part 2
, 1788.
-----
The following is a detail of the casualties that occurred in the company at this siege:—
Officers. Sergeants. Rank and File. Total.
Killed[34] 0 1 6 7 }
Wounded, severely 0 0 7 7 } 49
Wounded, but recovered 2 3 30 35 }
Dead by sickness 0 0 23 23
—— —— —— ——
Total 2 4 66 72
-----
Footnote 34:
Sergeant John Richmond—date unknown. Corporal Charles Tabb } 25th November, 1781. Mason Adam Parsons } Mason Adam Sharp—5th March, 1782. Mason George Brown—11th June, 1782. Nailor Robert Shepherd—16th January, 1783.
The name of the other man killed cannot be ascertained, as the documents of the company from the commencement of the siege to the 30th September, 1781, are lost.
-----
Besides which, two men having plundered the King’s stores, were executed for the offence at the Convent in Irish Town, on the 29th May, 1781.[35]
-----
Footnote 35:
The names of the criminals were Artificers Samuel Whitaker and Simon Pratts.
-----
It is, however, satisfactory to mention, that of the forty-three desertions recorded to have taken place from the garrison, none were from the artificer company. One regiment was decreased eleven men from this cause, and another nine.
1783.
Duc de Crillon’s compliments respecting the works—Subterranean galleries-Their supposed inefficiency—Henry Ince—Quickness of sight of two boys of the company—Employment of the boys during the siege—Thomas Richmond and John Brand—Models constructed by them.
The cessation of hostilities brought the commanders of the two powers together, and a most interesting interview took place between them. During the visit of the Duc de Crillon, he was shown all the marvels of the Rock; but the fortifications especially engaged his attention. Having been conducted to the batteries on the heights, his Grace made some remarks on the formidable appearance of the lower defences, and on the good state of the batteries in so short a period. “These,” writes Drinkwater, “produced some compliments to the chief engineer;” and, continues the historian, “when conducted into the gallery above Farringdon’s Battery—now called Windsor—his Grace was particularly astonished, especially when informed of its extent, which at that time was between 500 and 600 feet. Turning to his suite, after exploring the extremity, he exclaimed, these works are worthy of the Romans.”[36]
-----
Footnote 36:
Drinkwater’s ‘Siege of Gibraltar.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 163.
-----
For many years the galleries thus eulogized by the Duke were in course of construction, and are formed, as already stated, by deep excavations in the solid rock. Passing round the north face in two tiers,[37] mounting about forty pieces of heavy ordnance, they command the approach to the fortress from the neutral ground, and render it almost impregnable on that side. Large magazines and spacious halls—in like manner hewn out of the rock—are attached to them. The work, as a whole, executed principally by the jumper and blasting, is curious and even marvellous, bearing also unequivocal evidence of ingenuity and of immense labour. Than these subterranean passages and chambers, no better testimony need scarcely be desired of the successful superintendence of sergeant-major Ince and of the skill and exertions of the company.
-----
Footnote 37:
Called Lower, or Union Galleries; and Upper, or Windsor Galleries.
-----
Notwithstanding the formidable character of these defences, doubts seem to exist as to their real efficiency in a siege. These doubts have arisen from the idea that the report of the explosion would not only be deafening, but that the smoke would return into the galleries and suffocate the men.[38] No experiments have ever been made with the view of ascertaining these particulars: speculation is therefore properly admissible. Once, indeed, in 1804, they were fired in salvo to dispel, if possible, the then raging fever;[39] and at distant intervals since, _some_ of the guns have been discharged; but no complaint was ever made—at least became public—of the inutility of these galleries from the causes stated. To expect a loud report is certainly natural, but much less so the recoil of the smoke, as a strong current of air is always passing in the galleries, and rushing with some force through the embrasures. No matter how sultry the day, how still the air, or how fiercely the sun may beam upon the Rock, in these galleries a strong breeze is constantly felt; and the fresher the wind from the outside, whether from the north-east, and blowing directly into the embrasures, or sweeping round the Rock, the stronger is the current within the galleries to force back or disperse the smoke. But little, therefore, of the vapour can find its way back, and that little must be _much less_ annoying to the gunners than in an open field when, firing smartly in the teeth of the wind, the whole volume turns back and beclouds them as long as the cannonade continues. However, should the alleged defect be found on trial to exist, there is no reason to fear but that the military engineer will readily adopt some effectual contrivance for removing the annoyance, and for obtaining all that power and efficiency which the galleries were designed to possess and should be capable of commanding.
-----
Footnote 38:
Walsh’s ‘Campaigns in Egypt,’ 1803, p. 5. Wilkie, ‘On British Colonies considered as Military Posts,’ in United Service Journal,