Chapter I: Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Letters to the Master-General, 1783-92.]

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

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

The vagueness of this Royal Warrant, and the inconveniences which might arise from it, were not lost upon the officers of the senior Corps, who communicated their opinions to the Master-General through Colonel Macbean, the Commandant at Woolwich. On the 25th October, 1787, the Duke of Richmond, having taken His Majesty’s pleasure, replied: [Sidenote: Duke of Richmond to Colonel F. Macbean.] “I have received the King’s commands to acquaint you that His Majesty only meant the said Warrant to relate to the circumstance when officers have occasion to parade by themselves _without their men_, for a funeral or any other military purpose; but that the directions contained in the said Warrant are not to be understood to authorize any officer of the Corps of Royal Engineers to take the command of any detachment of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, although he may be senior in rank to the oldest officer of the said detachment, unless such officer of the Corps of Royal Engineers should be the senior officer of the whole Garrison or Command, when, by virtue of his commission, he would of course take the command of the Royal Regiment of Artillery with that of other troops. I am further to signify to you His Majesty’s pleasure, that when any companies or detachments of Royal Military Artificers and Labourers are to take post, it is to be next to the Royal Regiment of Artillery, _and upon their left_. And the officers of the Corps of Royal Engineers are on such occasions to take post and fall in with such companies or detachments of Royal Military Artificers and Labourers.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: 1787. Rev. E. Jones to B. of Ordnance.]

After patiently waiting for _four_ years, the Chaplain again sent in a demand, stating that it was _impossible_ to use those he had _any longer_.

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Letter to the Master-General, Sept. 1785, from Major-Generals Cleaveland, Pattison, Brome, and Godwin.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sidenote: Whitehall, 23 May, 1786.]

The decisions arrived at by the Board in 1786, with reference to the medical officers, may be briefly stated. The principal medical officer at Woolwich was to be called Surgeon-General, and was to receive half-pay of 10s. per diem, while he was to be relieved of the expense of finding any medicines for the hospital. The Surgeon of the Battalion at Woolwich had to provide all the medicines for his Battalion, “excepting bark and wine,” in return for which he was allowed 120_l._ per annum. The Surgeon of the Battalion detached in England remained at Woolwich with such companies of the Battalion as might be stationed there, providing the medicines required by them, and by the company in Scotland, as well as all the companies of the Battalion _when on the line of march_,--receiving in return remuneration at the rate of 12_l._ per company annually. The recruits of the Battalions abroad were also under his care, and he received 12_l._ annually for each detachment of fifty men, in return for the medicines he had to provide. So far, this Surgeon had little to complain of. But the next burden was always greater than he could bear. He had to take charge of the men of the Invalid Battalion, not merely those at Woolwich, but also those on detachment, furnishing them with medicines, in return for the annual sum of 70_l._ When one bears in mind that no man entered the Invalid Battalion until he was completely crippled, and that his daily medicine was probably as necessary to him as the air he breathed, the inadequacy of the Surgeon’s remuneration in this item becomes apparent. The Surgeons of the Battalions, to which the companies at Gibraltar and in Canada respectively belonged, went on service with these companies, and received 12_l._ per annum for each company, in addition to their pay--in return for which they had to provide all medicines “except bark and wine.” The same allowance was paid for detached companies of the various Battalions to the Ordnance Surgeon on the spot. Civil artificers and labourers in the employ of the Ordnance were entitled to medical attendance and medicines, by paying at the rates of one penny and one halfpenny _per week_ throughout the year to the Ordnance medical officer on the station. The rule with regard to officers was worded as follows: “It is expected that the Surgeons of the Artillery and Ordnance at the different places should give their attendance to the military and civil officers without fee; but, with respect to supplying them with medicines, it is recommended to the military and civil officers to subscribe 2 guineas a year each, for which the Surgeon is to supply them with medicines; otherwise they are to pay for such medicines as they use.”

Such were the regulations for the medical officers of the Ordnance,--revealing a system which was faulty and has disappeared, but which it is interesting to reproduce in a history of the Corps. But there were other non-combatants also--no longer represented in the Regiment, but who deserve to be mentioned--the Regimental Chaplains. These gentlemen, at the period treated of, did not belong, as now, to one department for general Army service, but belonged to the various Battalions of the Corps. This, however, did not imply that they did duty with their Battalions; far from it. Excellent men, they drew their pay with a punctuality worthy of all praise, but it was not among their congregations in the Warren, but away in quiet rural rectories--in fat livings which they held. They were pluralists; and they clubbed together to pay a curate in Woolwich to perform their joint duties. It is sad to have to say, also, that they did not pay their substitute very liberally. They paid him each eighteen-pence a day--a sum so inadequate that it drew forth the remonstrances of the Commandant, [Sidenote: Commandant to Master-General, Nov. 14, 1787.] who wrote to the Master-General that, “considering the reverend gentleman’s constant residence and attendance, his dress and appearance, which are always obliged to be decent, and the disadvantage of having no surplice fees to add to it, it will not permit him even to eat at the mess--the cheapest and best mode of living here.” The sum of two shillings and sixpence a day from each Chaplain was requested for their substitute; such as was given in other Garrisons. It will thus be seen that the system was officially recognised; and, indeed, was but one of the many vicious customs which have disappeared before public opinion. There were certain occasions when the attendance of the Chaplains was insisted upon, although they were few and far between. One such occurred in 1785, when the King announced his intention of coming to Woolwich to review the Regiment. The Chaplains were hurriedly written for, “in order,” wrote the Brigade-Major, “that you may be at Woolwich in proper time to _march by_ with the Regiment.” One of the number replied, that on account of the distance at which he lived, and the fact of his being 86 years of age, he would be unable to attend,--which he greatly regretted, as he would have much liked to march past again before he died. The others obeyed the summons, one only protesting a little on the ground that the Battalion to which he belonged was at that time scattered in the West Indies and Canada. A few years later, in 1792, when a camp was formed at Bagshot, the Chaplains were ordered to attend and encamp with the companies; and from that time their duties ceased, more and more every year, to be so purely honorary as they had been.

Returning now to the combatant part of the Corps, there are certain details connected with the dress of the officers and men, which can hardly fail to be interesting, and which find a natural place in a chapter like this. Owing to a circumstance arising out of the American War, we are fortunately in possession of very circumstantial accounts on this point. After the Convention of Saratoga, many of the officers of Burgoyne’s army remained prisoners of war for nearly three years. On their return to England, they claimed compensation for loss of their equipment, &c., stating their case as follows:--“The subscribers wish to represent the constant and unavoidable loss they sustained in the mode of payment of their subsistence, as the impossibility of supplying the Convention Army with specie laid them under an absolute necessity of drawing their pay at very extravagant rates, being paid by public bills, in the negotiation of which, from the Congress paper currency, they suffered a discount which in the 1st year may be estimated at 20 per cent.... We beg leave to observe that, in conformity to the wishes of the Generals commanding the troops, we were under the necessity of building huts at our own cost and charges, in order to take the more effectual care of the men, to attend to their wants and to alleviate their distresses. Much expense was incurred on this score. We have also to observe that the Congress at different periods obliged us to remove to most of the provinces in America; and in those several marches of at least 1500 miles, it must naturally occur that many and heavy charges were sustained by us. On being exchanged, we were unavoidably obliged to come to New York individually, and there being no public conveyance, we were necessitated to purchase horses, to transport ourselves and baggage, from people who took every advantage of our distresses,” On the claims of officers on this account reaching the Ordnance, the first step was, simply, to refuse to admit them; on their being urged again in stronger terms, the next step was to refer them to some one else to ascertain the truth of the claimants’ statements, it being an official axiom that any one demanding money was probably an impostor, and to be treated accordingly; and, lastly, on being satisfied of the accuracy of the claim, the invariable course was to offer something considerably less than the sum demanded. From a remonstrance made against the offer in this case we learn what was laid down by the Board of Ordnance in the previous year, 28th June, 1782, as the equipment of an Artillery Subaltern, and the cost at which it was to be valued in compensating for its loss by shipwreck, or imprisonment. It was as follows:--

£ _s._ _d._
_Regimentals._--1 suit of full uniform 12 12 0
1 frock suit of uniform 7 7 0
1 laced hat 2 13 0
2 pairs of boots 3 3 0
1 regimental great coat 3 0 0
1 plain hat 1 1 0
12 shirts 9 0 0
12 stocks 2 2 0
12 pairs of stockings 3 12 0
6 linen waistcoats and breeches 7 4 0
12 handkerchiefs, at 3_s._ 6_d._ 2 2 0
1 pair of pistols 4 4 0
1 regimental sword, belt, and clasp 2 12 6
1 sash 1 11 6
3 pairs of shoes 1 4 0
_Camp Equipage._--Bedstead and bedding complete 12 12 6
1 pair of canteens 8 8 0
2 hair trunks 3 0 0
1 case with bottles 2 2 0
1 cask with kitchen utensils 3 3 0
Saddle and bridle 4 4 0
-------------
£96 17 6
-------------

The contents of the knapsack of an Artillery soldier at this time were as follows; the knapsack itself being made of painted canvas:--

4 white shirts.
1 check shirt.
6 _false collars_.
1 canvas frock.
1 canvas pair of trowsers.
1 leather cap.
2 pairs of shoes.
1 pair of black cloth gaiters.
1 pair of white stockings (thread).
1 _powder-bag and puff_.
1 razor.
1 shaving-box.
1 pair of shoe brushes.
1 cloth brush.
1 twin screw and worm.
1 brush and pricker.
1 leather stock.
1 rosette.
1 pair of worsted stockings.
3 pairs of Welsh yarn socks.
1 pair of shoe-buckles.
1 pair of knee-buckles.
1 stock buckle.
1 large and 1 small comb.

The annual issues of clothing were settled by the Master-General on 17th March, 1788, to be as follows.

Each sergeant was to receive annually

1 coat.
1 white cloth waistcoat.
1 white cloth breeches.
1 _frilled_ shirt.
1 black leather stock.
1 pair of worsted stockings.
1 gold laced hat.
Black cloth with 3 dozen buttons for a pair of gaiters.
5_s._ 3_d._ in lieu of a pair of shoes.

The same articles were supplied to the other ranks, with the exception that while the corporal’s coat had two epaulettes, the bombardier’s had only one; and that the hats of the drummers were plain, instead of gold-laced. The drummers had also fur caps supplied to them when required. In the West Indies the men received white linen waistcoats and breeches, instead of cloth; and wore white gold-laced hats instead of black.

The men of the Invalid Battalion received the same articles as those of the Marching Battalions, with this exception, that their coats were lined with _red_ instead of white, and their waistcoats and breeches, instead of being white, were _blue_.

So much for the clothing of the Regiment at this time; a few words must now be said as to its drills. And perhaps this can be done most easily by describing a field-day, which took place on the morning of the 9th July, 1788, before the King. On the arrival of His Majesty, a salute of 21 guns, at intervals of 8 seconds, was fired by a company, which immediately afterwards fell in on the left of the line. It was not until the preceding year that the Regiment had [Sidenote: Order by Master-General, 4 July, 1787.] been ordered to fall in in two ranks, when under arms. The King having ridden down the ranks, the Regiment broke into open column, and marched past in slow and quick time. The line having been reformed, and the Manual Exercise practised, the following marvellous evolutions commenced:--Two rounds were fired from _flanks to centre_ of each Battalion; the line then retired one hundred yards towards the Barracks, and fired two rounds from _centre to flanks_ of each Battalion; and then returned to its former ground. Here it fired two rounds by grand divisions from flanks to centre of each Battalion; then one round by wings of each Battalion; and, finally, each Battalion fired a volley.

Having so rung the changes on small-arm firing, a certain number of the men were detached to man 12 field guns, the line opening to allow these guns to come up. As a contrast to modern Field Battery drill, the solemn orders issued to the officer commanding these guns may be quoted:--“Lieutenant-Colonel Walker will advance towards Woolwich Common with his 12 guns, 4 in front, and in three lines. This column will incline to the right, so that the right-hand gun may be near the right-hand hedge. When they have got about halfway between the front of the Barracks and the sunk fence, the 4 guns in the front line are then to halt, while the 4 guns in the centre line form the left of the front line. The 12 guns then in one line will fire two rounds from _flanks to centre_, then change their front to the left by wheeling on the centre, and in that position fire two rounds from _centre to flanks_. The 6 guns on the right will then fall in with the rear of the 2nd Battalion, and the 6 guns on the left will fall in with the rear of the 4th Battalion.”

It requires the reproduction of such elephantine movements as the above, to realise sufficiently the progress made since that time in Field Artillery. This most wooden style of drill was the fashion in England; and we owe the change, which followed to the wars of the French Revolution, which taught that a General, to win battles, must be something more than a drill-sergeant, and that an army must learn not merely to fight, but to move, and to move with rapidity. The only element in the field-day just described which gives the student the slightest relief, is a mention made that the Gentlemen Cadets were employed as Light Infantry towards the end of the day. Of course this was all wrong, and one would rather find that they had been employed on a public occasion like this, as Artillerymen; but it is a relief to read of anything implying rapidity of movement, after the dull, ponderous description of the line moving solemnly backwards and forwards, firing from flanks to centre, and centre to flanks.

To this style of drill our want of success in Flanders, in the campaigns shortly to be described, was mainly due. Our Generals had their brains so saturated with the drill-book, that on active service, if they encountered an enemy who violated its rules, they were utterly nonplussed. Had they won a victory by ignoring the regulations under which they had been so strictly exercised, their satisfaction would have been but a doubtful one. They had yet to learn that although drill and dogged courage are admirable qualities in troops, they will not compensate for the lack of those qualities in a General which are necessary to ensure success.

Only one or two points remain to be noticed. First, the amalgamation of the Royal Irish Artillery was contemplated as early as 1788, although it did not take place until after the Union in 1801. The delay was mainly caused by the protest of the officers of the Royal Artillery, who would have suffered greatly from supersession,--the promotion in the Irish corps having been much more rapid than in that from which it sprang. Amalgamation must always produce this supersession to a certain extent; and the Board listened to the remonstrances, and deferred the incorporation of the Irish Artillery for some years. About the same date that this question was being discussed, a long petition was forwarded from Gibraltar, in which the officers of the Royal Artillery there stationed pointed out how much better the position had become of officers in the Royal Engineers of the same standing as themselves, than their own. The wording of the petition was faulty, and its arguments were unsound; thus giving the Master-General an opportunity, of which he availed himself, to administer a dignified rebuke to the malcontents. On one point, however, he admitted the force of their complaint. The rank of Major had been abolished in the Royal Engineers, its holders being made Lieutenant-Colonels, and thus obtaining a decided advantage over their contemporaries in [Sidenote: Duke of Richmond, 10 March, 1788.] the Artillery. “This difference,” wrote the Master-General, “and there being no rank of Major, is, I admit, an advantage in point of rank in favour of the Engineers. The reason of the rank of Major being suppressed in the Corps of Engineers was that there were no troops belonging to them to be commanded in Battalions, and therefore there could be no use for an officer of that description.” In the year 1827, the rank of Regimental Major was abolished in the Royal Artillery, its holders being made Lieutenant-Colonels, but with Majors’ pay; and in the year 1872, the rank of Major was substituted for that of First Captain, on account of the responsibility attached to the command of a Battery of Artillery.

It was during this period that a blow was struck at the custom, which had hitherto prevailed, of buying and selling the appointments of Adjutant and Quartermaster. On the [Sidenote: Colonel Miller, Pamph., 1868.] 24th February, 1783, the Master-General ordered that no such appointment should in future be sold, with this exception, that any officer who then held an appointment which he had obtained by purchase would be allowed to sell it when he relinquished it, but must accept 100_l_. less than he gave for it; and that his successor must also sell for 100_l_. less than that purchase-money; and so on until the price should be extinguished. It was ruled, at the same time, that a Captain-Lieutenant, holding an Adjutancy, should vacate it on being promoted to a Company; and that as soon as any “warrant” of a Quartermaster should become vacant without purchase, “some meritorious non-commissioned officer should be recommended for the same.”

A privilege which the Regiment had hitherto enjoyed was abolished, and with good reason, in 1785. Prior to that date no charge was ever made for the subsistence of either officers or men of the Royal Artillery when being conveyed by transports to foreign stations, an exemption which was not accorded to the rest of the army. Doubtless the custom arose from the fact that the Board of Ordnance, which in one capacity governed the Artillery, in another capacity hired the transports; but the case had only to be stated to ensure remedy. On the 27th August, 1785, it was ruled that a “stoppage of 3_d._ per diem (being the same as is made from the rest of His Majesty’s troops) be made from _the officers_, non-commissioned officers, and privates of the Royal Artillery during the time they shall be on board ship.” Doubtless, the same individuals would be glad if, in the year of grace 1873, they could travel on board ship at the rate of 3_d._ per diem.

Perhaps of all the letters which the student finds in the official correspondence of the period, the following is the most amusing. It ought already to have been mentioned that when the Captain of a Company retired on his pay, awaiting a vacancy in the Invalid Battalion, his Captain-Lieutenant received certain allowances connected with the command of the Company. Apparently, the regulations were not very clear on the subject; or, as is very probable, decisions had been given in individual cases, which had not been promulgated to the Regiment--a pernicious custom which existed in the 18th century, and even since. A Captain William Houghton had retired in this way; and from his retirement the following cry of agony reached the [Sidenote: 2 April, 1789.] Commandant of his Battalion:--“Ever since the day your goodness was made known to the Regiment in getting me leave of absence to retire from duty till provided with an Invalid Company, I have never had a moment’s peace with my Captains-Lieutenant. Their first claim was for _one_ non-effective--I gave it; the next was for both--I gave them; and was then told they had a right to the 6_l._ per annum allowed for stationery--this I gave up also. They have now demanded my share of the stock purse, and the 20_l._ per annum granted by His Majesty’s warrant, 27th July, 1772, to the Captains of Artillery, on account of the slowness of promotion in the Regiment. Had I known these were to be the hard conditions of a little rest before death, it would have been all fair; but in that case I certainly should have remained with my Company, provided I had done duty upon crutches.”

Only one point remains now to be mentioned before turning to the causes which led to sudden augmentations in the Regiment, combined with the commencement of hostilities. On the 26th August, 1792, volunteers were called for from the Companies at Woolwich, to form part of a guard ordered to attend His Excellency Viscount Macartney, who had been appointed Ambassador to the Court of the Emperor of China, and also to act as instructors in gunnery to the troops of that potentate. The strength of the party was as follows:--One sergeant, 3 corporals or bombardiers, 1 drummer, and 15 gunners, under the command of Lieutenant Parish. An advance was made to the detachment of a year’s subsistence to purchase necessaries, and a second suit of clothing was given to the non-commissioned officers and men.

It has been difficult to confine this chapter to these purely domestic, although necessary, details, because, after 1787, the whole firmament of history has been lurid with the events in France, which were ripening into a state of things such as has never been seen before, or since. In 1792 it became apparent that war between England and France was inevitable. Recruiting had been brisk since 1787; in 1790 a free pardon had been offered to all deserters, who should return to their Regiments; in the first month of 1793 an augmentation to the Artillery was authorized, which will form the subject of the next chapter; and in October 1793, the following increase to the establishment was ordered, viz.:--

30 Gentlemen Cadets.

{ 1 Sergeant.
To each of the 40 marching { 2 Bombardiers.
Companies of the 4 { 10 Second Gunners.
Battalions { 1 Sergeant Conductor on Sergeant’s pay.
{ 10 Drivers upon Second Gunner’s pay.

To each of the 4 marching }
Battalions } 1 Surgeon’s Mate.

Every officer, without exception, had been ordered to join in 1792; and, although it was not until the beginning of 1793 that the French Ambassador was dismissed from the Court of St. James’s, it was evident that a sufficient _casus belli_ had been found in the operations of the French army in the Low Countries, and the menace to England implied in France obtaining the control of the River Scheldt.

A sufficient _casus belli_, it has been said; but the student of history must indeed be blind who fails to see that this was but a secondary reason. A panic had seized upon the most stable European governments, a dread lest the revolutionary principles which animated the French people should spread beyond the confines of France. Nor was their fear without reason. Even England had been penetrated by Republicanism; societies were formed, ostensibly for Parliamentary Reform, and under the title of _Friends of the People_, which desired undoubtedly the overthrow of the monarchy. An Englishman, the author of ‘The Rights of Man,’ had been elected a member of the Assembly in Paris, on account of his advanced political opinions; and, after his trial for sedition in England, an English mob showed their sympathy by taking the horses out of his advocate’s carriage, and drawing it themselves to his residence. That unfailing barometer of political disturbance--the funds--told also a tale of great uneasiness. [Sidenote: ‘Annual Register,’ 1792.] The Three per Cents., which stood in January 1792 at 93⅜, fell before December in the same year to 74; and all other Government securities were at a corresponding discount.

The state of France was, indeed, enough to appal the most indifferent. In the powerful language of the chronicler of the French Revolution, France, roused by many causes, [Sidenote: Carlyle.] faced the world “in that terrible strength of Nature which no man has measured;” and “whatever was cruel in the panic-frenzy of twenty-five million men--whatsoever was great in the simultaneous death-defiance of twenty-five million men--stood there in abrupt contrast, near by one another.” France was now “seeking its wild way through the New, Chaotic--where Force is not yet distinguished into Bidden and Forbidden--but Crime and Virtue welter unseparated, in that domain of what is called the Passions.” ... “The Gospel of Man’s Rights was preached abroad with the fearfullest Devil’s Message of man’s weaknesses and sins;” and a whole nation was drunk with revenge, and terror, and blood.

Penetrating with different effect into every class of men in England, the tale of the French Revolution penetrated even the recesses of the Ordnance. Raising their eyes from ledgers, and gazing across the Channel, even the members of the Honourable Board were moved; and on the first day of the New Year they resolved on a step, which should bring Field Artillery more into accord with the era in the history of war which was now to commence. Nor was it an hour too soon; for in three weeks’ time, on the 21st January, [Sidenote: Carlyle.] 1793, “there was in the streets of Paris a silence as of the grave--eighty thousand armed men stood ranked, like armed statues of men; cannons bristled, cannoneers with match burning, but no word or movement; it was as a city enchanted into silence and stone: one carriage, with its escort, slowly rumbling towards the Place de la Révolution, the only sound.” The last of the dragon’s teeth was about to be sown, and a crime to be committed which should bind the governments of Europe together against France, as one man: to whom France should answer, [Sidenote: Danton.] “The coalesced Kings threaten us: we hurl at their feet, as the gage of battle, the Head of a King.”

Of a truth, the Honourable Board had not moved a day too soon. Let us trace in our next chapter the development of that portion of the Corps which dates its origin from that terrible month of January 1793.