evenings, it is requested that black silk handkerchiefs may be substituted with the same proportion of shirt collar over them. When officers are dressed for a ball, evening party, or dine out, they are to wear the jacket open, white pantaloons, plain white waistcoat (with sash over it), light sword, regulation sword-knot, black belt, with cocked-hat and feather. In common a white leather sword-knot is to be worn. Spurs with horizontal rowels to be worn at all times.”

Prior to 1812, gaiters and knee-boots had been worn: but on the 14th January in that year his Royal Highness the Prince Regent issued the following order:—

“The officers of the Royal Horse Artillery are to wear jackets similar to the private men, with an aiguillette. In parade dress, they are to wear white leather pantaloons, and Hussar boots, with gold binding. On ordinary duties or on march, they are to wear overalls of a colour similar to the private men’s, and a short surtout, which is calculated to be worn likewise as a pelisse on service. When attending a drawing-room or levee, they may appear in long coats, with lappels and aiguillettes, the same as are worn with the jacket, but without lace on the seams: or in the Regimental jacket, as they may prefer. The officers of the Horse Artillery are likewise to wear cocked-hats, with the star loop, with their dress regimentals.”

By General Order of 5th August, 1823, leather pantaloons and Hessian boots were abolished, blue-grey overalls and Wellington boots being substituted.

By General Order of 22nd December, 1827, helmets were abolished, and chacos with tassels substituted.

By General Order of 15th March, 1831, drivers’ jackets were assimilated to those of the gunners.

By General Order of 20th December, 1831, steel spurs for officers were abolished, and brass spurs substituted.

By General Order of 26th May, 1834, cross-belts were abolished, and waist-belts substituted.

In 1837 bearskin busbies were substituted for chacos. The plumes were altered in 1839.

Sealskin busbies were substituted for bearskin. The officers, however, continued to wear the bearskin until 1855, when the sable busby was adopted. The plume was shortened from 12 to 8 inches.

The officers’ pelisse was abolished in this year.

The full-dress jacket was altered by reducing the amount of lace. A cross-belt of gold lace with pouch was instituted for the officers; as also a plain blue stable-jacket in place of the undress frock-coat and red embroidered waistcoat.

In this year booted leather overalls were instituted; and swan-neck steel spurs for all ranks were substituted for the brass spurs of the officers, and the straight steel spurs of the men.

A more important thing, however, than the dress has been the armament of the Royal Horse Artillery. Its greatest deeds have been wrought with the 6-pounder; but that was not its invariable weapon. Talking merely of the pre-amalgamation days4—the days which belong to history instead of to-day, when rifled ordnance was unknown in Horse Artillery—there were even then not unfrequent changes of armament. One troop, as we shall see hereafter, went on service with 12-pounders; on the eve of Waterloo, owing to the want of guns of position, three troops received 9-pounders, instead of the 6-pounders which they had brought from England; and coming to later days, at the commencement of the Crimean War, the two troops, C and I, which first left England were armed with 6-pounders; but, on reaching Varna, C Troop was ordered to exchange them for 9-pounders; and I Troop would have been left behind, for inability to do the same, had it not been that Lord Raglan yielded to the urgent entreaties of its commander, Colonel Maude, to allow it to accompany the expedition.

During the Peninsular Campaign, the armament of a troop was as follows:—2 9-pounders, or 2 heavy 6-pounders; 1 heavy 5½-inch howitzer; 3 light 6-pounders; 6 ammunition Lefroy. waggons; 3 reserve waggons, and 4 other carriages. Compared with the simplicity of modern Horse Artillery armament, the presence of three different guns in the same troop, with the consequent necessity of a variety of ammunition, seems a very complicated and undesirable arrangement. This was frequently felt at the time; and at the change of armament made before Waterloo, a foreshadowing of the modern harmony of weapons might be detected in the arming of I Troop—Bull’s—with 5½-inch howitzers only. And right noble was the service done by that troop on the 18th of June.

During the season of starvation between 1819 and 1848, the guns attached to the skeleton troops were 6-pounders. With the augmentations, a proportion of howitzers made its re-appearance.

The proper armament for Horse Artillery, in the days before the substitution of rifled ordnance put an end to the discussion, was exhaustively treated by Sir Robert Gardiner. His arguments are interesting even at the present day, when the perfection of Field Batteries, and their ability to carry more gunners into action by means of the new-pattern carriage, have combined to make not a few question the necessity of so expensive an arm as Horse Artillery being retained. If we substitute the 9-pounder rifled gun for the old 6-pounder, and the 16-pounder for the old 9-pounder, in Sir Robert’s remarks, we shall find his arguments as applicable Report on the Artillery by Sir R. Gardiner, 31 Mar. 1848. to the later as to the former controversy. “There can be no greater mistake than to put rivalry or comparisons, or to expect the same results from the employment of Horse Artillery as of Brigade (i. e. Field) Artillery. Though one and the same arm, they are equipped and intended for totally distinct purposes. The necessary quick movements of the Horse Artillery could not be attained by 9-pounders; the telling effect of 9-pounders could not be expected from Horse Artillery. One is intended to act with Cavalry, and, from the nature of its equipment and the lightness of its metal, is expected to maintain at all times, and under all circumstances, of bad roads, of rough, hilly, or broken ground, the same pace as Cavalry; and, in short, to bring artillery into action wherever Cavalry can act.... I can name two instances in which, while acting with cavalry, any other than Horse Artillery would have been perfectly useless. One, the affair of Morales, in Spain; the other, the movement from Quatre Bras to the position of Waterloo. Both were specially movements of Horse Artillery, and both tried the wind and speed of our horses. In the latter movement particularly, through a deep cross country, any Artillery differently equipped would have inevitably fallen into the hands of the enemy. In all light movements of the Infantry of an army, Horse Artillery is as indispensably necessary and as exclusively effective, as it is with cavalry. I have myself, in cases of reconnoissance, been withdrawn from the Cavalry for the moment, to cover movements in which heavier Artillery could bear no part.... On the other hand, if Horse Artillery has its distinct advantages over heavier guns, so likewise the latter have their distinct purposes, for which the employment of Horse Artillery would be wholly inapplicable and inadequate.... I have known Brigade Artillery as perfect, in its way, as Horse Artillery; but no more comparison can be drawn between them than between Cavalry and Infantry.”

Then follows a remark, which shows how the writer anticipated the changes which have come, and which have done so much to improve our Field Artillery: “Our present Brigades would be greatly advanced in efficiency if, like the Horse Artillery, or the Brigades with the Duke of Wellington’s army in the Peninsula, they were placed under the command and the responsibility of their captains. They should also, to become effective Field Artillery, be placed on the same footing as the Horse Artillery, for their contingent share in all garrison and general duties. They should march to and from the outposts in relief in the same manner as the Horse Artillery; they should combine, like the Horse Artillery, the knowledge of the duties of Cavalry with those of Artillery. They would thus gradually attain that perfection in their own distinctive service, which I believe to be unequalled in the few skeleton troops we possess of Horse Artillery.”

At the time these words were penned, Field Artillery had reached a point of degradation which had hardly been surpassed even in the old days of peasant drivers. Of the six batteries or brigades nominally at Woolwich, two existed on Sir R. Gardiner’s Report. paper, having neither men nor horses. “Two others,” wrote Sir R. Gardiner, “are so little advanced in their necessary drill and training as to be quite non-effective for the purposes of service, or even the common movements of parade and review. Two only might possibly move without causing interruption or confusion to other troops they might be acting with; but that is as much as can be said of them.... The riding and driving of our Brigade drivers is at this moment very bad. With the exception of the Brigades stationed in Dublin, where they have occasional opportunities of moving with other troops, they are unskilful, and ignorant of Artillery movements; at Woolwich they are employed in carter’s work in the civil departments of the Arsenal; and, of course, as long as such a system is pursued they can never become Artillery drivers.... The Brigades in Ireland are more efficient, and fitted to move with other troops, than the Brigades in England. But it is a delusion to say that England has a Field Artillery. There is not a single 9-pounder horsed in the British service—an astounding fact. Nor will it be believed, except by those who know the truth, that the English army has been for years without Artillery attached either to Cavalry or Infantry, for the common purposes of drill and exercise in their combined movements.”

The progress of Field Artillery to its present excellence may be said to date from 1848. Already, before 1856, the Light Field Artillery had regained what it had lost during the economical era which followed Waterloo; and since 1859, when the new brigade system put an end to the incessant change of batteries from field to garrison service, the progress has been continuous. But this progress would have been impossible had it not been that a standard of Field Artillery excellence had been maintained, even under the most adverse and depressing circumstances, by those unequalled skeleton troops of Horse Artillery, whose officers have, by their influence and exertions, done so much to make what may be called medium Field Artillery the admirable service which it now is. It has been said that the influence of the Horse Artillery, during the period between 1816 and 1848, was injurious to the Field Batteries. If it were so, it was in the most indirect manner possible. Economy in our military administration being peremptorily demanded, the only alternative left to the Board of Ordnance was between a very small force of admirable Field Artillery, and a larger force of batteries starved in equipment and incapable of service in the field. The officers of the Regiment, whose position entitled them to be the advisers of the Board, were undoubtedly men whose sympathies lay with the Horse Artillery, in which they had all served; but they were also men who had seen, during the campaigns in the Peninsula, Belgium, and France, what was possible with a well-equipped Field Artillery of less mobility. In deciding on a small but perfect force, rather than a larger and indifferent one, it must be admitted that they acted wisely. The brilliant Field Artillery of the great war would have otherwise become a mere tradition, whereas, under the system adopted, it remained a reality, a model, and a standard. The adoption of the other alternative would have vitally injured the Horse, without much benefit to the Field Artillery; and it would have rendered the reorganisation of both a more difficult, and a more tardy operation. That the Field Artillery suffered terribly during the period mentioned, is too true; but dispassionate study of the Regimental history proves, not what has often been asserted, that the suffering was due to the blighting influence of a corps d’élite but merely to an unwise, an unprofitable, and a singularly short-sighted economy.5

A much larger question arises when the policy of a corps d’élite, as a part of a larger body on which it feeds, has to be considered. No subject has been so fruitful of discussion in the Regiment; and nowhere can a decision be more safely arrived at than in a careful study of the Regimental history. There are strong arguments in favour of, and also against, the policy which has existed since the formation of the Royal Horse Artillery; and the best way of arriving at a conclusion is to state these arguments, and to weigh their respective values.

It has been said that the existence of a corps d’élite produces Trochu. “I’énervation de la masse au profit des groupes.” In Hime. stronger language it has also been said: “The more ruthlessly the system of selection is carried out, the more rapidly do the troops from amongst whom the selection is made lose their self-respect and become at first apathetic, and at last inefficient. The corps d’élite, the insatiable parasite, must degenerate in precisely the same degree as the body which feeds it; and the end is, that in the lapse of a few years the whole edifice crumbles, totters, and falls. When the oak falls, the ivy that killed it must fall too.”

But those who apply such language to the existence, in the Royal Artillery, of a corps d’élite such as the Royal Horse Artillery, forget several important considerations which distinguish it from such a corps as the French Chasseurs à pied, of which it was said that everything that was good, everything that was efficient, everything that was soldierlike in the Infantry of the Line was seized upon with unsparing hands, and remorselessly drafted into it. In the first place, the selection for this branch of the Regiment is only made for the purpose of officering it. The field battery which rejoices in smart non-commissioned officers and men is in no dread of losing them to feed a favoured corps. From the day a recruit joins the Horse Artillery, his efficiency and his education depend on the officers of that arm; and therefore to them is the credit due if their efforts are successful.

There have been occasions when the Horse Artillery was permitted to select from the recruits of the other battalions; but these days have passed away. No service battery of Field or Garrison Artillery has to minister to the wants of our corps d’élite, and therefore the language employed in Hime. another place by the able author quoted above, in reference to the Infantry corps d’élite in our service, is more applicable than that used by him in reference to our Field Artillery: “The recruits are selected with care; but they are selected from society at large, not from regiments of the Line; and the result is that this noble body of men, the Guards, are a source of wholesome emulation, instead of contentious rivalry, to the rest of the army.”

The whole question, therefore, may be condensed into one point—the wisdom or otherwise of officering the Horse Artillery from the Regiment at large. Such petty considerations as higher pay, special privileges, &c., which are apt to embitter the minds of some, must be put aside as unworthy. In a question affecting not merely the Regiment, but our whole military life as well, we cannot be too careful in clearing the ground of all but the purest argument. The opposers of the existing system have always been able to argue with great force, because there are undoubted anomalies, which can easily be described in such a way as to appear ludicrous. As selection for employment in the Horse Brigade has always been conditional on previous zeal and efficiency, it follows that the reward for activity and knowledge in the performance of, it may be, Siege and Garrison Artillery duties, is often employment in a service totally dissimilar. This may be compared with rewarding an Infantry officer for skill in battalion drill, by giving him a troop of Horse! Yet, while admitting the anomaly, it is impossible to suggest a better test, if both branches of the Regiment are to be officered from the same list. The only test of efficiency which can be trusted is efficiency already proved. It must be believed that a man who has been faithful and zealous in one line of duty will display the same zeal and conscience in another; and if selection has to be made,—if there are many candidates for any employment, their previous history, even under very different circumstances, is the best witness for or against them.

But another argument employed against the existing system is, that an officer, who has once served in the more brilliant branch, returns with reluctance, on promotion, to the others, and is restless and dissatisfied until he is reappointed. In other words, that esprit for the particular branch drowns that for the Regiment. History is the best witness here.

Excluding the many living men, who have proved that Horse Artillery service has not affected their Regimental esprit de corps, let us recall the names of the men who have been most distinguished for professional talent of every description since the formation of the Royal Horse Artillery. Sir John Macleod, Sir Augustus Frazer, Sir Alexander Dickson, Sir John May, Sir Robert Gardiner, and Sir E. C. Whinyates, all served in the Horse Artillery, but never allowed themselves to be blinded, by their love of that service, to the interests of the Regiment at large. Their letters, their very lives, are witnesses to their devotion to the whole Corps; and while serving with the Siege or Garrison Artillery, their performance of duty was inspired by the same zeal, as when serving in what may be called the more attractive branch. They all saw and felt that the less showy was the more scientific, that Garrison Artillery was the backbone of the Regiment, and that, under favourable circumstances, it would dwarf, even in popularity, the mounted batteries. The Peninsular and Waterloo campaigns were conducive to the efficiency and popularity of Horse Artillery; but let Siege Artillery have as many years of such service as it went through at Sebastopol, with the mounted batteries acting merely as carriers of ammunition, and its efficiency and popularity would be quite as great.

History therefore does not support the theory that service in the Horse Brigade injures the capacity, or the esprit de corps, of an officer who returns to the other branches. The question at issue therefore condenses itself into a still narrower field; viz., admitting that the present system does not prevent Artillery officers from being generally efficient, would they not be much more efficient if they belonged to Field or Garrison Artillery during their whole career, without the power of interchanging their services? If ability in field battery service were rewarded by appointment to the Horse Artillery, and skill in Garrison Artillery service were rewarded, either by special employment or by appointment to some such corps as was recommended by Sir Robert Gardiner—an Artillery of the Guard—would we not have better officers of each branch than we now have? Logically, there can be but one answer; and were this the only consideration, the argument would terminate in favour of a separation of the officers of the various arms, similar to that already existing between the non-commissioned officers and men. We should then have probably more skilled artillerists, in point of number, in each branch; although perhaps no individual more skilled than those who have appeared under, or in spite of, the anomalous system which has hitherto existed.

But would the Regiment in the end be a gainer by the change? Has not the system of interchange been the best school possible for familiarising the Artillery officer with the duties and movements of other arms, and thus qualifying him for commands in the field? General Foy, in writing of the days when such a thing as a command being given to Foy. a General of Artillery was unknown, owing to jealousy of the Ordnance, said: “On a trop en horreur les avancements hors de la règle pour permettre qu’un artilleur qui se trouverait trop à l’étroit dans son arme s’élançât dans le service général de la ligne. Jamais de l’école de Woolwich ne sortira un Bonaparte.” The days of the Ordnance have passed away: public opinion points more surely every day to the employment of Generals who are not merely soldiers, but scientific soldiers as well; and it would be a suicidal policy which would recommend a change which, if carried out logically, would result in the certainty of admirable officers of high but narrow professional training, and the impossibility of any whose experience of general service would qualify them for a mixed command. The Garrison Artilleryman who in his battery had attained a skill in his particular groove, hitherto but rare, would feel every day his association with the other arms getting less, and his consequent inability to command them getting greater. If this consideration be carefully borne in mind, even those who feel most strongly on the subject—and they are many—will hesitate ere they precipitate a result which would inscribe on the walls of the Academy the dismal prediction, “Jamais de l’école de Woolwich ne sortira un Bonaparte.”

Note.—The extra rate of pay to non-commissioned officers and gunners of the Royal Horse Artillery is based on the following General Order, dated 21 January, 1793:—

“The Master-General directs that an allowance of twopence per day, in addition to their Regimental pay, shall be made to each non-commissioned officer and gunner of the Brigade of Horse Artillery, when and so long as he continues mounted, and having the care and management of an horse, in consideration of the extraordinary and constant attention required of such persons for the due performance of this particular service, which must deprive them of the occasional advantages arising from their being employed in works for which additional pay is given.

“The dismounted non-commissioned officers and gunners of this Brigade not being in the same circumstances, nor deprived of their share in the works, will not be entitled to the said allowance; nor will the drivers of this Brigade, as they are to be enlisted merely for that special service, and will have but little of other duties to learn or perform.”

Note 2.—The style of horse considered suitable for Horse Artillery at first, may be ascertained from the following instructions, dated Woolwich, March 1810:—“The horses to be from four to six years old (when bought), to be short-legged, open-chested, and broad-winded; not to exceed 15 hands 2 inches, nor—four years old—under 15 hands ½ inch; to have good bone and action, the colours to be bay, brown, and dark chestnut.” The price allowed, after a month’s trial, was thirty guineas.

CHAPTER III.
With the Duke of York in Flanders.

The causes of a war are to a certain extent beyond the province of a work which has mainly to deal with Hist. R. A. Chap. i. vol. ii. its history. In the present instance, allusion has already been made to the ostensible reason; but it is very difficult Stephen’s ‘Wars of the French Revolution.’ to arrive at the exact truth. “From the guilt and odium of this new and disastrous conflict the ruling parties in both nations anxiously endeavoured to vindicate themselves.” There is no doubt that in 1792 England threatened to declare war, unless France should renounce her views of aggression and aggrandisement; or, in other Ibid. words, “relinquish all her conquests, and confine herself within her own territory.” The answer given by M. Chauvelin to Lord Grenville, on the 13th January, 1793, was: “We will fight the English, whom we esteem, with regret; but we will fight them without fear.” Matters were precipitated by the execution of the French King; and on the 24th January M. Chauvelin received notice to quit England within eight days. Once again the French attempted to pacify the English Government, but without success. They therefore took the initiative—declaring war, in the name of the French Republic, against England and Holland on the 1st February, 1793; and this was followed on the 11th February by a counter-declaration on the part of England.

On the 17th February the French army took the field, resolved to carry the war into Holland; and speedily captured Breda, Klundert, and Gertruydenberg. The siege of Williamstadt was not so successful; and here good service was rendered by the Royal Artillery on board bomb-vessels. Severe reverses having befallen another French army, employed elsewhere in the Low Countries, the whole of the French troops were withdrawn from this first expedition against Holland. Space prevents any description of the operations between the Imperialists and the troops of the Republic—the losses and defeats of the latter under Dumouriez, and his subsequent defection. The movements of the Army under the Duke of York will be all that it is necessary to study, to ascertain the services of the Corps in this war.

Although the main Artillery force for this expedition did not embark until the 10th May, 1793, Woolwich was much disquieted after the end of February with incessant demands for battalion guns and the requisite detachments for the regiments under orders for the Low Countries. In no English war was this pernicious system of battalion guns more systematically urged and practised. Occasionally—as will be seen presently—the guns were brigaded; and during the siege operations, as at Valenciennes, the Artillery did duty by companies: but, as a rule, the guns were attached in pairs to the different battalions. Only one waggon accompanied Ibid. each pair of guns; and the following was the strength of the Artillery detachment: viz., 1 subaltern, 2 non-commissioned officers, 8 gunners, 3 drivers, and 9 horses. The faults of this system have already been alluded to, but are most Captain H. W. L. Hime, R.A., on ‘Mobility of Field Artillery.’ clearly shown in the following words:—“To prevent these guns from impeding the movements of the infantry to whom they belonged, their weight was reduced to an extent which made their fire under the most favourable circumstances all but useless. Secondly, as a matter of fact, they did seriously encumber their infantry. For, infantry compelled to drag guns along with them could not be expected to march, even on smooth and level plains, with the same order and rapidity as infantry who marched free from such an encumbrance; and in a cultivated country, intersected with ditches, hedges, and walls, the guns had to be abandoned altogether. In this latter case they not only failed to fulfil the very object of their existence, but left a gap in the line which, as they were generally placed in the centre of the battalion, might produce fatal consequences. Thirdly, as it was necessary for them to take part in all the manœuvres of the battalion, the necessary time was not afforded to the gunners for placing, loading, or laying their guns carefully. No guns could have been effective under this system, which violated both the fundamental principles of Field Artillery tactics, viz., that the movements of a battery in action should be minimum in number, and should be made at a maximum speed. Fourthly, their constant presence with their infantry led the latter to look upon the guns as necessary to the safety of the battalion, and thus diminished that self-confidence which infantry must possess to be successful. Fifthly, as these guns were practically useless, not only was the money spent on their construction wasted, but the regular columns or trains of Artillery were deprived of a corresponding number of guns, which might have been turned to good account by their own officers. In fine, this bad system weakened the Artillery without strengthening the Infantry, and raised a general prejudice against the use in the field of what was regarded as a complicated and useless mechanism.”

At the special request of the Duke of York, Major—afterwards Sir William—Congreve was appointed to command the Artillery of the expedition. He embarked in May with the main body of his force. A party under the command of Brevet-Major Wright left England earlier in the spring of 1793, to take part in the siege operations with which the English share of the campaign commenced. Its strength and the names of the officers were as follows:—

Major Wright’s Company, which formed the chief part of this force, was No. 2 Company, 1st Battalion, now B Battery, 1st Brigade.

The main Artillery force, which embarked at Woolwich on the 10th May, 1793, was as follows:—

The total of the military branch, exclusive of the drivers, was 236.

There was also an extraordinary addition to a force proceeding on active service, in the form of 21 women and 23 children.

Yet a third detachment left Woolwich for Flanders, on the 26th August, 1793, as follows:—

Various other officers joined the Army during the war, among whom can be traced Lieutenants Schalch, Lefebure, Boger, and Spearman. The force of Royal Artillery in Flanders reached its maximum in February 1794, when it was as follows:—

An additional expedition, under Lord Moira, sailed for the Low Countries during the war; and the Artillery portion of the force comprised a field-officer in command—the 5th Company of the 4th Battalion—now B Battery, 9th Brigade—with MS. Returns to B. O. 110 of all ranks, and also 114 sergeant-conductors and gunner-drivers.

The present designations of five of the companies known to have been with the Duke of York’s force are—

The 6th Company, which was with the Army, cannot be traced with accuracy, but it was probably No. 7 Battery, 2nd Brigade. There were two bomb-vessels, the ‘Terror’ and ‘Vesuvius,’ which did good service, and on board of which were Lieutenants Suckling and Ramsay, 2 non-commissioned officers, 18 gunners, and 2 artificers, of the Royal Artillery.