21 men 15th Sept. 1786, embarked on board the 'New
Euphrates,' and landed 6th Oct.
58 ” 21st Sept, 1786, embarked at Leith, on board the
brig ‘Mercury.’ Wrecked 24th Sept.
25 ” 6th Nov. 1786, embarked in the ‘Adventure;’
landed.
35 ” 23rd Mar. 1787; landed.
44 ” 15th and 16 Apr. 1787; landed.
——
Total 183 ” About 100 of this number were bricklayers and
masons, the crafts most required at the Rock.
===
-----
Of the second party of recruits, it may be permitted to take a more than
passing notice. It was composed of 58 men, all mechanics, “in the prime
of life,” under charge of sergeant Sherriff, accompanied by their wives,
28 in number, and 12 children—in all 101 persons. They embarked at Leith
on the 21st September, on board the brig ‘Mercury,’ Thomas Davidson,
master. The crew consisted of 11 men. The ship sailed with a fair wind;
but on the 23rd, when nearing the coast of Flanders, she was greatly
buffeted by a boisterous gale. At three o’clock on the morning of the
24th, Sunday, the steeple of Ostend was recognised, and, accordingly,
the course of the vessel was shaped towards the chops of the channel. A
storm now set in, and as danger was apprehended, the captain and crew
were anxious and vigilant. Skill and exertion, however, were of no
avail, for at seven o’clock in the evening she struck upon a sand-bank,
about six miles off Dunkirk. The wind continued blowing hard to the
north, while the sea, “running mountains high,” dashed the frail bark to
and fro with a fury that broke her masts, destroyed her bulwarks, and
tore her sails to shreds. At nine o’clock she went to pieces, and
melancholy to add, all on board perished but three. The survivors were
John Patterson, ship’s carpenter; Walter Montgomery, blacksmith; and
Daniel Thomson, mason. The two latter were recruits. On fragments of the
wreck they floated all night, and at ten o’clock next morning, Patterson
and Montgomery, just ready to relinquish their hold from cold and
exhaustion, were picked up by a pilot-boat and taken on shore at
Dunkirk. The other sufferer, Thomson, was found some hours after in the
surge, helpless and shivering, clinging to a spar. At once he was
conveyed to Mardyck, three miles to the westward of Dunkirk, where he
only lived a few days. Of Walter Montgomery nothing further is known. As
at the time he was reported to be very ill, and not likely to recover,
he probably died at the place where he was given an asylum.[61]
-----
Footnote 61:
‘Morning Chronicle,’ 10th October, 1786, and periodical press
generally. In most of the papers Daniel Thomson is, by mistake, named
Daniel Campbell.
_Fifteen_ bodies were washed ashore between Nieuport and Ostend, on
the 27th and 28th September, and it is not a little remarkable that,
of this small number, no less than _fourteen_ should have been those
of women.—‘General Advertiser.’ ‘Public Advertiser,’ 9th October,
1786.
-----
No information can be obtained relative to the dress of the companies
until 1786.[62] _Then_, the uniform was a plain red coat,
double-breasted, with two rows of large flat brass buttons down the
front, placed at equal distances of two inches apart. The buttons were
one inch and a quarter in diameter, and bore the Ordnance device of
three guns and three balls. The left breast buttoned over the right at
the pit of the chest, from which upwards the coat turned back in the
form of lappels. The cuffs and collar were orange-yellow, laced round
with narrow red ferreting. The collar was turned over like the common
roll collar, and was ornamented with a red rectangular loop at each
side. Down the front of the coat to the end of the skirts, narrow yellow
ferreting was sewn, as well as upon the inside edges of the skirts,
which were very broad, descending to the leggings, and were buttoned
back at the bottom to show the white shalloon lining. Small plaited
frills about five inches long, were worn at the breast, to the right;
and full ruffles at the wrists. Over the black leather stock, a white
false collar fell down about an inch. The waistcoat was white cloth,
bound with yellow ferreting, and came well down over the abdomen. At the
bottom, it was cut so that the angle or corner of each front separated
about seven inches. The pocket-holes were slashed; each slash was two
inches deep, and bound round. The buttons were small and flat, similar
in device to the coat-buttons. The breeches were white, of a texture
like kerseymere, and secured below the knee with three small buttons.
The leggings were black cloth, reaching to the knee and strapped under
the shoe; they buttoned on the outside, and were fastened to a small
button above the calf of the leg. The buttons were like those worn on
the waistcoat. The hat was cocked, the same as that commonly worn; the
cock was in the front, directly over the nose, with a cockade to the
right of it supporting a black feather. In other respects it was quite
plain. The arms and accoutrements consisted of white leather
cross-belts, black cartouch-box with frog, and musket and bayonet.[63]
The breast-plate was oval, bearing the Ordnance device: above the balls
was the word GIBRALTAR; below the guns SOLDIER-ARTIFICERS. The sergeants
had swords, silver-mounted, with a plain guard of one bar only; tassel,
white leather. The distinctions with regard to ranks were as follows:
the sergeants had clothing of a superior fabric; their breeches and
waistcoats were kerseymere; the lace on their coats was gold; they also
wore a crimson sash with tassels, under their coats, and laced
shoulder-straps. All the other ranks wore linen or cotton ferreting; but
the corporals had gold fringed shoulder-knots, and the lance corporals
one gold knot on the right shoulder.[64] (Plate I.)
-----
Footnote 62:
I have been informed that previously to 1786, the coat was somewhat
similar in colour, cut, and ornament to that shown in Plate I., but
that the breeches were blue instead of white. The black leggings were
banded above the knee. The working dress consisted of a long duck
frock, and mosquito trowsers with gaiters attached. Everything was
white even to the felt round hat, which at this period had the
military symbols of a yellow band and yellow edge to the brim. Serge
pantaloons were worn in winter.
Footnote 63:
The sergeant-major and sergeants were armed with carbines and
bayonets.
Footnote 64:
This novel way of distinguishing the non-commissioned officers led to
frequent misconception and mistake in the garrison. When dressed with
the bayonet belt only, strangers regarded the corporals as the highest
rank, and lance-corporals the next. Sometimes when taking an excursion
into Spain, sentries have presented arms to them, and guards even have
turned out to pay the compliment due to field officers! This military
blunder continued, with greater or less observance, until the adoption
of chevrons, about 1805.
-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
‘SOLDIER Plate II.
ARTIFICER Printed by M & N Hanhart.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The working-dress was a plain long red jacket in winter, and a linen one
in summer, with a single row of large brass buttons, wide apart, down
the front. It descended to the hips, opened from the chest upwards to
show the shirt, and from that point downwards to show the waistcoat.
Convenient to the hand on each side was a huge pocket covered with a
broad slash. The collar and cuffs were of yellow cloth, the former
turned over or rolled, and at the small of the back were two large
buttons. Under the jacket a waistcoat was worn—in summer linen, in
winter flannel—of the same cut as the regimental one, but not laced or
ferreted. Similar in material were the pantaloons; and to these were
attached a pair of black gaiters, of linen or cloth, corresponding with
the season. They reached a little above the ankle, and buttoned on the
outside. No particular regard was paid to the neck covering. Stocks of
leather, or velvet, or silk, or black handkerchiefs, were
indiscriminately used. A white hat completed the suit. It was about six
inches high, had a straight pole with yellow band of an inch in width,
and a broad brim edged with yellow tape or ferreting. Plate II. The
description of working-dress worn by the non-commissioned officers has
not been ascertained, nor can any record be discovered of the precise
uniform dress adopted for the drummers, or of the peculiar badge that
distinguished the sergeant-major from other sergeants.
The only complete record that has turned up to research, showing the
names of the officers who were attached to the companies since the year
1772, is a return for 1787, by which it seems the following officers did
duty with them:—
Captain Robert Pringle, chief engineer.
Captain William Campbell Skinner, died 24th April, 1787.
First Lieutenant, Thomas Skinner.
First Lieutenant, William Kerstiman. Joined 25th May, 1787.
Second Lieutenant, Thomas Smart.
Second Lieutenant, Samuel T. Dickens.
Draughtsman, James Evans.[65]
-----
Footnote 65:
These officers were also present with the corps in 1788; but after
that year until 1797 no record has been discovered.
-----
About this time, it appearing to be of some consequence to cut and form
a ditch immediately under the Crillon Battery, situated on the south
flank of the King’s, Prince’s, and Queen’s Lines, a strong party was set
to work by order of the Chief Engineer. They executed their laborious
task in a comparatively short period, which elicited the warmest praises
of General O’Hara. To mark his sense of their services, however, in a
form more gratifying than words, he gave permission to the companies to
pass to the neutral ground, and out of garrison, on Sundays and all
holidays without a written pass, or restraint of any kind. With this
privilege was also conceded the liberty to appear on such occasions in
whatever apparel their fancy suggested, except in their uniform coats.
It was not uncommon, therefore, for the non-commissioned officers and
the respectable portion of the privates, to stroll about the garrison or
ramble into Spain, dressed in black silk or satin breeches, white silk
stockings, and silver knee or shoe-buckles, drab beaver hats, and
scarlet jackets, tastefully trimmed with white kerseymere.
Governor O’Hara was a constant visitor at the works, and took much
interest in their progress. Even as early as the morning gun-fire, he
was perambulating the fortifications and batteries, and worming his way
among the mechanics. Almost to the last man, he could call each by name,
and knew the best artificers too well ever to forget them. Familiar with
their zeal and exertions, he regretted sometimes to find that a few men
were absent from the works undergoing sentences of confinement to the
barracks. This induced the General to relax a little in strictness
towards the companies. None of the men would he suffer to be punished
for intoxication, or other slight offences committed when off duty or on
the works, in order that he might have them all employed. This
slackening the reins would, no doubt, be looked upon now-a-days as a
monstrous and culpable dereliction, however plausible might be the
object intended to be gained by it. To justify or condemn the act is
obviously out of place here. It is simply mentioned as a fact; and while
it remains a singularity in military jurisprudence, the main point that
originated it must not be overlooked, viz., the estimation in which the
Governor held the corps for their services in the restoration or
improvement of the works of the fortress.[66]
-----
Footnote 66:
This laxity of discipline seems, in time, to have become general among
the troops at the fortress, and the extent to which it was carried
both by officers and men was little short of disgraceful.—‘Wilkie’s
British Colonies considered as Military Posts,’ in ‘United Service
Journal,’ 2, 1840, p, 379.
-----
In enlarging the works of the garrison, the military artificers
frequently opened up cavities in the promontory which were mostly of
sufficient interest to excite the curiosity of geologists; but one
discovered in 1789, by some miners of the corps, while scarping the back
of the Rock, attracted, at the time, unusual attention. It was situated
about 160 feet from the foot of the cliff, on its eastern side, nearly
under the Signal House, and its extent classed it among some of the
largest within the area of the fortress. Removing the rank vegetation
which had overgrown its mouth, a small chasm was bared, opening into a
cave containing several chambers and grottoes, entered by narrow
funnel-shaped crevices, some so low and winding that ingress could only
be obtained by crawling through the long misty passages on all-fours.
Seemingly, the roofs were supported by a number of pillars, which the
dripping of ages had congealed into all shapes and sizes and into all
degrees of hardness, from patches of soft silvered powder to the bold
indurated columnar stalactite. On the floors, at different heights, were
stalagmites, some peering up like needles, and others, swollen and
grotesque, rose from frothlike cushions of delicate finish, which, “on
being rudely touched, dissolved instantly into water.” The hall at the
extremity was divided into two oblong recesses, floored by a “deep layer
of vegetable earth,” where not a clump of the lowliest weed or a blade
of grass was seen to show that vigour was in the earth.[67] Nothing
seemed capable of living there but a colony of bats, some flapping about
on lazy wing, and others torpid; no process to be active, but the cold
one of petrifaction, which, in nature’s own confused method, had
elaborated throughout the cavern, columns and pinnacles and cushions,
puffs and concretions, some as fleecy as snow, others as crisp as
hoar-frost, and others of an opal hue as transparent as crystal. All was
rich, beautiful, and sparkling. It was a marvel to adventurers, but
unfit for habitation; yet, in later years, this hole of the mountain was
possessed by a Spanish goat-herd, who reached his solitude by the same
threadlike but dangerous tracks as his goats. There might the recluse
have lived till his bones fell among the petrifactions, but he was at
length expelled from its gloomy precincts on account of his contraband
iniquities.
-----
Footnote 67:
Martin’s British Colonies, 1835, p. 51-53.
-----
1779-1788.
Colonel Debbieg’s proposal for organizing a corps of
artificers—Rejected—Employment of artillerymen on the works at
home—Duke of Richmond’s “Extensive plans of fortification”—Formation
of corps ordered—Singular silence of the House of Commons on the
subject—Mr. Sheridan calls attention to it—Insertion of corps for
first time in the Mutiny Bill—Debate upon it in both Houses of
Parliament.
When Spain declared war with England in June, 1779, Lieutenant-Colonel
Hugh Debbieg of the engineers, seems to have been impressed with the
necessity of raising a corps of artificers for service in this country.
He had made several excursions through Kent and a part of Sussex, no
doubt with the object of ascertaining the probabilities that existed for
resisting any attempt at invasion. Whether such was his intention or
not, these professional tours appear to have assisted his views greatly,
in all that was essential to prepare the country to repel aggression. He
therefore made large demands for cutting tools; conceiving, as he
states, “very extensive ideas of their use in all cases,” and
recommended the formation of a corps of artificers. In his letter to
General Lord Amherst, of the 30th July, 1779, he wrote: “I must take the
liberty of mentioning how very advantageous to the service it would be,
if a corps of artificers was to be selected from the army. The present
establishment of pioneers to each regiment will prove in no case
sufficient or equal to the purpose of advancing an army through such a
country as this.”
As if to show that his proposal was no crude idea, nor the dreamy
suggestion of some needlessly-alarmed engineer, the Colonel dipped a
little into the history of the subject, to claim respect for it on the
ground of its antiquity, and pointed out the way in which the measure
could be effected. He says, “The great attention of the ancients to this
particular was wonderful, and the highest point of perfection in the
Roman legion was, that when it made detachments, though ever so small,
they carried with them a just proportion of the component parts of its
excellent system—artificers of all denominations. Modern armies differ
from those of the ancients scarcely in nothing but the arms they use; in
all other points, we cannot imitate them too exactly. I am sensible the
subject is not new to your lordship, and if it did not strike me as a
thing absolutely necessary for the good of His Majesty’s service,
particularly at this time, I should not have troubled your lordship
thereon.
“It is a most essential part of the soldiers' duty, I allow, to be as
expert as possible at covering themselves with earthworks; but then,
there is also a necessity for a band of leading men capable of
instructing others, and of conducting works with more regularity than
has been usually done where I have yet been upon service, as also with
greater dispatch.
“I will not presume to point out to your lordship the means of
establishing such a corps, nor how far two men per company would go
towards making it numerous enough for the purpose from the militia
alone; but I will venture to say, had such a body of men been constantly
here, these lines (Chatham) would have been nearly completed; and you
know what state they are in at present.”
Colonel Debbieg’s attempt to revive an old practice, constituting one of
the military glories of the ancients, was certainly worthy of the best
attention, involved as England was at the time in a struggle with France
and Spain; and it would have been more so, had allusion been made to the
beneficial services of the companies at Gibraltar. Omitting this is
singular enough, and readily urges the supposition, that their name and
duties were scarcely known beyond the scarps of the Rock, even to the
engineers themselves. However, Lord Amherst, much as he may have
appreciated the represented perfection of the Roman legion in the
organization of its detachments, was not by any means disposed to incur
the responsibility of reproducing that system in the English army; and
on the 11th August following communicated his sentiments on the subject
to the Colonel. “Your idea,” writes his lordship, “about forming a corps
of artificers from the army, is a very good one, as far as that such a
corps would be very desirable; but at a time when it is a material
subject of consideration to increase the army by every possible means,
the forming such a corps cannot be thought of. In the case of any
service happening in this country, the general business of the pioneers
must be done by the able-bodied men amongst the peasants of the
country.”
His lordship here confesses the desirableness of the measure, but at the
same time repudiates it as inexpedient, because the army requires to be
increased! No rejoinder or explanation appears to have been made by
Colonel Debbieg; and the proposal, somewhat modified, was left to be
iterated at a subsequent period by Charles, third Duke of Richmond.
On the appointment of the Shelburne administration in July, 1783, his
Grace was nominated Master-General of the Ordnance. Immediately after
his installation, he caused the fortifications to be examined, and
finding they were in such a state as to need the intervention of the
House of Commons to put them in repair and completeness, he demanded
large sums of money for the purpose in the Ordnance estimates for 1783.
His Grace’s projects were on a scale of great magnitude, and his
estimates were necessarily large; but in order to curtail the amounts as
much as possible, and thus win the concurrence of both parties to his
plans, he proposed to employ a considerable part of the royal artillery
as artificers and labourers in the arsenal at Woolwich, Purfleet, and
the outports, giving them only half the wages then paid to civil
mechanics for performing similar work, whereby it was computed that a
saving of 12,000_l._ to 15,000_l._ a-year would be realized, and that
the services of the ordnance being more regularly performed, the
regiment would have a body of artificers, always available for active
duty in the event of a war, for which they would be much required.[68]
There was nothing in this suggestion to excite alarm or particular
remark. No new corps was recommended to be raised, but simply the
adaptation of means already disposable (which would have to be
maintained under any circumstances) to a twofold object, as also to
lighten the existing pressure upon the finances of the State. The
proposal, being merely incidental to the graver matter with which it
stood connected, gave rise to no discussion; and it is presumed, though
no specific organization of artificers such as his Grace contemplated
took place, that artillery soldiers were employed in great numbers at
the different stations mentioned in his Grace’s famous report.
With the change of ministry in April, 1783, the Duke of Richmond quitted
his post as Master-General; but resumed it again in the following
December on the formation of the Pitt Cabinet. The fortifications
continued to be his Grace’s hobby. Yearly he requested large sums for
the erection of new works and the repair of old ones. Consequently,
public attention was excited to review these apparently exorbitant items
of expenditure, and, as may be expected, very little was done towards
effecting his Grace’s views. Money was voted for the purpose, but none
was expended.
In 1785, his Grace’s plans for national defence were more extensive than
ever, and were brought forward as usual by Mr. Pitt. Though anxious to
carry out the gigantic projects proposed, still, from the growing
inquisitiveness of the country, and probably the misgivings of the
Minister himself as to their maturity and utility, Mr. Pitt submitted
them for the opinion of a Board of general and flag officers. Guided by
their recommendation, he again introduced the subject for the
consideration of the House, but on the 27th February, 1786, it was
rejected by the casting voice of the Speaker as a “measure totally
inexpedient and dangerous.”
-----
Footnote 68:
‘Journal, House of Commons,’ 14th February, 1783; vol. xxxix. p. 208.
-----
In no way discouraged, however, on the 17th May following, he ventured
to submit a similar question to the House considerably reduced in its
demands. But as the subject of the fortifications had long been before
the public, had also been well investigated, and was extremely unpopular
both in the House and out of it, it may occasion no wonder to state,
that the Duke’s favourite scheme was again set aside; and its noble
projector, subjected to repeated and vexatious disappointments, was made
a butt for the keen attacks and provoking taunts of individuals, who
scrupled not to lay bare his Grace’s engineering, and to question his
Grace’s professional attainments. In this last defeat, however, some
little concession was made to Mr. Pitt, by which he was permitted to
make an estimate for improving and completing the old works at
Portsmouth and Plymouth dockyards, which on being presented was
ultimately agreed to.[69]
-----
Footnote 69:
If a particular acquaintance with the Duke’s plan of defence, &c., be
desired, it can be obtained by referring to a work entitled
‘Observations on the Duke of Richmond’s Extensive Plans of
Fortification,’ published first in 1785, and again in 1794. This work,
which was brought before the public in an anonymous form, is known to
have been written by Lieutenant James Glenie, of the engineers, who,
after serving in the corps a few years, was compelled, as he says, p.
241, to leave it, “to avoid being ruined by the expense of continually
moving from one station to another.” The attack made by this gentleman
appears to have been conducted with much force and talent, displaying
an intimate acquaintance with the principles of his profession. It
made a great impression on the public mind, and augmented to a
considerable extent the popular ferment against the new
fortifications. Several of the engineers joined in opinion against
them, among whom was Colonel Debbieg, who, for some expressions that
he ventured, reflecting upon the Duke’s plans, was tried by a General
Court-martial in 1789. In the concluding paragraph of the later
edition of Mr. Glenie’s essay, the author promised to take an early
opportunity of delivering his sentiments at full length respecting the
corps of royal military artificers and horse artillery, which, he
stated, were unquestionably great impositions on the public; but the
promised _exposé_ I have not succeeded in procuring. If it never
appeared, the gallant officer, very probably, prudently relinquished
the idea, or suppressed the MS., from a conviction that it was as
unnecessary as unmerited. It is certainly curious that Mr. Glenie and
Colonel Debbieg, who were the most violent and persevering of the
Duke’s opponents, should have differed in opinion about the usefulness
and importance of the corps of artificers. By the only evidence as yet
discovered, it is obvious that Mr. Glenie would willingly have
disbanded it; Colonel Debbieg, on the other hand, only a few years
before aspired to the honour of originating it.
-----
In the diminished estimate for 1786 the amount asked was quite
inadequate to effect the purposes designed; and to enable his Grace the
better to accomplish them, he suggested to Mr. Pitt the necessity of
raising a corps of military artificers on the model of the companies
employed at Gibraltar. Experience had demonstrated beyond all dispute
their excellency as artificers and soldiers, and the economy of their
services. He had watched and studied their discipline and advantage for
some years, and with these incentives, he felt no hesitation in urging
their immediate formation. Better reasons could scarcely have been
desired by Mr. Pitt, who readily gave his assistance in obtaining a
warrant from the King to sanction the measure. He did not attempt,
however, to enlighten the House upon the matter before appealing to His
Majesty, knowing that it would be treated with unmerited distrust, and
probably crushed under a weight of prejudice and misconception. Strictly
speaking, there was nothing unconstitutional in this manner of
proceeding; it was warranted by many precedents, but it gave rise in a
subsequent session of Parliament to some observations which required Mr.
Pitt to explain his conduct in the affair. The warrant was signed on the
10th October, 1787.
The Ordnance estimates for that year were not brought forward until a
late hour on the 10th December; and, as but little time was afforded for
discussing their merits, and particularly the novel measure of embodying
a corps of military artificers, a motion was made that their
consideration should be adjourned to the next day. It was lost by a
large majority, and the sums asked for were voted without debate.
In this vote was involved the formation of the corps. That a measure on
so extraordinary a principle, and so hateful to the sentiments of the
country generally, should have passed without scrutiny is remarkable;
but Mr. Sheridan, on the 17th December following, thinking that the
estimates were imprudently hurried through the House, introduced them
again to notice. At the same time he endeavoured to bring the suggestion
of raising a corps of mechanics into contempt. He called the project
singular and extraordinary; ridiculed the idea of putting the artificers
under martial law, and thereby to abridge their liberty. Moreover, he
did not conceive that men, capable of earning half-a-crown a-day, would
enlist as soldiers and work in their respective occupations at one-third
of that sum for the mere douceur of military discipline. Then, with
regard to the economy of the measure, he remarked, “That in the report
of 1783, the Master-General had stated, that by suffering some of the
artificers at Woolwich, Sheerness, &c. to be put into companies, the
artillery would never want artificers; and a saving of 15,000_l._ would
be made to Government. Before, therefore, any new plan of raising a
distinct corps of artificers was authorized, it would be proper to know
what the saving made in consequence of the original plan had amounted
to; because, if no great saving had been made, the plan now proposed
would evidently be attended with additional expense to the public.”[70]
Mr. Sheridan did not embody this subject in his motion. His remarks upon
it were merely incidental to his speech on the intended fortifications
in the West Indies, and elicited no discussion. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer replied to Mr. Sheridan; but he spoke only to the motion, and
made no allusion whatever to the new corps. Thus quietly did the Duke of
Richmond gain a project, which there was reason to expect would not be
granted without decided indications of repugnance and hostility.
-----
Footnote 70:
Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register,’ 1788. Second edit., 1790, p. 96.
-----
The scheme, however, though it easily received the approval of the House
of Commons, was doomed, ere long, to have a severe sifting. In both
Houses the question was very roughly handled by the Opposition. Had it
been brought forward as a specific measure at first, it would, in all
probability, have been rejected or passed by a scanty majority; but
being covered by a vaster and more momentous question, it escaped
observation and slipped through the Commons concealed under the wings of
its parent. The time, however, had arrived, when the subject, stripped
of its covering, should be laid bare, and fairly and openly discussed;
but after a warm debate, the project was again sanctioned, and the
formation of the corps confirmed. A summary of the debate, which
originated in the introduction, for the first time, of the corps of
artificers into the Mutiny Bill, and which is given in Dodsley’s ‘Annual
Register’ for 1788,[71] is subjoined.
-----
Footnote 71:
Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register.’ Second edit., 1790, pp. 121-123.
-----
“On the 12th of March, the report of the Committee on the Mutiny Bill
was brought up; and on reading the clause for incorporating in the army
the newly-raised corps of military artificers, the same was strongly
objected to as a dangerous innovation, and as militating against the
most favoured principles of the constitution. The same system, it was
said, might next be extended to shipwrights, and so on to every
description of persons in the service of the executive government; and
therefore the House was called upon to repel so alarming an innovation
_in limine_. In defence of the measure it was urged, that it would be
attended with an annual saving of 2,000_l._, upon an expenditure of
22,000_l._; and that it was necessary to extend the military law to the
corps in question, as the only means of keeping them together, and
preventing their desertion of the public service in time of war.
“This disposition to adopt a new principle of expediency and economy,
upon a subject which went to the diminution of the liberties of the
subject, instead of the old principle of actual necessity, was severely
reprobated. Several country gentlemen declared, that if the House should
agree to put 600 Englishmen under martial law, merely for the paltry
consideration of saving 2,000_l._ per annum, they would betray their
constituents, and would be devoid of those feelings for the
constitution, which ought to make their distinguishing character. It was
denied that any necessity for so extraordinary a surrender of the
liberties of a part of the community was made out; it having never been
asserted, nor being indeed true, in fact, that there was any difficulty
in procuring artificers for the Ordnance service in time of war. The
sense of the House being taken on the clause, there appeared, ayes 114,
noes 67.[72]
-----
Footnote 72:
Clause Lxxv. Public Acts, 28 Geo. III., vol. i., p. 369. This was not
a specific clause to meet the case of the artificers, but the same
which had existed, with possibly slight variations, since its first
insertion in the Act It merely included the corps by name, and made
other necessary alterations to embrace classes of persons heretofore
inadvertently omitted. Why it should have caused so much discussion,
more especially with reference to the formation of the corps, is
almost marvellous, since a more fitting opportunity was afforded for
that purpose, when the Ordnance estimates were presented and passed in
December of the previous year. What were Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Courtenay,
and the other opponents of the Duke of Richmond’s schemes about, to
allow this measure to steal a successful march upon them?
-----
“The same subject was again discussed on the third reading of the Mutiny
Bill, when it was asked, whether any part of the corps was already
enlisted and embodied? This question being answered in the affirmative,
it was strongly contended that the authors of the measure had been
guilty of an illegal act, in raising a body of men without the consent
of Parliament; and that it was a violent and arbitrary measure to
subject those men to military law, who at the time of their enlisting,
were evidently not included in the Mutiny Act. On the other hand, Mr.
Pitt contended, that, by a liberal interpretation of the King’s
prerogative, government was authorized, on the late alarm of war, to
raise the corps in question: and Sir Charles Gould, the
Advocate-General, maintained, that every soldier enlisted, became, _ipso
facto_, subject to be tried by martial law. The House again divided on
the question, ayes 142, noes 70.
“Upon the commitment of the Bill in the Upper House, the Duke of
Manchester rose and declared his intention of opposing the novel clauses
that it contained. He was an avowed enemy, he said, to the extension of
military law, unless in cases of absolute necessity; and that the
present Bill went unnecessarily to extend that law, by making a number
of artificers subject to its severe effects, who had hitherto enjoyed
their liberty in common with their fellow-subjects. Could it be proved
necessary for the defence of the kingdom, he should not entertain the
least objection to the increase of the army; but in a time of profound
peace, the adoption of a measure of so singular a nature as the present,
called for jealousy and caution.
“The Duke of Richmond entered into a full explanation of the plan of
which he had been the author. It had occurred to him, he said, that the
formation of a regular corps of artificers, who would in future wars, be
applicable to any service when wanted, either at home or abroad, could
not but be attended with very beneficial consequences. In all the armies
abroad, such a corps made part of those armies, and as their utility was
unquestionable, he had concluded that there ought to be such a corps in
our army, and therefore he had considered it as his duty to submit the
proposition to His Majesty, who had approved of it, and it had been
since laid before the House of Commons, and voted by that branch of the
legislature. With regard to putting them in the Mutiny Bill, being a
part of the army, enlisted regularly as soldiers, like other soldiers,
they ought undoubtedly to become subjected to the same law, as the
policy of the State had considered it as right that all soldiers should
continue in such a state of subordination. At the same time, it was not
to be considered as any hardship, since no species of trial, however
popular it might be, was, he believed, more fair and candid than trials
by court-martial. He added, that the corps of artificers proposed to be
formed, was not only highly useful, but, at the same time, so far from
being an additional expense, they would prove a saving, because the
difference between getting such a number as heretofore, and having them
formed into a regular corps as intended, would render the usual expense
less by 2,000_l._
“Lord Porchester objected principally to that part of the new
establishment which subjected the artificers to the arbitrary punishment
of the Master-General of the Ordnance. In one instance they might be
reduced for want of skill, of which the Master-General was made the sole
judge, to the rank of labourers, and thereby be deprived of one-third of
their pay; and in another, he was also the sole judge of the quantum to
which their pay should be reduced in cases of idleness or misbehaviour.
“Lord Carlisle ridiculed the strange reason given for adopting the new
project, that it would be a saving of 2,000_l._ a year. If their
lordships were to be governed by such arguments, they would be led into
so absurd a matter as the calculation of what the surrender of the
rights of the subject was worth per man; and if the rights and liberties
of 600 artificers were worth just 2,000_l._, they would see that the
noble lord valued the rights of every individual exactly at 3_l._ 10_s._
each.
“Lord Cathcart and Lord Rawdon were of opinion, that the plan formed by
the noble duke would be attended with many considerable military
advantages; and the question being at length put, the clause was carried
without a division. The corps now, for the first time, was made legally
amenable to the provisions of the Mutiny Act; and, for a few years at
least, was permitted to go on with its organization and duties without
being again noticed or interrupted by the opposition in Parliament.”[73]
-----
Footnote 73:
In the protracted debates which occurred in 1788, on the Regency, Mr.
Sheridan took occasion, when opposing the measure for reserving the
patronage of the royal household, to attack the Minister—Mr. Pitt, and
to wing from his bow another caustic shaft at the royal military
artificers. Mr. Pitt, at some previous time, had charged a right
honourable friend of Sheridan’s, on quitting office, “with having left
a fortress behind him.” Sheridan admitted that the accusation was
true; “but then,” continued he, in a vein of sparkling raillery, “like
a coarse, clumsy workman, his right honourable friend had built his
plan in open day, and retired with his friends, who served without
pay. * * * Not so the right honourable gentleman over the way. Like a
more crafty mason he had collected his materials with greater caution,
and worked them up with abundantly more art. Perhaps he had taken the
advice of the noble Duke—famous for fortification—and, with the aid of
that able engineer, had provided a corps of royal military artificers,
and thrown up impregnable ramparts to secure himself and his garrison.
Upon this occasion the King’s arms doubtless might be seen flying as a
banner on the top of his fortress, and powerful indeed must prove the
effect of the right honourable gentleman’s thundering eloquence from
without, and the support of the royal artificers from within, against
his political adversaries.”—Sheridan’s Dramatic Works. See Life, p.
138. Bohn’s edit., 1848.
The last reference to the military artificers in Parliament was made
by Mr. Courtenay on the 21st April, 1790, when, moving for a committee
to inquire into the expenditure of the public money by the Duke of
Richmond from the 1st January, 1784, he stated, among a variety of
matter, that the corps of which his Grace was the founder, “were
neither soldiers nor artificers.”—‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ part 2,
1790, vol. 60, p. 720. This was followed, in 1794, by Mr. Glenie, who,
in a second edition of his ‘Observations,’ declared that the corps was
unquestionably a great imposition on the public. With this
announcement the party crusade against the royal military artificers
terminated.
-----
1787—1788.
Constitution of corps—Master artificers—Officers—Rank and post of the
corps—Captains of companies, stations—Allowance to Captains,
Adjutants—Recruiting—Labourers—“Richmond’s whims”—Progress of
recruiting—Articles of Agreement—Corps not to do garrison
duty—Sergeant-majors—John Drew—Alexander Spence—Uniform dress—Working
dress—Hearts o’pipe-clay—“The Queen’s bounty”—Arms, &c.—Distinction of
ranks—Jews' wish.
The King’s authority “for establishing a corps of royal military
artificers,” alluded to in the preceding chapter, was conveyed in a
warrant, dated 10th October, 1787, to Charles Duke of Richmond. It was
to consist of six companies of 100 men each. The constitution of each
company, and the pay of its different ranks were fixed as follows:—
s. d.
1 Sergeant-major 2 3 a-day }
3 Sergeants each 1 9 ” }
4 Corporals each 1 7 ” }
2 Drummers }
}
_Privates_— { } Working-pay, in addition,
12 Carpenters { } not exceeding 9_d._ a-day
10 Masons { } to each non-commissioned
10 Bricklayers { } officer and man for the
5 Smiths { each 0 9 ” } days actually employed on
5 Wheelers { } the works.
4 Sawyers { }
8 Miners { }
2 Painters { }
2 Coopers { }
2 Collar-makers. { }
30 Labourers each 0 6 ” }
The sergeants consisted of a carpenter, a mason, and a smith, who were
styled masters; and the corporals were a master bricklayer and a master
wheeler, one foreman of miners and a foreman of labourers.[74] The civil
master artificers had the offer of enlisting and being appointed to
these ranks. Those who refused were discharged as soon as the military
establishment was complete.
-----
Footnote 74:
Thus the higher branches of promotion were reserved to the three first
classes of tradesmen, and none but men of the latter trades were
promoted to the rank of corporals. This rule, though enforced as much
as practicable, was necessarily deviated from in the lapse of a few
years for the benefit of the service.
-----
Officers of the royal engineers were appointed to command the corps. All
serving at the particular stations at which the companies were forming
were attached to do duty with them.
When required to parade with other regiments, the corps was directed to
take post next on the left of the royal artillery. The officers were to
fall in with the corps.[75]
-----
Footnote 75:
The authority for this was not embodied in the warrant for raising the
corps, but conveyed in a letter to the Duke of Richmond, dated 10th
October, 1787. With regard to the officers falling in with their
companies, it was necessary to issue a special order, as, by a
previous warrant of the 25th April, 1787, the royal engineers were to
take rank with the royal artillery, and to be posted on the right or
left of that regiment, according to the dates of their commissions. At
Gibraltar, it was the custom of the companies with their officers, to
take the right of the artillery; and they were always inserted first
in the Governor’s states and returns. This was a local arrangement
occasioned, probably, on account of the companies being stationary at
the fortress.
-----
The Duke of Richmond located the companies at the principal dockyards or
military stations, and ordered the following officers to command them:—
Woolwich—Colonel Robert Morse.
Chatham—Colonel William Spry.
Portsmouth—Colonel John Phipps.
Gosport—Lieut.-Colonel James Moncrief.
Plymouth—Lieut-Colonel Fred. George Mulcaster.
One company was ultimately divided between the islands of Guernsey and
Jersey.[76]
-----
Footnote 76:
The companies at Gibraltar, although similarly constituted, paid, and
officered, remained a distinct and separate body until their
incorporation with the corps in the year 1797.
-----
The officers above named were the commanding royal engineers at the
respective stations.[77] To each was allowed the sum of 56_l._ per annum
for defraying certain incidental items connected with his company; and a
lieutenant of engineers was appointed adjutant, with an extra allowance
of 2_s._ a-day, to assist in conducting the drill and in maintaining
discipline.
-----
Footnote 77:
From this arrangement, it sometimes occurred that even a
_Major-General_ was _captain_ of a company.
-----
The recruiting was carried on by the captains of companies, assisted by
seven other officers of engineers, with several transferred soldiers of
the royal artillery, at Landguard Fort, Tynemouth, Dover, Guernsey,
Edinburgh, Fort George, and Berwick. They were not restrained from
putting into operation any measure which seemed to be best calculated
for obtaining recruits. There was no standard as to height fixed; but
labourers were not enlisted over twenty-five years of age, nor any
artificer over thirty, unless he had been employed as a mechanic in the
Ordnance department, and known to be an expert workman of good
character. All recruits, however, whether previously under the Ordnance
or not, were “to be strong able-bodied men, free from all infirmity, and
duly qualified for their several trades and occupations.” The miners
were all got from Cornwall. The bounty given at first was five guineas
to each attested recruit; which, on the 21st November, 1787, was reduced
to the usual peace allowance of three guineas.
These general instructions for recruiting were soon afterwards[78] much
altered by the Duke of Richmond, who was anxious to make the corps as
perfect as possible with regard to tradesmen. On the decision of his
Grace all the men were afterwards enlisted as labourers at 6_d._ a-day.
The bounty was continued at three guineas. Growing lads from sixteen to
eighteen years of age, not under five feet four inches high, were
preferred before all others, and were instructed in the trades most
required by the corps. Over eighteen years of age none were taken less
than five feet six inches.
-----
Footnote 78:
In a letter bearing date 19th March, 1788.
-----
This was a measure of just precaution, as several men had already
enlisted as artificers, who upon a fair trial were found to know but
little of their craft. The Duke now thought to insure his object by
enlisting every man as a labourer, and after a few months' experience of
his abilities, promoting him to be an artificer, or retaining him as a
labourer, until recommended for preferment. On promotion to artificers,
each man received a bonus or reward of two guineas, an additional 3_d._
a-day pay, and was distinguished from a labourer by being allowed finer
clothing and a gold-laced hat.[79] “I think,” wrote his Grace, “that
this method, although the slowest, will in the end be the best means of
acquiring a good corps of artificers.” Whatever may have been the result
of this change, it shows that the Duke was interested in the most
trifling concerns of the corps; so much so indeed, that the men were
aware of it, and familiarly styled his measures and arrangements
“Richmond’s whims.”
-----
Footnote 79:
For every labourer promoted, a guinea was granted to the master
artificer, either civil or military, who had the credit of training
him, as a compensation for his services and an encouragement to future
exertion. This was sanctioned by his Grace in a letter dated 6th
December, 1791.
-----
Great exertions were made to give effect to the Duke’s orders and
wishes, particularly at Portsmouth and Plymouth, where the dockyards
were to be fortified on a plan approved by his Grace. About three months
after the date of the warrant, upwards of 100 men had been enrolled,
besides several artificers transferred from the royal artillery to form
the nucleus of each company. The growth of the corps was tardy at first
and continued dilatory for a year and more; after which, however, as the
prevailing prejudices began to die away, greater success was apparent.
As the enlistment of mechanics to work at their trades under military
discipline was quite new to the country, the greatest care was taken to
prevent misconception and complaint. The Duke of Richmond was sensible
that both his plans for national defence, and for the establishment of a
corps to accomplish them, were sources of suspicion and watchfulness on
the part of the Opposition in Parliament; and hence he was cautious,
particular, and explanatory, even to indulgence. The recruit was
required to sign certain articles of agreement, showing fully his
obligations to the service, and those of the public towards himself.
Among the terms was prominently placed his engagement “to be liable to
all military duties, subject to the articles of war, and all other
military discipline like other soldiers, and to serve in any part of the
world to which his Majesty might order him.”[80]
-----
Footnote 80:
This agreement was required to be attested by every recruit until
about the year 1800, when it seems to have fallen into disuse.
-----
To protect the companies from being unnecessarily interfered with, and
to insure their constant employment on the works, directions were given
to the commandants or governors of the different garrisons where they
were stationed, not to call upon them to do any duty that would take
them from the public works, except in cases of war, internal commotion,
or any very urgent necessity. Such has been the abiding rule of all
garrisons to the present day, and the corps is only expected to provide
its own essential guards.
The sergeant-majors were selected from the royal artillery, first being
recommended as competent to drill and pay a company, and able to enforce
discipline and maintain order, which were the duties they were
particularly required to attend to. None were tradesmen. Most, if not
all, had been in the American war, had distinguished themselves in
action, and were promoted into the corps as a reward for their
services.[81]
-----
Footnote 81:
John Drew was one of the sergeant-majors. He was the first soldier
that entered the English corps of military artificers. On May 1st,
1795, he was commissioned to be second lieutenant in the invalid
artillery, from which he retired in March, 1819, and died at Woolwich
November 9, 1830. One of his daughters married the late Richard Byham,
Esq., secretary to the honourable Board of Ordnance. A son—Richard
Robinson Drew—attained the rank of Major in the royal artillery, and
married Geriloma Barona, daughter of the late Marquis di Montebello.
This lady died on the 4th September, 1854, and the Major survived her
only four months. Both were interred in the family mausoleum at
Messina. Though springing from a stock without any remarkable
antecedents, good fortune seems to have attended the career of the
offspring of the worthy sergeant-major; and much as his son may have
added distinction to his race by his matrimonial alliance with a lady
of high birth, it was still more honoured in the person of his
granddaughter, who was wedded to the noble Prince di Castelcicala, the
late Minister Plenipotentiary for Sicily.
Another of the sergeant-majors was Alexander Spence. He was born in
1726, and enlisted into the 20th Foot, January 16, 1756. After a
service of 19 years in that regiment, and 14 as sergeant in the North
Hants Militia, he joined the corps at the age of 61!! This is the
period when men usually think of retiring from active employment and
preparing for the end of life. Not so Spence. He was still a recruit,
hale and hearty, and served his country for a further period of 21
years! If nature had taken her course, he might have lived to a great
age, but disappointed in his expectation of receiving a
sub-lieutenancy in the corps, he committed suicide January 11, 1809,
at the age of 83.
-----
The uniform, which was issued every alternate year, consisted of a blue
coat with long skirts, rolling collar, black cloth facings, white
shalloon lining to the skirts, and lappels at the breast; which, with
the slashes on the cuffs and pocket-holes, were laced with rectangular
loops, having a button at one end of the loop. The buttons were similar
in size, material, and device to those already described as being
regimental at Gibraltar. At the breast frills were worn, and at the
wrist small ruffles. The stock was of black leather with a false collar
turned over it about a quarter of an inch. The breeches and waistcoats
were of white cloth, and the gaiters of black cloth, which reached as
high as the knee, and were secured round the leg by a row of small
buttons, eighteen in number, on the outer seam. To prevent them twisting
they were steadied by a button at the bend of the knee. The cocked hat,
worn transversely, was ornamented with a binding of gold lace, a short
red feather, horse-hair rosette, and gold loop and button. The hair was
clubbed and powdered. Plate III.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Royal Military Artificers Plate III.
UNIFORM 1787 Printed by M & N Hanhart.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The working dress was a plain white raven duck, or canvas frock,
reaching nearly to the ankles, with a rolling collar, and brass buttons
down the front; white duck waistcoat and pantaloons, tongued and
buttoned at the bottom, and plain black felt hats.[82] Leather stocks
and frilled shirts were also worn. The hair was queued but not powdered.
Plate IV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
Royal Military Artificers Plate IV.
WORKING-DRESS, 1787 Printed by M & N Hanhart.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Footnote 82:
While waiting for the issue of their regimental costume, the men, to
appear smart and clean, pipe-clayed their frocks, vests, and
pantaloons, and marched on Sundays to church as white as snow, and
“stiff as buckram.” Unavoidably rubbing against each other during the
service, the wash being thus set free, filled the sanctuary with
clouds of white powder, which gave rise to the playful designation, by
which they were known for some time, of “Hearts o’pipe-clay.”
-----
Two suits of this dress were furnished to every man annually—each suit
lasted six months. They were also provided with a pair of serge breeches
and a flannel waistcoat. Under what circumstances and on what occasions
these articles were to be worn, was never determined, and the men were
therefore at liberty to dispose of them as they pleased. To distinguish
them from the necessary items of the working dress, they were
denominated “The Queen’s Bounty.”
The arms of the rank and file were those common to the period—firelocks,
pouches and cross belts of buff leather pipe-clayed. The sergeants had
pikes, and long narrow thrust-swords—the latter purchased at their own
expense: the gripe was steel, with a single gilt guard; the scabbard was
black leather, mounted with a gilt tip, top and boss, and the shoulder
belt, with a frog to hold the sword, was pipeclayed like those of the
privates. The sergeant-majors wore swords and belts the same as the
sergeants, but no pikes. The drummers were armed with brass-handled
swords, short in the blade, but broader than the sergeants, and black
scabbards with brass mounting. All ranks had a square breast-buckle to
their belts; those of the superior ranks were gilt.
The distinctions in regard to rank were as follows:—_Labourers_, coarse
clothing, yellow tape lace on their coatees and hats. _Artificers_,
clothing of a much finer quality, same kind of tape lacing on their
coatees, but gold lace on their hats. _Drummers_, same clothing as
artificers, with this difference—instead of plain yellow tape, they had
broad livery lace of a quality like tape, bearing the Ordnance arms of
three guns and three balls, extending from the collar downwards in
parallel stripes. _Corporals_, same as artificers in every respect, but,
in addition, small gold-fringed knots on the shoulders.[83] _Sergeants_,
crimson sashes and swords, gold lace on coats, but no knots on
shoulders: they wore laced straps only. _Sergeant-majors_, sashes and
swords, gold lace on coatees, bullion epaulettes, and silk velvet
facings.
Footnote 83:
A yellow silk knot was regimental; this the corporals were permitted
to dispose of for a gold-fringed knot. In most of the companies the
corporals wore knots on each shoulder. In the Woolwich company, one
only was worn on the right shoulder.
In the working dress there was no apparent distinction between the
labourers, artificers, and drummers. The corporals and sergeants were
distinguished by black hats of the same shape as the privates, with a
gold-lace band, about an inch broad, around the bottom of the pole, and
their frocks, &c., were finer in fabric and whiter in colour. The
sergeant-majors always appeared in uniform, for which purpose they were
allowed a complete suit annually.
It may not be amiss to notice, in connection with the dress of the
corps, an interesting offer that was made to the companies at Gibraltar,
on the change of their uniform from red and yellow to blue and black. At
the fortress the companies were much esteemed for their good conduct and
civility, and the best understanding existed between them and the
inhabitants. This feeling of respect was particularly shared by the
Jews, who desired to express it in a manner that would be more
convincing than a mere verbal assurance. On the new clothing arriving at
the Rock, the Jews, regarding the alteration with satisfaction, agreed
among themselves to provide for the companies, as a mark of their
regard, whatever gold lace might be required for the clothing, free of
cost, to be worn in place of the yellow tape; but it need hardly be
mentioned, that the desired deviations of this kind people from the
established patterns of the corps could not be permitted.
1789—1792.
Appointment of Quartermaster and Colonel-Commandant—Distribution of
corps, Captains of companies—Jealousy and ill-feeling of the civil
artificers—Riot at Plymouth—Its casualties—Recruits wrecked on passage
to Gibraltar—Song, “Bay of Biscay, O!”—Defence of the Tower of London
against the Jacobins—Bagshot-heath encampment—Alterations in the
uniform and working dress.
Heretofore the captains of the different companies communicated with the
Master-General or his secretary direct. This led to much inconvenience,
and tended to establish a distinctiveness of character and position for
each company, that was neither contemplated nor desired. To prevent its
continuance, the Duke of Richmond, on the 13th January, appointed
Lieutenant William George Phipps, royal engineers, quartermaster to the
corps; and on the 12th February, directed the chief royal engineer,
Major-General Sir William Green, Bart.—who originated the companies at
Gibraltar, and served with them at the fortress until November 1786—to
be Colonel-Commandant. The former attended to all matters connected with
the clothing, &c., and to the latter all the correspondence concerning
the different companies was addressed.
The first complete returns of the corps which have yet been found occur
in the month of February, immediately after Sir William Green’s
appointment. From these returns and other documents, the following
information relative to the distribution of the corps, the strength of
the different companies, and the names of the captains, have been
collected, viz.:—
Strength of Company. Captains.
Woolwich 47 Colonel Robert Morse.
Chatham 47 Colonel William Spry.
Portsmouth 72 Lieut-Colonel Fred. Geo. Mulcaster.
Gosport 69 Lieut.-Colonel James Moncrief.
Plymouth 104 Lieut.-Colonel Edward W. Durnford.
Guernsey 6 Lieut.-Colonel Alexander Mercer.
Jersey Formation not commenced.
The company at Plymouth was above the established strength, arising from
the works there being more important than at any other station. In May
the strength of the half company at Guernsey was twenty-three of all
ranks, and at Jersey twenty-one.
Symptoms of discontent were frequently shown by the civil mechanics in
the Government service at the authorized employment of the military
artificers. They looked upon the measure as a political move, or as a
dangerous experiment to ascertain how it would work; and then, if found
to answer, to extend a like control to the other workmen in the Crown
establishments. This notion they imbibed from the expressed
apprehensions of some leading men of the liberal party in parliament;
and, as a consequence, they were jealous of the military artificers,
whom they treated with great disrespect. A species of rivalry was thus
induced that rather increased than allayed the feeling of mutual
animosity. The civilians were not sparing of their taunts, nor were the
military artificers as temperate in their retorts as might have been
wished. Quarrels naturally ensued, individual feuds were frequent, and
in this way did the civilians endeavour to hold up the military
artificers to ridicule and disgrace for the purpose of goading the
Government to disband them; but how far they succeeded the existence of
the corps at this day affords a satisfactory reply.
At one of the stations the bad feeling that existed between the civil
and military artificers was exhibited in an altercation that originated
between the latter and some sailors, in which the dock workmen
interfered. This brought about a serious rupture, the particulars and
consequences of which are given below
Matches for wrestling and cudgelling between soldiers and sailors were
arranged to take place in a field adjoining Stoke Church, near Plymouth,
on the afternoon of the 4th June—the King’s birthday—on which occasion
the soldier-artificers, in common with the civilians, were granted a
holiday. The victors were to be rewarded with buckskin breeches and
silver cups. But few of the military would venture to take part in the
amusements, so that the company and the sailors, and some mechanics of
the dock-yard, were the principal actors. The men of the
soldier-artificers who entered the lists were chiefly from Cornwall and
adepts at wrestling, They only went, however, to witness the games—not
to join in them; and it was not till they were challenged that they
entered the arena. Having done so, they exerted themselves according to
the fashion of their country, and succeeded in gaining almost the whole
of the prizes; which, as was natural, they bore away with suitable
demonstrations of pride and pleasure.
A dispute arose between a couple of rivals about the unfair award of a
prize. It was given to a sailor, although fairly earned by a
military-artificer. The misunderstanding would have been easily settled
had it been left to the wrestlers themselves to decide; but the dock
people interfered, and fomented the quarrel, directing their abuse in
particular to the soldier-artificers. For a time the latter calmly
submitted to these insults, and yielded the prize for the sake of peace;
but roused at length to retaliate, they sought satisfaction in the
ordinary way by fighting. Overpowered, however, by numbers, they were
very severely treated and driven into barracks, where they remained for
two or three hours. At last, breaking this self-imposed restraint, they
again appeared in the town, having taken the precaution to prepare
themselves with pick-handles and short sticks concealed about their
persons, to resist any attempt at violence on the part of the civilians;
and the better to cope with their opponents, they walked into the
streets, when occasion required, in small parties or sections; which,
however, had the unfortunate semblance of defiance, and excited the
sailors and dockmen to renew their insolence.
Thus aggravated, the military artificers fell upon the civilians and
drove them pell-mell through the town. Intelligence of the resumed
affray soon spread, and numbers of holiday folk joined the ranks of the
rabble. Armed with bludgeons, staves, and broom-handles, the civilians
paraded the streets, and finding a small party of the military
artificers refreshing themselves at an inn, the rabble entered and
furiously attacked them. Against such overwhelming odds the little party
could not hold up, and being easily mastered, they were forcibly ejected
from the house and pursued to the barracks.
What had happened was, as yet, merely a series of individual or
sectional encounters—the preliminaries to something more serious. Galled
by a second reverse, the military artificers now mustered in full
strength, together with their non-commissioned officers, and sallied
into the street, brandishing brooms, pick-handles, clumps of wood, and
various other unmilitary weapons. Some marines and a few other soldiers,
sympathizing with the company, joined in the unhappy broil. By this time
the civilians and sailors were also considerably strengthened, and every
moment crowds were pouring in to swell the hostile mob.
The instant the two parties came in sight the conflict recommenced.
Closely and warmly it continued for about an hour, when the civilians
gave way, running in all directions from the field and leaving the
military victors. The mob, soon rallied, and assembled more numerous
than before, on the government ground between Cumberland and St.
George’s Squares, to make another and a final struggle for the
ascendancy. Thither the military artificers with their partisans
hurried. Nothing dismayed by the numbers collected to oppose them, they
resumed the combat. Pokers, bars of iron, and bludgeons were used with
merciless fury; stones of all sizes, broken bottles, and crockery-ware
were thrown, and weapons even were pressed into the riot. The scene that
ensued was frightful, and the civilians continued the contest with much
rancour and obstinacy. They were routed once, but suddenly turning, they
dashed at the soldiers again with a frenzy that deserved a better
result. The effort exhausted them; the spirit of the soldiers was
stirred afresh, and, plunging among the enraged but feeble throng, they
spared none that had the daring to confront them. Beaten at every point
by a handful of soldiers, the civilians faced about, and retreated
precipitately from the contest by the nearest avenues. The military
artificers and soldiers, flushed with success, would have pursued them,
and repaid their insolence in a manner not soon to be forgotten; but by
the activity of Captain Jonathan Passingham, of the 38th Regiment, who
paraded the town with the main guard from the lines, the intention was
frustrated. The conflict lasted several hours, and many of each party
were left for dead. Several, however, soon recovered, and it was then
found that the casualties were—one military artificer killed, and two
severely wounded; and on the side of the sailors and dock men, one
killed, two mortally wounded who died, and three severely wounded.[84]
Of the less serious wounds and accidents, from which very few escaped,
no notice appears to have been taken.
-----
Footnote 84:
‘Public Advertiser.’ June 11th, 1789.
-----
For three days the company was confined to barracks by order of the
Commandant, to allay the popular excitement. But whatever may be thought
of the part taken by the military artificers in this riot, certain it is
that it taught the dock workmen a good lesson, and had the effect of
repressing their insults and annoyances, and making their future
demeanour more pacific and respectful.
Several recruits having enlisted in Scotland for the companies at
Gibraltar, passage was provided for them on board a ship—the name of
which cannot be confidently traced—and they landed or “joined” at the
fortress on the 16th April, 1791. When in the Bay of Biscay the vessel
encountered a white squall, accompanied by terrific thunder and
lightning, which carried, away her main and foremasts. Each moment,
indeed, her final plunge was expected, and the passengers and crew,
clinging to spars and boxes, shreds of sails, and fragments of the
dismantled bulwarks, as the last and only chance for their lives,
awaited in suspense the time when the dread alternative must be taken.
With the appearance of the morning, providentially came the desired
calm. All hands immediately set to work to right the vessel; the
jury-mast was rigged, and the shivered ship, once more under weigh, wore
on with struggling throes, and made good her passage to the Rock. The
wreck and its circumstances gave rise to a song, called “The Bay of
Biscay, O!”[85]
-----
Footnote 85: