Chapter IV: Part 4

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

There exists two ballads with this title, one justly celebrated in the
royal navy, written by Andrew Cherry, and embodied in Dibdin’s “Naval
and National Songs,” and the other by a homely mariner, named, it is
said, John Williams. Both songs may have taken their origin from the
vessel spoken of above. Be this as it may, without doubt, one or the
other was written to record the distress and struggles of the ship
which conveyed the artificers to Gibraltar.

The incidents of the affair related in the first edition of this
history were made to correspond with the seaman’s effusion, as there
were reasons at the time for believing it referred to the vessel with
the recruits on board; but, as on a closer review, there are doubts
about its application, the details given in the former edition are
omitted in this, leaving the question to be solved at a future day.

If the ballad of the seaman have reference to the ship in which the
artificers sailed to the Rock, it differs in two known points from the
facts of its voyage. The “Caroline” is the ship of the song, and she
is said to have _sailed from Spithead on the fourteenth day of April_,
whereas the party of recruits _sailed_ apparently _from Scotland, and
positively_ landed, or, to use the official word, “_joined_,” _at
Gibraltar on the 16th April_.

The seaman’s “Bay of Biscay, O!” is worked up in pure Grub-street
doggrel; but bad as it is, it has been rendered worse, particularly in
the last verse, by the tampering of some grossly vulgar hand. In the
lapse of years the precise wording of that Catnach composition has
probably been lost, and the version that exists, filled up by the
imperfections of tradition, may have had its dates and places
disturbed. In a printed form the ballad, seemingly, cannot be
obtained.

If the differences just shown be considered fatal to the relationship
between the sailor’s song and the vessel noticed in the narrative,
then Cherry’s very popular ballad belongs to the history of the
sappers and miners.

-----

In January and February, 1792, the Woolwich company was employed at the Tower of London, constructing an earthen battery for four guns in front of the gates, and a wooden battery for four guns, projecting from the coping of the wall of the fortress facing the Minories, to sweep the ditch and the hill. These defensive measures were undertaken by Captain Holloway of the engineers, sergeant John Watson being the overseer, and were intended to oppose any attack on the Tower which might be attempted by the turbulent Jacobins.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Royal Military Artificers Plate V.
UNIFORM 1792 Printed by M & N Hanhart.

]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Prussian system of tactics being lately introduced into the army, it was ordered that a union of corps should take place to ascertain its efficiency. An encampment for the purpose was formed on Bagshot Heath, early in July, under the Duke of Richmond, the Master-General of the Ordnance. The regiments present were the 2nd, 3rd, 14th, and 29th Foot; two regiments of light dragoons, two battalions of artillery, and one company of military artificers, made up of men from the Woolwich, Chatham, Portsmouth, and Gosport, companies, under Lieutenant-Colonel Moncrief, royal engineers. The sergeant-majors of these four companies were present. A large quantity of intrenching implements and tradesmen’s tools accompanied the party. The encampment lasted for about a month, the troops marching from one position to another, and manœuvring in a body, as if in actual warfare. During this time there were three grand field-days and two _sham_ battles; at the whole of which his Majesty was present, as also, on some occasions, were the Prince of Wales and the Dukes of York and Gloucester. The company of artificers manœuvred with the troops when not otherwise required; but more generally they were employed in making bridges over small rivulets for the passage of the troops, throwing up occasional earthworks, as well as mining and constructing wooden redoubts. One of the mines was sprung on the 4th August, and created quite a spectacle. It raised the earth in a solid mass about thirty feet in diameter, throwing its contents to a considerable distance. Another mine was exploded on the 7th August, under one of the advanced redoubts, with equal success; but the third and last mine was the largest, and almost amazing in its effects. Of this mine some particulars have been preserved. Upon a round hill was erected one of Colonel Moncrief’s square wooden redoubts, that the results of the mine under it might be better discerned. The artificers broke ground against the side of the hill, 152 feet from the redoubt, and about 20 feet below the summit of the hill. The first gallery was driven 112 feet in length, about 3 feet wide, and 3½ feet high, from whence commenced a turning 22 inches wide and 3 feet high, which stretched under the redoubt. A second turning of 6 feet was made for the chamber, into which was put a wooden box of gunpowder lined with pitched canvas. The quantity of powder used was 72 lbs., and was exploded by means of a wooden trough containing a canvas pipe filled with powder. When fired, the whole redoubt was lifted up about 40 feet, and disappeared in fragments, dust, and smoke, leaving a large chasm where it stood, nearly 40 feet wide and 20 feet deep. It was a magnificent sight, and called forth the spontaneous acclamations of the throng that witnessed it, and the praises of the Duke of Richmond.[86] These were the _first field services_ in which any of the military artificers had been employed. They returned to their respective stations about the 8th August.[87]

-----

Footnote 86:

For full information concerning these experimental operations and
manœuvres, see the ‘Public Advertiser’ for July 9th, August 7th,
and August 10th, 1792.

Footnote 87:

To show how interested and considerate the Duke of Richmond was, in
even trivial matters connected with the corps, it may be mentioned
that on the 28th September, 1792, he ordered that six married private
labourers, who had been at Bagshot Camp under his command, should each
be paid half-a-guinea as a donation for the inconvenience and expense
they were subjected to in being absent from their families.

-----

This year the black felt round hat superseded the cocked hat. The drummers' livery lace was a mixture of black, red, and yellow worsted—the Ordnance device was not woven in it as formerly. It was sewn on the coats in the same style as the privates' lace. Worsted wings of the three colours intermixed were now worn by the drummers for the first time. The quality of the cloth in all ranks was somewhat deteriorated this year. Plate V.

To suit the seasons the working dress was considerably altered. In summer a plain raven duck jacket was substituted for the long frock of 1787. The duck waistcoat for summer was abolished. In winter a blue jacket with black cuffs and collar was worn, precisely similar in cut and make to the duck jacket. With this jacket a flannel waistcoat was worn, and serge trowsers or pantaloons of the same form or style as the original pantaloons. To the “Queen’s Bounty,” consisting of a pair of serge breeches and an under serge waistcoat, was added a second serge waistcoat. The shirts were now worn quite plain in front; the hair continued to be queued; and the sergeants and corporals to be undistinguished in rank in the working dress. Plate VI.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Royal Military Artificers Plate VI.
WORKING DRESS 1794 Printed by M & N Hanhart.

]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1793.

War with France—Artificers demanded for foreign service—Consequent
effects—Detachment to West Indies—Fever at Antigua—Detachment to
Flanders—Siege of Valenciennes—Waterdown Camp—Reinforcement to
Flanders—Siege of Dunkirk—Nieuport—Another reinforcement to
Flanders—Toulon—Private Samuel Myers at Fort Mulgrave—Formation of
four companies for service abroad—Establishment and strength of corps.

Louis XVI. having been dragged to the scaffold and beheaded, the event became the subject of grave consideration in the British Cabinet, resulting in the dismissal of the French ambassador in London, and in the declaration of war by the Convention against Great Britain. Immediately following this publication of hostilities, British troops were sent to Holland to co-operate with those of the Stadtholder against the common enemy, as well to the West Indies for the reduction of the French settlements there.