HISTORY
OF THE
ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY.
COMPILED FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORDS.
BY CAPTAIN FRANCIS DUNCAN, M.A., D.C.L.
ROYAL ARTILLERY.
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY REGIMENTAL RECORDS;
FELLOW OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON,
AND THE ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY.
[Illustration]
VOL. I.—_TO THE PEACE OF 1783._
WITH A PORTRAIT.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1872.
_The right of Translation is reserved._
[Illustration:
ALBERT BORGARD.
FIRST COLONEL OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY
]
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 TO THIRD EDITION.
A FURTHER reorganization of the Royal Artillery, involving alterations
in the nomenclature of Batteries, having taken place since the
publication of the Second Edition, the Author has deemed it desirable to
issue a Third, with tables added to Appendix C, in the Second Volume,
which will enable the reader to keep up the continuity.
These frequent changes are embarrassing to the student of history, but
in the present instance the change has been distinctly advantageous in
an administrative point of view.
WOOLWICH.
_October, 1879._
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.
THE unexpected favour accorded to the first edition of this work having
already rendered a second necessary, the author has taken the
opportunity of making many corrections and additions, and of embodying
the indices of both volumes in one. The history, as it now stands,
represents the services of the Corps in detail as far as the year 1815,
and gives a summary of the services of those batteries now in existence,
which represent the troops and companies of the old Royal Horse
Artillery, and of the nine senior battalions of the Royal Artillery. The
tables at the end of both volumes will also assist the reader in tracing
the antecedents of every battery in the Regiment.
* * * * *
The author takes this opportunity of expressing his gratitude to his
brother officers for the cordial sympathy and encouragement which he has
received from them during his labours, and his hope that the noble
narrative commenced by him will not long remain unfinished. The
importance of completing the record of the Corps' services in the Crimea
and India, while the officers who served in these campaigns are yet
alive, is very apparent; and the author would respectfully suggest that
any documents throwing light upon these services, which are in the
possession of any one belonging to, or interested in the Corps, should
be deposited for safe keeping, and for reference, in the Regimental
Record Office at Woolwich.
_March 2, 1874._
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.
AMONG the uneducated, discipline is created by fear, and confirmed by
habit. Among the educated, the agency at work is more complicated.
Sympathy with the machine of which the individual finds himself a part,
and a reasoning apprehension of the necessity of discipline, are mingled
with a strong feeling of responsibility; and, as in the former case,
habit steps in to cement the whole. Of all these agents, the noblest is
undoubtedly the sense of responsibility, and the highest duty of a
military commander is to awaken this sense where it does not exist, and
to confirm and strengthen it where it does.
* * * * *
Two means may be employed to ensure this end. First: let the importance
of his duty be impressed on the individual, and let the value in a
military sense of what might seem at first sight trivial be carefully
demonstrated. Let it be explained that neglect of some seemingly slight
duty may disarrange the whole machine; and that for this reason no duty,
in a soldier's eyes, should appear slight or trivial. Second: let an
_esprit de corps_ be fostered, such as shall make a man feel it a shame
to be negligent or unworthy.
* * * * *
History has a power to awaken this _esprit_, which it is impossible to
overrate. Its power reaches the educated and the uneducated alike; it
begets a sympathy with the past, which is a sure agent in creating
cohesion in the present; for the interest which binds us to our
predecessors binds us also to one another. In this cohesion and sympathy
is to be found the most sublime form of true discipline.
CONTENTS OF VOL. I
PAGE
PREFACE v
Introductory Chapter 1
CHAPTER
I. —THE MASTERS-GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCE, AND THEIR HONOURABLE 9
BOARD
II. —THE INFANCY OF ARTILLERY IN ENGLAND 35
III. —THE RESTORATION, AND THE REVOLUTION OF 1688 45
IV. —LANDMARKS 60
V. —MARLBOROUGH'S TRAINS 63
VI. —ANNAPOLIS 71
VII. —THE BIRTH OF THE REGIMENT 79
VIII. —ALBERT BORGARD 83
IX. —TWENTY YEARS 101
X. —FOUNDATION OF THE ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY 108
XI. —A STERNER SCHOOL 122
XII. —WOOLWICH IN THE OLDEN TIME 140
XIII. —TO 1755 154
XIV. —THE ROYAL IRISH ARTILLERY 160
XV. —THE FIRST BATTALION.—HISTORY OF THE COMPANIES, THEIR 169
SUCCESSION OF CAPTAINS, AND PRESENT DESIGNATION
XVI. —THE SECOND BATTALION.—HISTORY OF THE COMPANIES, THEIR 178
SUCCESSION OF CAPTAINS, AND PRESENT DESIGNATION
XVII. —DURING THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR 184
XVIII. —THE SIEGE OF LOUISBOURG 194
XIX. —MINDEN,—AND AFTER MINDEN 206
XX. —THE THIRD BATTALION.—HISTORY OF THE COMPANIES, THEIR 218
SUCCESSION OF CAPTAINS, AND PRESENT DESIGNATION
XXI. —THE SIEGE OF BELLEISLE 227
XXII. —PEACE 241
XXIII. —THE FOURTH BATTALION—HISTORY OF THE COMPANIES, THEIR 251
SUCCESSION OF CAPTAINS, AND PRESENT DESIGNATION
XXIV. —THE JOURNAL OF A FEW YEARS 264
XXV. —THE GREAT SIEGE OF GIBRALTAR 271
XXVI. —PORT MAHON 291
XXVII. —THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 297
XXVIII. —THE GUNNER WHO GOVERNED NEW YORK 325
XXIX. —CONCLUSION OF THE WAR 348
XXX. —HISTORY, SUCCESSION OF CAPTAINS, AND PRESENT DESIGNATION
OF THE TROOPS AND COMPANIES BELONGING TO THE—
ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY,
FIFTH BATTALION,
SIXTH BATTALION,
SEVENTH BATTALION 393
APPENDICES 426
HISTORY
Of THE
ROYAL REGIMENT OF ARTILLERY.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
IN the summer of 1682, for the space of nearly three months, an old man
might have been seen pacing daily up and down near the Ordnance Offices
in the Tower of London, growing shabbier day by day, more hopeless and
purposeless in his gait, yet seeming bound to the place either by
expectation or command.
At last with trembling hand he prepared for the Honourable Board of
Ordnance the following quaint petition:—
"The humble Petition of John Hawling, Master Gunner of
His Majesty's Castle of Chester."
"SHEWETH:—
"That y^e Petitioner being commanded up by special order from the
office hath remained here y^e space of 13 weeks to his great cost
and charges, he being a very poor and ancient man, not having
wherewithal to subsist in so chargeable a place.
"He therefor most humbly implores y^r Hon^{rs} to take his sad
condition into your Honours' consideration, and to restore him to
his place again, y^t he may return to his habitation with such
commands as your Hon^{rs} shall think fitt to lay upon him.
"And your Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."
To which Petition the Honourable Board returned the following peremptory
answer:—
"Let y^e Petitioner return back to Chester Castle, and there submit
himself to Sir Jeoffrey Shakerley, Governor, in y^e presence of Sir
Peter Pindar and Mr. Anderton, and obey y^e orders of y^e Governor
and Lieut.-Governor of y^e said castle, and upon his said
submission and obedience, let him continue and enjoy his former
employment of Master Gunner there, so long as he shall so behave
himselfe accordingly."
John Hawling, this poor and ancient man, was one of the small class of
Master Gunners, and Gunners of Garrisons, who with the few fee'd Gunners
at the Tower, represented the only permanent force of Artillery in those
days in England. Their scientific attainments as Artillerists were
small, and their sense of discipline was feeble. To take a very
superficial charge of Ordnance Stores, and to resent any military
interference, such as at Chester seems to have driven John Hawling into
mutiny, but at the same time to cringe to the Board, which was the
source of their annual income, represented in their minds the sum and
substance of their duties. And taking into consideration John Hawling's
offence, his advanced years, and his petition, we do not err in taking
him as a representative man.
* * * * *
In the House of Commons, on the 22nd of February, 1872, the Secretary of
State for War rose to move the Army Estimates for the ensuing year.
These included provision for a Regiment of Artillery, numbering—
including those serving in India—34,943 officers, non-commissioned
officers, and men.
Although divided into Horse, Field, and Garrison Artillery, and
including no less than twenty-nine Brigades, besides a large Depôt, this
large force, representing the permanent Artillery Force of Great
Britain, was one vast regiment—the Royal Regiment of Artillery.
To trace the growth, from so small an acorn, of so noble a tree, is a
task which would inspire the boldest author with diffidence: and when
the duty is undertaken by one who has had no experience in historical
writing, he is bound to justify himself to his readers for his temerity.
When the writer of the following pages assumed, in January, 1871, the
duties of Superintendent of the Royal Artillery Regimental Records, he
found a method and order established by his predecessor, Major R.
Oldfield, R.A., all the more remarkable when compared with the chaos too
often prevailing in Record offices. The idea immediately occurred to him
that if ever a History of the Regiment were to be written—a book greatly
wanted, and yet becoming every day more difficult to write—here, in this
office, could it most easily be done. This feeling became so strong in
his mind, that it overcame the reluctance he felt to step into an arena
for which he had received no special training.
The unwillingness felt by him was increased by the knowledge that there
was in the Regiment an officer, Colonel F. Miller, V.C., who was
eminently qualified for writing such a History. Other and more pressing
duties had, however, prevented that officer from undertaking a work
which he had once contemplated; but of the many documents and books
which the author of the following pages has made use of for his purpose,
none has been more valuable than an exhaustive pamphlet published some
years ago by Colonel Miller for private circulation, and his recent
edition of Kane's list of Artillery officers, with its comprehensive
Appendix.
It has been said above that the writing of this History has been every
year becoming more difficult. The statement requires explanation, as the
difficulty is not caused so much by the accumulation—continually going
on—of modern records, which might bury the old ones out of sight, as by
a change in the organization of the Regiment which took place some years
ago, and which sadly dislocated its history, although possibly improving
its efficiency. In the year 1859, the old system which divided the
Regiment into Companies and Battalions, with permanent Battalion
Headquarters at Woolwich, was abolished; and Companies serving in
different parts of the Empire were linked together in Brigades, on
grounds of Geography, instead of History. Companies of different
Battalions serving on the same station were christened Batteries of the
same Brigade, and the old Battalion staff at Woolwich became the staff,
at various stations, of the Brigades newly created. The old Companies,
in donning their new titles, lost their old history and began their life
anew. Every year as it passed made the wall which had been built between
the present and the past of the Regiment more nearly approach the
student's horizon, and the day seemed imminent when it would be
impossible to make the existing Batteries know and realize that the
glorious History of the old Companies was their own legitimate property.
The evil of such a state can hardly be described. The importance of
maintaining the _esprit_ of Batteries cannot be overrated. And _esprit_
feeds and flourishes upon history.
Nor can Battery _esprit_ be created by a _general_ Regimental history.
The _particular_ satisfies the appetite which refuses to be nourished
upon the _general_. The memory which will gloat over the stories of
Minden, Gibraltar, or Waterloo, will look coldly on the Regimental Motto
"Ubique." Therefore, he who would make the influence of history most
surely felt by an Artilleryman must spare no labour in tracing the links
which connect the Batteries of the present with the Companies of the
past. For the Battery is the unit of Artillery: all other organization
is accidental. Whether the administrative web, which encloses a number
of Batteries, be called a Battalion or a Brigade system, is a matter of
secondary importance. It is by Batteries that Artillerymen make War; and
it is by Batteries that their history should be traced.
With this feeling uppermost in his mind, the author of these pages has
endeavoured on every occasion to revive the memories which will be dear
to the officers and men of Batteries—memories which ran a risk of being
lost with the introduction of a new nomenclature. On such memories an
_esprit de corps_, which no legislation can create, will blossom easily
and brilliantly; and no weapon for discipline in the hand of a commander
will be found more true than the power of appealing to his men to
remember the reputation which their predecessors earned with their
lives.
This first volume will give the present designation, the past history,
and the succession of Captains of the whole of the Companies of the
seven Battalions formed during the last century and of the old troops of
the Royal Horse Artillery. In the succeeding volumes, the same course
will be pursued with regard to the later Battalions.
These stories will be all the more precious now, as the importance of
the Battery as a tactical unit has been so distinctly recognized by His
Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge within the last few months, and its
responsibility and value as a command have been so recently and
generously marked by the present Secretary of State for War.
* * * * *
The author does not pretend to underrate the difficulties of the task
which he has undertaken—difficulties which cannot be realized by those
who see merely these inadequate results of his labours. Not the least
was the difficulty of knowing where to begin. The Regimental
organization is comparatively recent; and had he confined his labours to
the last one hundred and sixty years, his task would have been greatly
lessened, and yet he might have said with literal truth that he had
written a History of the Royal Artillery. But surely in any History
worthy of the name there were antecedent circumstances which could not
be left unnoticed, such as the circumstances which brought about the
birth of the Regiment, the blunders and failures which marked the old
system in England as wrong and foolish, and the necessity, which
gradually dawned, of having in the country a _permanent_, instead of a
_spasmodic_ force of Artillery.
Repudiating, therefore, the notion that the Regiment's History should
commence with its first parade, how far was he to penetrate in his
antiquarian researches? There was a danger of wearying his reader, which
had to be avoided fully as carefully as the risk of omitting necessary
information, for a history—to be useful in awakening _esprit de corps_—
should be _read_, not shelved as a work of reference. It is in this part
of his labours that the author has to appeal for the greatest
indulgence, because writing, as he has generally done, with all his
documents and authorities round him for reference, he may unconsciously
have omitted some details most necessary to the reader; or with some
picture clearly present to his own mind as he wrote, he may have given
light and shade which had caught his own fancy, and omitted the outlines
without which the picture will be almost unintelligible.
Of the many to whom he is indebted for assistance he feels called upon
to mention specially the Secretary of State for War, by whose permission
he had unlimited access to the Ordnance Library in the Tower; Colonel
Middleton, C.B., Deputy Adjutant-General of the Royal Artillery; General
McDowell, commanding the troops in New York; Lieutenant A. B. Gardner,
of the United States Artillery; and the Committees of the Royal
Artillery and United Service Institutions.
The works which the author has consulted are too numerous to mention,
but among those which were most useful to him were Drinkwater's 'Siege
of Gibraltar,' Murdoch's 'History of Nova Scotia,' Browne's 'England's
Artillerymen,' Clode's 'Military Forces of the Crown,' the Reports of
the House of Commons, the Records of the Royal Military Academy, Kirke's
'Conquest of Canada,' Rameau's 'La France aux Colonies,' Cust's 'Annals
of the Wars.'
* * * * *
Among the mass of MSS. through which he had to wade, the valuable
manuscript notes connected with the 'History of the Royal Artillery,'
arranged by the late Colonel Cleaveland, deserve special mention. The
skeleton of this work, however, was furnished by the old Record Books of
the Battalions, deposited in the office of which the author is
Superintendent.
In the succeeding volumes, the advantage of being able to use the old
letter-books of the head-quarter offices of the Royal Artillery will be
apparent. But there was no head-quarter staff for the Regiment up to the
time where this volume finishes; so that the student has, up to that
date, to depend greatly on men like General James Pattison and Forbes
Macbean, who placed on record, in their diaries and letter-books,
valuable and interesting information connected with the Regiment during
their service, which would otherwise have been hopelessly unattainable.
The value of such a History as this, if the writer has not utterly
failed in his object, cannot be better shown than in some words
addressed by one of our most distinguished Artillery officers (Sir E. C.
Warde) to an audience at the Royal Artillery Institution a few months
ago. The family affection which he urged as the model for Regimental
_esprit_ cannot be better fostered than by reviving the stories of our
predecessors' gallant deeds and scientific excellence. As a Regiment, we
are now large almost to unwieldiness, and conflicting interests and
tastes tend to diminish the desired sympathy and cohesion. And, as in
the crowded pit of a theatre before the performance commences, there is
elbowing, and crowding, and wrangling for place, yet when the curtain
rises all is hushed and quiet,—there is room for every one,—and the look
of selfishness is exchanged for one of interest and pleasure,—so, among
our great numbers, although there must be many and diverse interests and
tastes, yet we all become as one as we gaze on the great dramas in which
those of us have acted who have gone before.
The words used by Sir Edward Warde were as follows:—"It has ever been
our pride, as a corps, to be regarded as one family; and if one member
of it, in any remote part of the world, in any way distinguished
himself, it was felt universally that he had reflected credit and honour
on the whole corps. And so, _vice versâ_. Should we not, then, extend
those feelings as they apply to private families, in which members
embrace _different_ professions? One becomes a soldier, another a
sailor, a third enters the Church, a fourth goes up for the bar, and so
on; and if any one gain honour and distinction, all equally feel that
such honour and distinction is reflected upon the whole family, and all
equally glory and rejoice in it. So should it be with us. Some of us
take special interest in the _personnel_, as it is well known to you all
that I have done throughout my career; but is that any reason why I
should not take an interest—aye, and a warm interest—in the success of
those brother officers who pursue scientific researches, and seek honour
and distinction in the pursuit of literature, and in endeavouring to
raise the character of our corps as one from which highly scientific
attainments are expected? No, indeed; the very reverse should be our
guiding rule; and I can conceive no position more honourable than that
held for so many years by our highly distinguished brother officer, Sir
Edward Sabine. Let us, then, feel that we _are_ one family, and let us
rejoice in the success of every one of its members, whether they are so
fortunate as to gain distinction in the field, in the siege, or in
literary and scientific pursuits; and by so doing may we hope, not only
to maintain our present high reputation, but to increase it as time goes
on."
CHAPTER I.
THE MASTERS-GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCE AND THEIR
HONOURABLE BOARD.
THERE are many reasons why the Masters-General of the Ordnance must
interest the student of the History of the Royal Artillery. In the days
before the Regimental organization existed, all Artillery details came
under the care and superintendence of the Masters-General; and to a
distinguished one of their number does the Regiment owe its formation.
The interest becomes deeper and closer after that date; for in addition
to the general superintendence which had already existed, the Master-
General had now a special interest in the Royal Artillery, in his _ex
officio_ capacity as its Colonel.
And whatever objections may be urged against the Board of Ordnance, the
Royal Artillery, save in one particular, has always had abundant and
special reason for regarding it with affection and gratitude. The almost
fatherly care, even to the minutest details, which the Board showed to
that corps over which their Master presided, was such as to awaken the
jealousy of the other arms of the service. Had their government not been
of that description which attempts to govern too much, not a word could
be said by an Artilleryman, save in deprecation of the day when the
Board of Ordnance was abolished. Unfortunately, like a parent who has
failed to realize that his children have become men, the Board
invariably interfered with the duties of the Artillery under whatever
circumstances its officers might be situated. No amount of individual
experience, no success, no distance from England, could save unhappy
Artillerymen from perpetual worry and incessant legislation. The piteous
protests and appeals which meet the student at every turn give some idea
of the torture to which the miserable writers had been exposed. The way,
also, in which the Board expressed its parental affection was often such
as to neutralize its aim. It was rare indeed that any General Officer
commanding an army on service made an appointment of however temporary
or trivial a nature, which had to come under the approval of the Board,
without having it peremptorily cancelled. Even in time of peace, the
presence in every garrison of that band of conspirators, known as the
Respective Officers—who represented the obstructive Board, and whose
opinion carried far more weight than that of the General commanding—was
enough to irritate that unhappy officer into detestation of the
Honourable Board and all connected with it.
It has been declared—and by many well able to judge, including the Duke
of Wellington himself—that in many respects the Board of Ordnance was an
excellent national institution and a source of economy to the country.
It may be admitted that in its civil capacity this was the case, and the
recent tendency to revive in the army something like the Civil Branch of
the Ordnance proves that this opinion is general. But, if we take a more
liberal view than that of mere Artillerymen, we must see that the
military division of its duties was only saved from exposure and
disgrace by the fact that the bodies of troops over which it had control
were generally small and scattered. The command of the Royal Artillery,
now that it has attained its present numbers, could not have remained
vested in the hands of a Board constituted as the Board of Ordnance was.
What General Officer could have hoped to weld the three arms of his
division into any homogeneous shape, while one of them could quote
special privileges, special orders, and sometimes positive prohibition,
from a body to which they owed a very special obedience? The Royal
Artillery may indeed have lost in little comforts and perquisites by the
abolition of the Board of Ordnance, but in a military point of view, in
proficiency, and in popularity, the Regiment has decidedly been a
gainer.
While admitting, however, the advantages, nay, the necessity of the
change which has taken place, the long roll of distinguished soldiers
and statesmen who have successively held the office of Master-General of
the Ordnance is too precious an heirloom in the eyes of an Artilleryman
to let pass without special notice and congratulation.
From 1483, the earliest date when we can trace one by name, down to the
days of the Crimean war, when the last Master-General died in harness,
the brave, gentle Lord Raglan, the list sparkles with the names of men
who have been first in Court and field, and who have deserved well of
England.
Their duties were by no means honorary in earlier times, although during
the last fifty years of the Board's existence the chief work fell upon
the permanent staff, and the visits of the Master-General were
comparatively rare and ceremonious. If any one would learn what they had
to do in the seventeenth century, let him go to the Tower, and examine
the correspondence of Lord Dartmouth, the faithful friend and servant of
Charles II., a professional Artilleryman and James II.'s skilled Master-
General to the last. He created order out of chaos in the Department of
the Ordnance, under Charles II., and so admirable were his arrangements,
that on King William ascending the throne, he issued a warrant ratifying
all previous orders, and leaving the details of the management of the
Ordnance unaltered. In the autumn of 1688, Lord Dartmouth's office—never
a sinecure—became laborious in the extreme. Daily and hourly
requisitions reached him from the excited King and his Ministers, for
the arming of the ships and the Regiments which were being raised in
every direction. Authority was given to raise more gunners, as if
experience could be created in a moment and the science of Artillery
begotten in a man's mind, without previous study, for "twelve-pence by
the day." To Chatham the Master-General hurries to superintend the
fitting-out of the men-of-war, and next day, for the same purpose, to
Sheerness, where he finds a despatch from the trembling Privy Council,
ordering him to fill six merchant ships with fireworks to accompany the
King's fleet, as fire-ships against the enemy. A terrible life did poor
Lord Dartmouth lead at this time. Sometimes his letters are written from
on board ship in the river, sometimes from his cabin in the
'Resolution,' at Portsmouth; very frequently from Windsor, where James
anxiously kept him near his person, plying him now with questions and
now with contradictory orders. Sometimes we find him writing at
midnight, ordering his loving friends, the principal officers of the
Ordnance, to meet him next day at the Cockpit, in Whitehall; at other
times he swoops down unexpectedly on the bewildered officials in the
Tower. In the old, quiet days, his correspondence was distinguished by
an almost excessive courtesy; but now, in these days of fever and in the
depth of his anxiety, it almost disappears; orders are issued like
minute-guns; explanations of delay are fretfully demanded; and a
bombardment is incessant of peremptory inquiries as to the state of His
Majesty's ships and stores.
His Lieutenant-General, Sir Henry Tichborne, has a hard place of it at
this time. With so energetic a Master at the Board, his work hitherto
has been of the lightest, and his head seems now to reel under the
change. For a few weeks he holds out, but by the end of November in that
eventful year matters came to a crisis with poor Sir Henry. He can no
longer attend the meetings of the Board; a violent fit of the gout
prevents him, which he carefully warns his colleagues will, in all
likelihood, continue some time: and with a piteous prayer that, out of
the small sum in hand, the Board will pay the salaries of the "poor
gunners, as subsisting but from day to day," Sir Henry's name disappears
from the Board's proceedings, and the History of the Ordnance knows him
no more.
After this time the Honourable Board seems, when its Master was absent,
to have enacted the part of the Unjust Steward, for we find various
debts remitted to creditors who could not pay, and not a small issue of
debentures to those whose friendship it was desirable to retain. All
through the records of their proceedings at this time is to be traced,
like a monotonous accompaniment in music, the work of that immovable
being the permanent clerk. From the dull offices in the Tower issue the
same solemn Warrants, appointing this man an Ordnance labourer at six-
and-twenty pounds a year, and that man a gunner at twelve-pence a day,
just as if no Revolution were at hand, and no foreign foe were menacing
the very existence of their King and Honourable Board together. Lord
Dartmouth may be guilty of curt and feverish memoranda, but the
permanent clerk never moves out of his groove, nor shall posterity ever
trace any uneasiness in his formal work.
And then comes the sudden gap in all the books; the blank pages more
eloquent than words; the disappearance of the familiar signature of
Dartmouth; and the student takes up a fresh set of books where England
took up a fresh King.
The duties of the Master-General, and the various members and servants
of the Board of Ordnance, were first reduced to a systematic form in
Charles II.'s reign, while Lord Dartmouth was in office. The Warrant
defining these was confirmed by James II. on the 4th February, 1686; by
William III., on the 8th March, 1689; by Queen Anne, on the 30th June,
1702; by George I., on the 30th July, 1715; and by George II., on the
17th June, 1727.
Although some alterations were made by George III., they were very
slight, and rendered necessary by the occasional absence of the Master-
General and by the creation of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich—
the Cadets attending that institution being placed in a very special
manner under the care and superintendence of the Master and Lieutenant-
General of the Ordnance. The orders under which the Board worked up to
the beginning of this century were, therefore, practically those
instituted during Lord Dartmouth's term of office; and in examining
them, one cannot fail to be struck with their exhaustive anticipation of
every circumstance which might arise for consideration.
The Master of the Ordnance, as he was originally called—sometimes also
termed the Captain-General of the Artillery—received, in 1604, the title
of Master-General; and was considered one of the most important
personages in the realm. Since the great Marlborough held the office, it
has seldom been given to any one not already possessed of the highest
military rank: but this was not always the case. Lord Dartmouth was
plain Colonel Legge when first appointed, and the social, as well as
military rank of his predecessors, was sometimes far from exalted. It
became, therefore, necessary to attach to the office some relative
military status: and accordingly we find a Warrant issued by James II.,
bearing date the 13th May, 1686, directing that the Master-General of
the Ordnance should always have "the rank, as well as the respect, due
to our youngest Lieutenant-General: and that our will and pleasure is,
that he command in our Garrisons as formerly, but do not take upon him
the charge or command as a Lieutenant-General in the field, without our
especial commission or appointment." The command in the Garrisons
referred to in the Warrant is in allusion to the Master-Gunners and
Gunners of the various Garrisons, whose allegiance to the Board of
Ordnance, as being, in fact, custodians of the Ordnance Stores, was
always insisted on.
The relative rank awarded to the Master-General entitled him, when
passing through any Camp or Garrison, to a guard of 1 officer, 1
sergeant, and 20 men; the guards were compelled to turn out to him and
the drums to beat a march; and the officers and soldiers of the
Regiments he passed had to turn out at the head of their respective
camps. In the old pre-regimental days, when the Master-General took the
field in time of war, in his official capacity, he was attended by a
Chancellor, thirty gentlemen of the Ordnance, thirty harquebusiers on
horseback, with eight halberdiers for his guard, two or three
interpreters, a minister or preacher, a physician, a master-surgeon and
his attendant, a trumpeter, kettledrums, and chariot with six white
horses, two or three engineers, or more if required, and two or three
refiners of gunpowder. These kettledrums do not seem to have been used
in the field after 1748. They were used by the train of Artillery
employed in Ireland in 1689, and the cost of the drums and their
carriage on that occasion, was estimated at 158_l._ 9_s._ As the reader
comes to compare the wages of the drummer and his coachman—4_s._ and
3_s._ per diem respectively—with the pay given to other by no means
unimportant members of an Artillery train, he will realize what a
prominent position these officials were supposed to hold. The drummer's
suit of clothes cost 50_l._, while a gunner's was valued at 5_l._ 6_s._
4_d._ Even the coachman could not be clad under 15_l._—nearly three
times the cost of a gunner's clothes.
Prior to the date of King Charles's Warrant, the pay of the Master-
General had been very fluctuating, being considerably affected by fees,
and even by sales of places in the department. By that Warrant, however,
it was fixed at a certain sum, inclusive of all perquisites, and the
amount would appear to have been 1500_l._ per annum. This remained
unchanged until the formation of the Cadet Company, when the annual sum
of 474_l._ 10_s._ was added to the Master-General's salary, in his
capacity as Captain of the Company, and charged in the Regimental
accounts of the Royal Artillery. Considerable strides in the direction
of further augmentation were afterwards made, more especially in 1801,
until we find Lord Chatham, in 1809, drawing no less than 3709_l._ per
annum as Master-General of the Ordnance.
There was an order forbidding any increase to the establishment of the
Ordnance without the King's sign-manual, but it speedily became a dead
letter; and changes were frequently made without authority, involving
additional expense, and covered by something akin to supplementary
estimates. In fact, the Parliamentary Commission which sat in 1810 to
inquire into the various departments of the Ordnance ascertained that
both in matters of _personnel_ and _matériel_ the power of the Master-
General in his own department was simply unfettered. That it was not
more frequently abused speaks well for the honesty of the department,
and the honour of its chief officers.
The Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance at the meetings of the Board was
like the Deputy-Chairman of a Company. His powers were in abeyance when
the Master was present: although there were one or two cases in which
his signature was required as one of the quorum necessary to legalize
the business transacted. His office was created by Henry VIII., the
designation of General being added subsequently. Until the days of Sir
Christopher Musgrave he had an official residence in the Minories; and
on its being taken from him he received in lieu the annual allowance of
300_l._ Another perquisite of the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was
the ground called, as the old deed expresses it, "Y^e old Artillery
Garden situate near y^e Spitle in y^e parish of St. Buttolph,
Bishopsgate:" but this also being taken away from him, he was allowed,
in March, 1683, the large manor-house and grounds commonly known as the
Tower Place at Woolwich, together with the Warren, &c., where the Royal
Arsenal now stands, a name given on the occasion of the visit paid to it
by George III. in the spring of 1805. The use of this property by the
Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was, however, trammelled by the
following conditions:—"That the proving of great guns should go on as
heretofore in Woolwich: that the Government should have full control
over all wharves, magazines, cranes, &c., and that a dwelling for the
Master-Gunner of England should be allowed in the said Mansion-house,
and lodging for ten fee'd gunners in the adjoining houses, and also for
such Ordnance labourers as might be necessary."
The proper salary of the Lieutenant-General at first was 800_l._ per
annum, supplemented, as mentioned above, by 300_l._ in lieu of a house;
but rising like the pay of the other officers of the Board, we find in
1810, that it amounted to 1525_l._, besides an allowance for stationery.
The Parliamentary Committee which sat in 1810 and 1811 suggested the
abolition of the office of Lieutenant-General—a suggestion which was
ultimately carried out in 1831. It was revived for a short time during
the Crimean war, Sir Hew Ross holding the appointment during the absence
at the seat of war of the Master-General, Lord Raglan; but this was a
contingency which the Committee had foreseen, and was prepared to meet.
In examining the individual, apart from the collective, duties of the
principal officers of the Ordnance, we find that the Lieutenant-General
had the supervision of the military branch, and acted as a sort of
Adjutant to the Master, who looked to him for all information connected
with the various trains of artillery at the Tower and elsewhere. These
he was bound always to have fit and ready to march: he had to direct and
superintend the practice of the Master-Gunner of England, Firemaster and
his mates, Fireworkers and Gunners, and acquaint the Master with their
proficiencies; and also to see that all officials connected with the
Department did their several duties.
The other four principal officers of the Ordnance were the Surveyor-
General, the Clerk of the Ordnance, the Storekeeper, and the Clerk of
the Deliveries, any three of whom formed a quorum. At the beginning of
the present century the salaries of these officials were respectively
1225_l._, 825_l._, 725_l._, and 1000_l._ with a further annual sum of
200_l._ to the Clerk of the Deliveries during war. The whole of the
principal officers were allowed 25_l._ a year for stationery, besides
certain patent fees varying from 54_l._ 15_s._ in the case of the
principal Storekeeper, to 18_l._ 5_s._ in that of the Clerk of the
Deliveries. The departmental expenses were swollen by an army of public
and private secretaries, clerks, and attendants.
As the work of the Lieutenant-General lay with the _personnel_, so that
of the Surveyor-General lay with the _matériel_. On him lay the
responsibility of superintending all stores, taking remains, and noting
all issues and receipts.
The Clerk of the Ordnance had, in addition to the ordinary
correspondence of the department, to look after salaries, debts,
debentures, and bills falling due, and generally to perform, on a large
scale, the duties of a modern book-keeper. If we may judge by the
correspondence on financial matters which is to be found among the
Ordnance Records, there must have been many a Clerk of the Ordnance
whose days and nights were haunted by visions of bills falling due which
could not be paid. During the times of the Stuarts, the poverty of the
office was sometimes as terrible as the shifts to which the Board had
recourse were pitiable.
Money seems to have been more plentiful during the reign of William
III.; but when Queen Anne came to the throne, England's continental wars
drained the Ordnance exchequer wofully; and while most of their debts
were only paid in part, many were never paid at all. An amusing incident
of the Board's impecuniosity occurred in 1713. An expedition to Canada
having taken place, the gunners and matrosses employed were found after
a time to be sadly in want of clothing. The Commissary of the Ordnance
on the spot, being without funds, drew a bill on the Honourable Board
for 140_l._, which instead of selling as usual to the merchants, he
disposed of to one of the gunners, apparently a man of means, and
destined ever after to be immortal, Mr. Frederick Price.
The bill, in due course, reached the Tower, but only two-thirds of the
amount were paid. Mr. Price naturally remonstrated; but as the
proceeding seems not to have been unusual, the Board took no notice. So
the injured gunner petitioned the Queen, and a courteous letter from the
Treasury speedily reached the Tower, in which a nice distinction was
drawn between Mr. Price's case and that of the merchants, who had been
similarly treated, "who had been great gainers as well by the exchange
as by the stores and provisions which they had sold." The Board admitted
the force of the reasoning, and the creditor got his own again.
The duties of the storekeeper are expressed by his title, and involved
close and frequent personal inspection of stores, as well as great
clerical labour.
The Clerk of the Deliveries had to draw all proportions for delivering
any stores, and to keep copies of all orders or warrants for the
proportions, and journals vouched by the persons who indented for them.
He had to compare monthly the indents taken for all deliveries of stores
with the Storekeeper's proportions; and had to attend, either in person
or represented by one of his sworn clerks, at all deliveries of stores,
and when taking _remains_ of ships.
The Treasurer of the Ordnance, who had to find heavy personal
securities, was one of the most important of the remaining officers
attached to the Board.
So much for the individual duties of the principal officers of the
Ordnance, duties which, it must be admitted, were generally well and
conscientiously performed. Their acts, in their collective capacity, are
more open to criticism. Although the Master-General could act
independently of the Board, when he chose, and had full power of
dismissing or suspending any of the officers, reporting the same to the
Sovereign, he generally worked by means of the Board and, with his
consent, their acts were perfectly legal and binding without his
presence. His personal influence appeared chiefly in matters of
patronage and promotion, and, after the foundation of the Royal Military
Academy, it appeared in a very marked way in all matters connected with
its government. But, with these exceptions, the actions of the Board
which were most public, and call for most comment, are those which are
to be traced to it in its collective capacity; and, as we shall see in
the course of this History, their joint acts were often characterized by
a pettiness, a weakness, and a blindness worthy of the most wooden-
headed vestry of the nineteenth century. It is marvellous how frequently
men who, when acting by themselves, display the utmost zeal and the
strongest sense of responsibility, lose both when associated with others
for joint action, where their individuality is concealed. The zeal seems
instantly to evaporate: their sense of justice gets blunted by the
traditions of the Board of which they have become members; and even the
most radical—after a few useless kicks and plunges—soon settles into the
collar, and assists the team to drag on the lumbering vehicle of
obstruction and unreason. The power over a Board which is exercised by
its permanent clerks is not the less tyranny because it is adroitly
exercised, or because the tyrants are necessary evils. If an
_individual_ is put at the head of a department, self-esteem assists a
sense of duty in making him master the details, and ensure the proper
working of the machine. But when he finds himself merely one of several
shifting and shadowy units whose individualities are lost, and whose
faults are visited upon an empty abstraction instead of on themselves,
he speedily in mere sympathy becomes like them; and, like them, he bows
to the customs and precedents quoted by the permanent officials with an
ill-disguised contempt for those to whom these precedents are
unfamiliar. Then follows the unresisting signature of documents placed
before the Board by clerks who have no idea of anything beyond their
office walls—who imagine the world was created for them, not they for
the world, and who believe and almost say, that the very members of the
Board are there merely to be the channels of their offensive and
dictatorial opinions. There has been in all ages in this country an
officialism which cannot look beyond the letter of the law, whose
representatives decline to enter into argument, to consider the
circumstances of a case, or to make allowance for emergencies:—whose
minds prefer sinning in a groove to doing right out of it: and whose
conduct would often appear malicious, were not malice too active a
feeling to enter into their cold and contracted bosoms.
This officialism was often rampant in the Ordnance; nor with the
extinction of that Honourable Board can it be said to have vanished from
England's administration.
As in the history of every corporation, there were at the Ordnance fits
of economy and extravagance. The extravagance always began at the Tower,
the centre of the Board's official centre and kingdom; the economy away
at the circumference, among poor gunners at distant stations, among
decaying barracks and fortifications crying out loudly for repair. It
seems destined to be the motto of departments in every age, "Charity
begins at home: economy abroad." After the peace of Utrecht, there was a
determined resolution on the part of the Government to retrench,—a wise
and praiseworthy resolution, if the method to be adopted were judicious.
The Treasury communicated with the Ordnance: and the Tower having made
plausible promises to Whitehall, the Honourable Board met to see what
could be done. Starting with the official postulate, so characteristic
of English departments, that their own salaries were to be untouched,
the field of their labour was in proportion contracted. Ultimately they
decided to economize in Scotland: they reduced all the stores there;
voted no money for the repair of the fortifications or barracks; and,
regardless of past services, they reduced the gunners in various
garrisons.
From the far north a plaintive appeal meets the student's eye. It is
from one John Murray, who had been Master-Gunner of Fort William for
nineteen years, and who in this fit of economy had been ruthlessly
struck off the establishment. Verily, ere many months be over, honest
John shall have his revenge!
From Scotland, the Board turned to the Colonies, and reminded them that
they must pay for their own engineers and gunners, if they wished to
keep them. A committee sat to inquire how the American dependencies
could be made to pay for themselves,—the beginning of that official
irritation which culminated in the blaze in which we lost them
altogether; and in the mean time demands for stores were neglected. One
unhappy Governor wrote that he had under his command a company of troops
which for fifteen years had received no fresh bedding: and "many of the
soldiers were very ill, and in y^e winter ready to starve." A special
messenger was sent to lay the matter before the Board; but, he having
been recalled by domestic reasons before succeeding in his prayer, the
Board adroitly pigeon-holed his petition for four years; and, in the
language of a subsequent letter, "For want of bedding, many of y^e
soldiers have since perished."
But ere long came the inevitable swing in the other direction. Queen
Anne died; King George had not yet landed at Greenwich; there was
agitation and conspiracy among the adherents of the Stuarts, and
Scotland was simmering with rebellion. Then did the fearful Privy
Council send letter after letter to the Ordnance urging them to find
arms for 10,000 men for Scotland, or for 5000, or even for 4000; but
from their diminished stores even this small body could with difficulty
be armed. A train of artillery was ordered to march, and could not:
everything was starved, and in chaos; and its commander, Albert Borgard,
wrote, "Things are in such confusion as cannot be described." Orders
were sent to man and defend Fort William, the now desolate scene of John
Murray's nineteen years; and General Maitland, on reaching it, reported
that "the parapets want repairing: there are no palisadoes; without an
engineer to help me, I can but make the best of a bad bargain." He had
to advance the money himself: "Who pays me," he wrote, "I know not." By
next messenger he asked for a little gunpowder, a few spades, pickaxes,
and wheelbarrows, all rather useful articles in a fortification, but
which had vanished under the breath of economy. There were no gunners,
he wrote, to work the guns; and he requested that the hand-grenades
which were coming from Edinburgh might be filled and fitted with fuzes
before they should be sent to him, "for we have none here that
understand this matter well." Of a truth, John Murray had his revenge!
The principal gate of the fortress was so rotten and shattered that it
could not be made use of, and was of no defence at all. There never had
been any gate, the General wrote, to the port of the ravelin; and unless
the platform could be renewed, it would be impossible to work the guns.
"And," he adds in a well-rounded period, "the old timber houses in which
the officers of the Garrison are lodged, and also the old timber
chapell, are all in such a shattered pitifull condition, that neither
the first can be lodged in one, nor the Garrison attend divine service
in the other without being exposed to the inconvenience of all
weathers."
Nor was General Maitland singular. From Dumbarton Castle Lord Glencairn
wrote to the Board, "We not only want in a manner everything, but we
have not so much as a boat. And, besides, the Garrison wants near four
months' pay." From Carlisle the Governor wrote that there were only four
barrels of powder in the garrison, a deficiency of every species of
stores, and only four gunners, "three of which are superannuated." Most
of the gun-carriages were unserviceable, and the platforms wanted
repairing. There was haste and panic at Portsmouth, as empty stores and
unarmed ships warned the Board what work there was before them. And from
Chester, Mr. Asheton, the zealous governor just appointed, reported,
"The guns are all here, but not the carriages, so that the stores, &c.,
would be of service—not prejudice—to an enemy." The only men there who
were capable of doing any work were forty _invalids_; and he therefore
begged for assistance in men and stores, "in order" he wrote, "that I
may be capable of doing my country service by maintaining the rights of
our gracious Sovereign King George against all Popish Pretenders
whatsoever."
As the guns of the Tower blazed out their welcome to the King, the smoke
must have clouded over such an accumulation of testimony in the Ordnance
offices hard by, proving that there may be an economy which is no
economy at all, as might almost have penetrated the intelligence of a
Board. This period in the history of the Ordnance is unsurpassed, even
by the many blundering times which, in the course of these volumes, we
shall have to examine, down to that day in the year of grace 1855 when,
"from the first Cabinet at which Lord Palmerston ever sat as Premier,
the Secretary at War brought home half a sheet of paper, containing a
memorandum that the Ordnance—one of the oldest Constitutional
departments of the Monarchy ... was to be abolished."[1]
In the early days of the Ordnance Board, its relations with the navy
were more intimate than in later years. The gunners of the ships were
under its control, and had to answer to it for the expenditure of their
stores. In this particular, as in most details of checking and audit,
the Board was stern to a degree, and not unfrequently unreasonable. In
1712, the captain of a man-of-war, sent to Newfoundland in charge of a
convoy, found the English inhabitants of the Island in a state of great
danger and uneasiness, and almost unprotected. At their urgent request,
he left with them much of his ordnance and stores before he returned to
England. With the promptitude which characterized the Board's action
towards any one who dared to think for himself, it refused to pass the
captain's or gunner's accounts, nor would it authorize them to draw
their pay. Remonstrance was useless; explanations were unattended to:
the lesson had to be taught to its subordinates, however harshly and
idiotically, that freewill did not belong to them, and that to assume
any responsibility was to commit a grievous sin. It actually required a
petition to the Queen and the Treasury before the unhappy men could get
a hearing, and, as a natural consequence, an approval and confirmation
of their conduct.
The arming of all men-of-war belonged to the Ordnance; indeed, the
office was created for the Navy, although, in course of time, Army
details almost entirely monopolized it. Although obliged to act on the
requisitions of the Lord High Admiral, their control in their own
details, and over the gunners of the ship as regarded their stores, was
unfettered. The repairing of the ships, and to a considerable extent
their internal fittings, were part of the Board's duties; but it is to
be hoped that the technical knowledge of some of their officials
exceeded that possessed by the Masters-General. A letter is extant from
one of these distinguished individuals, written on board the 'Katherine'
yacht, in 1682, to his loving friends, the principal officers of the
Ordnance. "I desire" he wrote, "you would give Mr. Young notice to
proceed no further in making y^e hangings for y^e great bedstead in
y^e lower room in y^e Katherine yacht, till ye have directions from me."
But the Naval branch of the Board's duties is beyond the province of the
present work. Of the Military branch much will be better described in
the chapters concerning the old Artillery trains, the Royal Military
Academy, and in the general narrative of the Royal Artillery's existence
as a regiment. A few words, however, may be said here with reference to
their civil duties, once of vast importance, but, with the naval branch,
swallowed up, like the fat kine of Pharaoh's dream, by the military
demands which were constantly on the increase, and were fostered by the
military predilections of the Masters and Lieutenants-General.
The civil duties have been well and clearly defined by Clode in his
'Military Forces of the Crown,' vol. ii. He divides into duties—1. As to
Stores; 2. As Landowners; 3. As to the Survey of the United Kingdom; 4.
As to Defensive Works; 5. As to Contracts; and 6. As to Manufacturing
Establishments.
Of the first of these it may be said that their system was excellent.
Periodical remains were taken (the oldest extant being dated April,
1559), and a system of issues and receipts was in force which could
hardly be improved upon.
In their capacity as Landowners, the members of the Board were good and
cautious stewards; but as buyers of land, their characteristic crops up
of thinking but little of other men's feelings or convenience. Perhaps
their line of action in this respect can be best illustrated by an
anecdote which comes down over many years in the shape of an indignant
and yet pitiful remonstrance. It was in good Queen Anne's time, and the
Board had formed a scheme for fortifying Portsmouth. They appointed
Commissioners to arrange the situation of the various works, and to come
to terms with the landowners. These gentlemen did their duty; and, among
others, one James Dixon was warned that some land on which he had
recently built a brewhouse would be required for the Board's purposes. A
jury was empanelled, and assessed the value of the whole at 4000_l._
When James Dixon built his brewhouse, he had borrowed money on mortgage:
the interest would, he believed, be easily paid, and the principal of
the debt gradually reduced by the earnings of the brewery. But after the
jury sat, not a drop of beer was brewed: no orders could be taken, with
the fear hanging over him that he must turn out at any moment; nor could
he introduce additional improvements or fixtures after the assessment
had been made, as he would never receive a farthing for them over the
first valuation. Little knowing the admirable system of official
management in which an English department excels, he sat waiting for the
purchase-money. One month passed after another: Christmas came, and yet
another, and another, and the only knocks at James Dixon's door were
from the angry creditor demanding his money. At last, after waiting four
years,—the grey hairs thickening on the unhappy brewer's head,—the knock
of a lawyer's writ came; and before the Master of the Rolls his
miserable presence and story were alike demanded. The narrative ends
abruptly with a petition from him for six months' grace. Even then hope
was not dead in him; and he babbled in his prayer that "he was in hopes
by this time "to have redeemed it out of the 4000_l._ agreed to be paid
y^r Petitioner as aforesaid."
In the course of our story we shall find many such lives crushed beneath
the wheels of an official Juggernaut. Alas! that Juggernaut is still a
god!
'The Survey of the United Kingdom' will be the most honourable vehicle
for transmitting to posterity the story of the Board's existence; for,
although not yet completed, to the Board is due the credit of
originating a work whose national value can hardly be over-estimated.
The defensive works erected under the Ordnance already live almost in
history, so rapidly has the science of fortification had to move to keep
pace with the strength of attack. Their contracts showed but little
favouritism, and, on the whole, were just: they included everything,
from the building of forts to the manufacture of gunpowder and small
arms; and, in peace and war, they reached nearly over the whole
civilized world. With this extensive area came the necessity for
representatives of the Board at the various stations,—who were first,
and wisely, civilians, three in number; afterwards, most foolishly,
owing to the increasing military element at the Board, two soldiers, the
commanding officers of Artillery and Engineers, and one civilian. And as
no man can serve two masters, it was soon apparent that the military
members could not always serve their local General and their absent
Board; discipline was not unfrequently strained; jealousy and ill-will
supervened; and when the death of the Board sounded the knell of the
Respective officers, as they were termed, there can be no doubt that it
removed an anomaly which was also a danger. Under the new and existing
system, the commanding officers of Artillery and Engineers occupy their
proper places: they are now the advisers of their General, not his
critics: and the door is opened for the entry of the officers of the
scientific corps upon an arena where civilian traditions are unknown or
powerless.
Of the manufacturing departments of the Ordnance, what has to be said
will come better in its place in the course of the narrative.
In summing up, not so much the contents of this Chapter, which is
necessarily brief, as the study of the Board's history, the following
are the ideas presented to the student's mind:—The Board of Ordnance
formed a standard of political excellence,—which it endeavoured to
follow when circumstances permitted,—of financial and economical
excellence, which it planted everywhere among its subordinates for
worship, but which was not allowed the same adoration in its own offices
in the Tower. It saved money to the country legitimately by an admirable
system of check and audit—illegitimately too often by a false economy,
which in the end proved no economy at all; it obstructed our Generals in
war, and hampered them in peace: it was extravagant on its own members
and immediate retainers to an extent which can only be realized by those
who study the evidence given before the Parliamentary Commission of
1810-11. Jobbery existed, but rarely secret or underhand; and its
extensive patronage was, on the whole, well and fairly exercised. And
although every day shows more clearly the wisdom of removing from under
the control of a Board that part of our army, the importance of which is
made more apparent by every war which occurs, yet the Artilleryman must
always remember with kindly interest that it was to this board and its
great Master (Marlborough) that his Regiment owes its existence, that to
it we owe a nurture which was sometimes too detailed and careful, but
under which we earned a reputation in many wars; and that, after a long
peace, it placed in the Crimea, for one of the greatest and most
difficult sieges in history,—difficult for other reasons than mere
military,—the finest siege-train of Artillery that the world has ever
seen. In command of the English Army, during this war, the Board's last
Master died; and in the list which preceded him, and with which this
chapter closes, will be found names which would almost atone for the
worst offences ever committed by the Board over which their owners
presided.
LIST OF THE MASTERS-GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCE.
The most recent list of these distinguished officials is that published
in Kane's 'List of Officers of the Royal Artillery.' In it all the
Masters before the reign of Henry VIII. are ignored, as being merely
commanders of the Artillery on expeditions or in districts. But this
seems somewhat stern ruling. Undoubtedly Henry VIII. reorganized the
Ordnance Department, and defined the position of the Master, as never
had been done before, and the sequence of the Masters from his reign is
clear and intelligible. But before his time there were not merely
Masters of the Ordnance on particular expeditions, but also for life;
and there were certainly Offices of the Ordnance in the Tower. It has,
therefore, been thought advisable in the following list to prefix a few
names, which seem deserving of being included, although omitted in
'Kane's List.'
The earliest of whom there is any record is
RAUF BIGOD, who was appointed on 2nd June, 1483, "for life." His life
does not, however, seem to have been a very long one, for we find
Sir RICHARD GYLEFORD, who was appointed in 1485.
Sir SAMPSON NORTON was undoubtedly Master of the Ordnance, appointed in
1513, as has been proved by extant MSS.
The next one about whom there is any certainty would appear to be the
one who heads 'Kane's List'—
Sir THOMAS SEYMOUR, who was appointed about 1537. Other lists show Sir
Christopher Morris as Master at this time; but there seems little doubt
that he was merely Lieutenant of the Ordnance, although a distinguished
soldier, and frequently in command of the Artillery on service.
If one may credit 'Dugdale's Baronage,' the next in order was
Sir THOMAS DARCIE (afterwards Baron Darcie), appointed in 1545: but if
so, he merely held it for a short time, for we find him succeeded by
Sir PHILIP HOBY, who was appointed in 1548.
'Grose's List' and others interpolate Sir Francis Fleming, as having
been appointed in 1547; but this is undoubtedly an error, and his name
wisely rejected by the author of 'Kane's List,' where it is placed, as
it should be, in the list of Lieutenants of the Ordnance. There is a
folio of Ordnance accounts still in existence, extending over the period
between 29th March, 1547, and the last day of June, 1553, signed by Sir
Francis Fleming, as _Lieutenant_ of the Ordnance.
The next in rotation in the best lists is
Sir RICHARD SOUTHWELL, Knight, shown by 'Kane's List' as appointed in
February, 1554, and, by certain indentures and Ordnance accounts which
are still extant, as being Master of the Ordnance, certainly in 1557 and
1558.
The next Master held the appointment for many years. He was
AMBROSE DUDLEY, Earl of Warwick, and can be proved from indentures in
the possession of the late Craven Ord, Esq., which are probably still in
existence, and from which extracts were made in 1820 by the compiler of
a manuscript now in the Royal Artillery Library, to have been appointed
on the 19th February, 1559, and to have held the office until 21st
February, 1589, over thirty years.
Possibly owing to the difficulty of finding any one ready to undertake
the duties of one who had had so much experience—a difficulty which
occurred more than once again—the office was placed in commission after
1589, probably until 1596. From 'Burghleigh's State Papers' we learn
that the Commissioners were, the LORD TREASURER, the LORD HIGH ADMIRAL,
the LORD CHAMBERLAIN, and VICE-CHAMBERLAIN SIR J. FORTESCUE.
On 19th March, 1596, ROBERT, EARL OF ESSEX, was appointed Master of the
Ordnance, and held the appointment until removed by Elizabeth, in 1600.
No record of a successor occurs until the 10th September, 1603, when
CHARLES, EARL OF DEVONSHIRE, was appointed. He died in 1606, and was
succeeded by
LORD CAREW, appointed Master-General throughout England, for life, in
1608. He was created Earl of Totnes in 1625, and died in 1629. From a
number of Ordnance warrants and letters still extant, there can be no
doubt that he held the office until his death. For a year after, until
5th March, 1630, we learn, from the Harleian Manuscripts, that there was
no Master-General. On that date
HOWARD LORD VERE was appointed, and held office until the 2nd September,
1634, when
MOUNTJOY, EARL OF NEWPORT, was appointed.
Then came the troubles in England—the Revolution, the Commonwealth, and
at last the Restoration. Lord Newport seems to have remained Master-
General the whole time; for on Charles II. coming to the throne, he
issued directions specifying, "Forasmuch as the Earl of Newport may, by
Letters Patent from our Royal Father, pretend to the office of our
Ordnance, We, for weighty reasons, think fit to suspend him from said
charge, or anything belonging thereto; and Our Will is that you prepare
the usual Bill for his suspension."
On the 22nd January, 1660, a most able Master-General was appointed,
whose place the King afterwards found it most difficult to fill. He was
Sir WILLIAM COMPTON, Knight, and he remained in office until his death.
By letters patent, on the 21st October, 1664, specifying that he had not
determined with himself to supply the place of office of his Master of
the Ordnance, then void by the death of Sir William Compton, and
considering the importance of his affairs at that time to have that
service well provided for, the King appointed as Commissioners to
execute the office of Master of the Ordnance
JOHN, LORD BERKLY OF STRATTON, }
Sir JOHN DUNCOMBE, Knight, and }
THOMAS CHICHELEY. }
This Commission lasted until the 4th June, 1670, when the last-named
Commissioner (now Sir THOMAS CHICHELEY, Knight), was appointed Master of
the Ordnance, and in the warrant for his appointment, which is now in
the Tower Library, there is a recapitulation of the names of previous
Masters, which includes one—placed between Sir Richard Southwell and the
Earl of Essex—which does not appear in any other list, but which one
would gladly see included—
Sir PHILIP SIDNEY.
After the death of Sir Thomas Chicheley, the office was again placed in
Commission, the incumbents being
Sir JOHN CHICHELEY, son of the late Master,
Sir WILLIAM HICKMAN, and
Sir CHRISTOPHER MUSGRAVE, the last-named of whom afterwards became
Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance. This Commission lasted from 1679 to
8th January, 1682, when the celebrated
"GEORGE, LORD DARTMOUTH," became Master, having held the office of
Lieutenant-General under the Commission from 1st July, 1679, as plain
Colonel George Legge. He remained in office until after the Revolution
of 1688, when he forfeited it for his adherence to the King. His
successor, appointed by William III. in 1689, and afterwards killed at
the Battle of the Boyne, rejoiced in the following sounding titles:
FREDERICK, DUKE DE SCHOMBERG, Marquis of Harwich, Earl of Brentford,
Baron of Teys, General of their Majesties' Forces, Master-General of
their Majesties' Ordnance, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter,
Count of the Holy Roman Empire, Grandee of Portugal, General of the Duke
of Brandenburg's forces, and Stadtholder of Prussia.
After his death, the Master-Generalship remained vacant until July,
1693, when it was conferred upon
HENRY, VISCOUNT SIDNEY, afterwards Earl of Romney, who held it until
1702. He was succeeded, almost immediately on Queen Anne's accession, by
her favourite, the great
JOHN, EARL OF MARLBOROUGH, who held the appointment until he fell into
disgrace with the Queen, when he resigned it, with his other
appointments, on 30th December, 1711. He was succeeded by
RICHARD, EARL RIVERS, who, after six months, was followed, on 29th
August, 1712, according to the British Chronologist, or on the 1st July,
1712, according to Kane's List, by
JAMES, DUKE OF HAMILTON, who was killed in a duel in November of the
same year.
For two years the appointment remained vacant, but in 1714 it was again
conferred upon
JOHN, now DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, who held it until his death, in 1722. He
was succeeded, as follows, by
WILLIAM, EARL OF CADOGAN, on 22nd June, 1722, and by
JOHN, DUKE OF ARGYLE AND GREENWICH, on 3rd June 1725.
At this period there is an unaccountable confusion among the various
authorities. The 'British Chronologist' and the 'Biographia Britannica'
make the list run as follows:—The Duke of Argyle and Greenwich was
succeeded, in 1740, by John, Duke of Montague, and resumed office again,
for three weeks, in 1742, when, for the last time, he resigned all his
appointments, being again succeeded by the same Duke of Montague, who
continued to hold the office until 1749, when he died.
'Grose's List,' on the other hand, makes the Duke of Argyle's tenure of
office expire in 1730, instead of 1740, and makes no allusion to his
brief resumption of the appointment in 1742, and 'Kane's List' has
followed this. It is possible that for the brief period that he was in
office the second time, no letters patent were issued for his
appointment, which would account for its omission in most lists; but the
difference of ten years in the duration of the first appointment is more
difficult to account for. There is no doubt that, in 1740, the Duke of
Argyle resigned all his appointments for the first time, but it is not
stated whether the Master-Generalship was one, although it has been
assumed. On the other hand, he might have been away during these ten
years to a great extent, or allowed his officers of the Ordnance to sign
warrants, thus giving an impression to the casual student that he no
longer held office. The manuscript in the Royal Artillery Library,
already referred to, bears marks of such careful research, that one is
disposed to adopt its reading of the difficulty, which is different from
that taken by Grose's and Kane's Lists, and agrees with the other works
mentioned above.
After the death of the Duke of Montague, the office remained vacant
until the end of 1755, when it was conferred upon
CHARLES, DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, who held it until his death, on 20th
October, 1758.
During the vacancy immediately preceding the appointment of the last-
named Master-General, Sir J. Ligonier had been appointed Lieutenant-
General of the Ordnance, and for four years had performed the duties of
both appointments,—acted as Colonel of the Royal Artillery, and Captain
of the Cadet Company. A few months after the death of the Duke of
Marlborough—namely, on the 3rd July, 1759—he was appointed Master-
General, being by this time
FIELD-MARSHAL VISCOUNT LIGONIER. He was succeeded, on the 14th May,
1763, by
JOHN, MARQUIS GRANBY, who held it until 17th January, 1770, when we find
that he resigned all his appointments, except the command of the Blues.
For nearly two years the office remained vacant, and on the 1st October,
1772, it was conferred upon
GEORGE, VISCOUNT TOWNSHEND, whose tenure of office extended over nearly
the whole of that anxious period in the history of England which
included such episodes as the American War of Independence and the great
Siege of Gibraltar. The sequence of the remaining Masters may be taken
from Kane's List, and is as follows:—
CHARLES, DUKE OF RICHMOND, K.G. Appointed 1 Jan. 1782
GEORGE, VISCOUNT TOWNSHEND Re-appointed 1 April 1783
CHARLES, DUKE OF RICHMOND, K.G. Re-appointed 1 Jan. 1784
CHARLES, MARQUIS CORNWALLIS Appointed 15 Feb. 1795
JOHN, EARL OF CHATHAM, K.G. Appointed 18 June 1801
LORD MOIRA Appointed 14 Feb. 1806
JOHN, EARL OF CHATHAM, K.G. Appointed 4 April 1807
HENRY, EARL MULGRAVE Appointed 5 May 1810
ARTHUR, DUKE OF WELLINGTON, K.G. Re-appointed 1 Jan. 1819
HENRY, MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY, K.G. Re-appointed 1 April 1827
VISCOUNT BERESFORD, K.G. Re-appointed 28 April 1828
SIR JAMES KEMPT, G.C.B., G.C.H. Re-appointed 30 Nov. 1830
SIR G. MURRAY, G.C.B., G.C.H. Re-appointed 18 Dec. 1834
R. H., LORD VIVIAN, G.C.B. Re-appointed 4 May 1835
SIR G. MURRAY, G.C.B., G.C.H. Re-appointed 8 Sept. 1841
HENRY, MARQUIS OF ANGLESEY, K.G. Re-appointed 8 July 1846
HENRY, VISCOUNT HARDINGE, G.C.B. Re-appointed 8 March 1852
FITZROY, LORD RAGLAN, G.C.B. Re-appointed 30 Sept 1852
On the abolition of the Board of Ordnance, the command of the Royal
Artillery was given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces at that
time,
FIELD-MARSHAL VISCOUNT HARDINGE, G.C.B. His successor (appointed Colonel
of the Royal Artillery on the 10th May, 1861, and at this date holding
that office) was
H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE, K.G., &c. &c., now Field-Marshal
Commanding-in-Chief.
-----
Footnote 1:
Clode.