part 2
, 1798, p.648.
-----
Nine years after its placement, the museum in the arsenal was fired by an incendiary, and this celebrated model was unfortunately destroyed.[56] The other two models, which held a place in Buckingham Palace for about twenty-seven years, were presented in 1820 by George IV. to the Royal Military Repository at Woolwich. They are now daily exhibited in the Rotunda, and are, perhaps, about the best specimens of workmanship and ingenuity in the place. That of the King’s Bastion is finely wrought, and is really beautiful; that of the north front, bold and masterly. Both claim the particular attention of visitors, exciting at once their surprise and admiration.
-----
Footnote 56:
This was on the 22nd May, 1802. The account given at the time of this disgraceful act is as follows:—“A dreadful fire broke out at Woolwich, and from the investigation which has taken place into this calamitous circumstance, there is but too much reason to believe that this disaster was not the mere effect of accident. The fire broke out, at one and the same time, in three different places, besides which a great mass of combustible materials have been discovered. The loss to Government will be immense. The damage done to the Model-room is particularly to be lamented, as several choice works of art have been destroyed, without the power of reparation; however, the injury done to the beautiful model of the rock of Gibraltar is not so great as was at first represented, it having sustained but a slight damage, which can be easily repaired, and the whole restored to its original state.”—Dodsley’s Annual Register, 1802, p. 404. The journalist is wrong in his remarks concerning the state of the model after the fire. It was completely destroyed, and not even the fragments are now in existence. Some persons, indeed, with whom I have conversed, bear out the chronicler in his record, and affirm that the model was repaired, and _is now_ in the Rotunda; but they have given me a fair inference of the mistaken character of their recollections, by uniformly referring to the model of the _north front_, executed by Richmond and Marques, which, at the very time that the fire occurred, formed one of the curiosities of Buckingham Palace. Drinkwater (p. 108, Murray’s edit.) attests the fact of its destruction; and in this he is borne out by the ‘Repository Detail of Arms,’ &c., printed in 1822. In that catalogue (at p. 9-21) is a list of the arms, models, &c., of the _original_ institution preserved from the fire of 1802, and collected by Sir William Congreve, but no mention is made of the model in question. This, then, is the best attainable evidence of the certainty of its demolition, coupled with the acknowledgment, at page 52 of the same catalogue, that the “North end of Gibraltar,” the model mistaken for the one destroyed in the Arsenal, was presented to the Repository by George IV. Had the large model of the Rock been preserved, Sir William Congreve would most certainly have noted it in the detail.
-----
1783.
State of the fortress—Execution of the works depended upon the company—Casualties filled up by transfers from the line—Composition—Recruiting—Relieved from all duties, garrison and regimental—Anniversary of the destruction of the Spanish battering flotilla.
For about six months previously to the termination of hostilities, the siege had been carried on with fearful vigour, and the destruction it occasioned, revealed to a mournful extent the efficiency of the enemy’s cannonade. The tiers of batteries on the north front, the whole of the fortifications along the sea face, and indeed every work of a permanent character, were considerably damaged or thrown down. The town too was little better than a vast ruin, and its houses were levelled to the rock, or were left standing in tottering fragments, or at best in their shells, despoiled and untenanted, as so many monuments of an unbounded calamity. The inhabitants, driven shelterless into the streets, were compelled either to leave the fortress, or to locate themselves under canvas amid the general desolation; or to seek a comfortless retreat in the dark and gloomy caverns of the rock. Such was the wreck to which Gibraltar was reduced at the close of the siege, and the work of restoration, therefore, was both extensive and pressing.
The reconstruction or repair of the fortifications and other public works at the fortress, in great part depended upon the company; and the more so, since the numbers of the line competent to work as tradesmen were inconsiderable. Assistance from the civil population of the place was neither given nor expected, as the works in the town secured to them abundance of employment and excellent wages. Policy, therefore, dictated the expediency of paying particular regard both to the numerical and physical efficiency of the company.
At the close of the siege, there were twenty-nine rank and file wanting to complete the soldier-artificers, which number was increased to thirty-nine by the end of May. To supply this deficiency, the Governor ordered the transfer of an equal number of artificers from regiments in the garrison; and on the 31st July, the company was complete. Still, there were many of the men who, from wounds received at the siege, or from privation and hardship, or from exposure in camp, in summer, to the excessive heat of the sun, and in the autumn, to the heavy rains, were unequal to the exertion required from them on the works. Among them were the best masons and carpenters of the company, who were stated to have been “expended” during the siege. Accordingly, on the 31st of August, sixty-seven men, good “old servants, and those that had lost the use of their limbs in the service,” were discharged and “recommended,” whose vacancies were at once filled up by volunteers from the line.
After this desirable pruning, the composition of the company stood as under:—
1 Sergeant-major. 10 Sergeants. 10 Corporals. 4 Drummers. 38 Masons. 33 Smiths. 54 Carpenters. 21 Sawyers. 32 Miners. 6 Wheelers. 5 File-cutters. 4 Nailors. 3 Gardeners. 7 Lime-burners. 3 Coopers. 1 Painter. 1 Collar-maker. 1 Brazier. ___ Total 234
As far as circumstances permitted, the strength of the company was never allowed to sink beneath its establishment, for whenever a casualty occurred, it was immediately filled up. Not only was the Chief Engineer anxious on this point, but the Governor and Lieut.-Governor felt equal concern, and were ready to give effect to any measure which should yield the required result. If, at Gibraltar, the recruiting failed from the want of the proper classes of mechanics to join the company, the Duke of Richmond found means in England and Scotland to meet the case. His Grace was both an admirer and an advocate of the military system of carrying on the works, and took peculiar interest in the recruiting, even to superintending the service, and acting in some cases as the recruiting sergeant. Hence the company, seldom short of its complement of men, invariably afforded a force of more than 220 non-commissioned officers and artificers to be employed constantly in restoring the fortifications, &c.: the sick at this period averaged about eight a day.
To obtain the full benefit of their services, and to expedite the works, the soldier-artificers were excused from all garrison routine—as well as from their own regimental guards and fatigues—and freed from all interferences likely to interrupt them in the performance of their working duties. Even the cleaning of their rooms, the care of their arms and accoutrements, and the cooking of their messes, were attended to by soldiers of the line. Every encouragement was thus given to the company to work well and assiduously, and every liberty that could possibly be conceded, not excepting a partial abandonment of discipline, was granted to them. Nevertheless, to impress them with the recollection that their civil employments and privileges did not make them any the less soldiers, they were paraded generally under arms, on the Sunday; and to heighten the effect of their military appearance, wore accoutrements which had belonged to a disbanded Newfoundland regiment, purchased for them at the economical outlay of 7_s._ a set. Perhaps no body of men subject to the articles of war were ever permitted to live and work under a milder surveillance; and it might be added, that none could have rendered services more in keeping with the indulgences bestowed. They did their duty with zeal, and the works progressed to the satisfaction of the engineers and the authorities.
The remembrance of the late siege was not likely soon to be effaced from the memory of those who participated in it; and hence the company, regarding themselves in a peculiar sense as the fencibles of the fortress, and as having contributed largely to its defence, commemorated the event by means of a ball and supper. The festival was held at the “Three Anchors Inn,” on the 13th of September—the anniversary of the destruction of the battering flotilla—on which occasion Lord Heathfield, and Sir Robert Boyd, the Lieutenant-Governor, with their respective staff-officers, dined with the company, and retired after drinking one or two complimentary toasts in praise of their gallantry at the siege, and their useful services on the fortifications and works.[57]
-----
Footnote 57:
This anniversary supper was held by the non-commissioned officers annually, on the date named, at the _Three Anchors_. After the first year, the tickets of admission were 16_s._ 6_d._ each, or 5 dollars and 4 reals, which provided, in the language of one who used to have a seat at the table, “a sumptuous entertainment.” At that time the dollar was 3_s._, and the real 4½_d._ Each ticket admitted a married non-commissioned officer and his family, or a single one and his friend. The privates took no part in the celebration. On each occasion, the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, &c., honoured the company with their presence, and made gratifying allusions to their services at the siege. The night of the festival used to be familiarly termed _Junk-ship night_, both by the inhabitants and the soldiers. The custom was perpetuated till the year 1804, when, from the fearful epidemic that prevailed, it was necessarily omitted, and was never again held. It was a common opinion that the Duke of Kent interdicted these loyal anniversaries, but such was not the case. The last one was held in September, 1803, after his Royal Highness had been recalled from Gibraltar.
-----
1786-1787.
Company divided into two—Numerous discharges—Cause of the men becoming so soon ineffective—Fourth augmentation—Labourers—Recruiting reinforcements—Dismissal of foreign artificers—Wreck of brig ‘Mercury’—Uniform dress—Working ditto—Names of officers—Privileges—Cave under the signal house.
On the 30th June the Duke of Richmond divided the company into two, owing to the professional duties of the Chief Engineer rendering it impracticable for him to pay proper attention to the discipline and interior management of so large a body. The two senior officers at the fortress were appointed to take immediate charge of these companies, and each was authorized to receive an allowance of 56_l._ 10_s._ per annum in lieu of all charges for repair of arms, &c.[58] The Chief Engineer, nevertheless, continued in command of both companies. In the estimates, however, annually presented to Parliament, the corps was not recognized as being formed into two companies, possibly with a view to prevent the members of the House of Commons being drawn into a profitless debate upon a fancied attempt to increase the corps; a debate which, very likely, would not have been productive of compliments to his Grace, as by his extensive but lately rejected schemes for national defence he had made himself in some respects obnoxious to the House and to the country.
-----
Footnote 58:
This sum seems to be a sort of standing equivalent, and has existed without alteration, through all the changes of advanced or reduced prices in material and labour, to the present day.
-----
By this time there were many men in the corps, who from length of service and other causes were no longer fit for the duties of the department; and there were others, also, who from continued misconduct were worthless and burdensome. Captain Evelegh, returning to England about this period, lost no time in making the Duke of Richmond acquainted with the state of the companies, and of advising the discharge of all who were inadequate to their pay. His Grace at once acquiesced, and the companies being well weeded, eighty-two men were discharged during the winter and ensuing spring.
In so young a corps, scarcely fourteen years embodied, it might occasion some surprise why so many men became ineffective in so short a time. The reason is obvious. At all periods since the formation of the corps, the demands for mechanics of good qualification were urgent. Under thirty years of age men could seldom be had from the line, whose services were worth acceptance, being either irregular in conduct, or possessing but little pretension to ability as tradesmen. Mechanics were therefore generally received at thirty-five to forty-five, and oftentimes at the bald age of fifty. Neither age nor height was an insuperable disqualification, provided the candidate for transfer or enlistment possessed sufficient stamina for a few years' hard wear and tear. It was not therefore to be expected that they could serve long in the companies, more especially, as, the works of the fortress being always important and pressing, the men were obliged to labour zealously to meet the exigency, exposed to all the fitful and depressing changes of wind and temperature.
In the course of the interview with the Duke of Richmond, Captain Evelegh proposed that an augmentation of 41 labourers should be made to the companies. Of the necessity for this his Grace was not so well persuaded, for knowing the ready disposition of the Governor of Gibraltar to provide men, at all times, for the services of the works, he felt assured that no difficulty would be found in obtaining any number required from the line, on a proper representation of their need being made. He would not therefore sanction the measure; but, as his Grace was aware, from the extent of the works in progress, that the demand for mechanics was very great, and as he was moreover much averse to the employment of civil artificers, he considered it would be a far greater public benefit to increase the corps with mechanics than labourers. He therefore, in September, took upon himself the responsibility of augmenting the companies with forty-one masons and bricklayers, which fixed the strength of the corps as under:—
1 Sergeant-major. 10 Sergeants. 10 Corporals. 4 Drummers. 250 Private artificers. —— Total 275
Each company was to consist of 137 non-commissioned officers and men.
His Grace, moreover, ordered that such of the artificers as were not sufficiently skilful at their trades, to the number of forty, were to be employed as labourers, if required, but he did not contemplate that any such could be found in the corps. From this slight innovation, however, soon after followed the authorized enlistment of _labourers_ as a part of the establishment,—a measure not in any sense welcomed by the old artificers, who conceived they were losing caste and position by the association.
Means for obtaining transfers and recruits at Gibraltar were now considerably straitened. The Duke of Richmond, therefore, undertook to furnish the number authorized to be added to the corps, and to supply the constantly-recurring casualties. Upon this duty his Grace employed several officers of engineers in the manufacturing districts of England and Scotland. Captain Rudyerd was the chief recruiting officer in North Britain, and he seems to have been the most successful in obtaining recruits. Married men[59] with families were not debarred from enlistment, if their personal appearance and talents as tradesmen were favourable. More attention was now paid to age than heretofore; and none were received over thirty-five years old, unless under extraordinary circumstances. The bounty allowed to each candidate was 13_l._ 13_s._ 6_d._
-----
Footnote 59:
The regulation with regard to the wives and families of recruits going to Gibraltar, as established by the Duke of Richmond, is sufficiently curious, by comparison with the present very limited system, to be mentioned here. On the 9th September, 1786, the Duke arranged that to every 20 men, 10 women and 10 children should be allowed to accompany them. If there were more than that number with the party, lots were to be drawn, and those who did not gain prizes were to find their own passages; the lots were not to divide families, but were to be drawn by the men until the number allowed was completed. If encouragement had been given to any men to hope that their families would be provided with passages, the bargain was to be faithfully adhered to.
-----
Five batches[60] of recruits, numbering in the whole 183 artificers, were sent to the Rock in rapid succession; but as they were long in arriving, it was considered expedient to hire civil artificers from Portugal and Italy to expedite the works. However desirable it might have been to adopt this course, the Duke of Richmond disapproved of it. He had always a great aversion to the engagement of civil artificers, whether from England or from places on the Continent, arising from the great expense attending their employment and their general irregular conduct. His Grace, therefore, ordered that the foreign artificers should be discharged on the arrival of the recruits, which was accordingly done.
-----
Footnote 60:
Of the following strength:—
21 men 15th Sept. 1786, embarked on board the 'New Euphrates,' and landed 6th Oct. 58 ” 21st Sept, 1786, embarked at Leith, on board the brig ‘Mercury.’ Wrecked 24th Sept. 25 ” 6th Nov. 1786, embarked in the ‘Adventure;’ landed. 35 ” 23rd Mar. 1787; landed. 44 ” 15th and 16 Apr. 1787; landed. —— Total 183 ” About 100 of this number were bricklayers and masons, the crafts most required at the Rock. ===
-----
Of the second party of recruits, it may be permitted to take a more than passing notice. It was composed of 58 men, all mechanics, “in the prime of life,” under charge of sergeant Sherriff, accompanied by their wives, 28 in number, and 12 children—in all 101 persons. They embarked at Leith on the 21st September, on board the brig ‘Mercury,’ Thomas Davidson, master. The crew consisted of 11 men. The ship sailed with a fair wind; but on the 23rd, when nearing the coast of Flanders, she was greatly buffeted by a boisterous gale. At three o’clock on the morning of the 24th, Sunday, the steeple of Ostend was recognised, and, accordingly, the course of the vessel was shaped towards the chops of the channel. A storm now set in, and as danger was apprehended, the captain and crew were anxious and vigilant. Skill and exertion, however, were of no avail, for at seven o’clock in the evening she struck upon a sand-bank, about six miles off Dunkirk. The wind continued blowing hard to the north, while the sea, “running mountains high,” dashed the frail bark to and fro with a fury that broke her masts, destroyed her bulwarks, and tore her sails to shreds. At nine o’clock she went to pieces, and melancholy to add, all on board perished but three. The survivors were John Patterson, ship’s carpenter; Walter Montgomery, blacksmith; and Daniel Thomson, mason. The two latter were recruits. On fragments of the wreck they floated all night, and at ten o’clock next morning, Patterson and Montgomery, just ready to relinquish their hold from cold and exhaustion, were picked up by a pilot-boat and taken on shore at Dunkirk. The other sufferer, Thomson, was found some hours after in the surge, helpless and shivering, clinging to a spar. At once he was conveyed to Mardyck, three miles to the westward of Dunkirk, where he only lived a few days. Of Walter Montgomery nothing further is known. As at the time he was reported to be very ill, and not likely to recover, he probably died at the place where he was given an asylum.[61]
-----
Footnote 61:
‘Morning Chronicle,’ 10th October, 1786, and periodical press generally. In most of the papers Daniel Thomson is, by mistake, named Daniel Campbell.
_Fifteen_ bodies were washed ashore between Nieuport and Ostend, on the 27th and 28th September, and it is not a little remarkable that, of this small number, no less than _fourteen_ should have been those of women.—‘General Advertiser.’ ‘Public Advertiser,’ 9th October, 1786.
-----
No information can be obtained relative to the dress of the companies until 1786.[62] _Then_, the uniform was a plain red coat, double-breasted, with two rows of large flat brass buttons down the front, placed at equal distances of two inches apart. The buttons were one inch and a quarter in diameter, and bore the Ordnance device of three guns and three balls. The left breast buttoned over the right at the pit of the chest, from which upwards the coat turned back in the form of lappels. The cuffs and collar were orange-yellow, laced round with narrow red ferreting. The collar was turned over like the common roll collar, and was ornamented with a red rectangular loop at each side. Down the front of the coat to the end of the skirts, narrow yellow ferreting was sewn, as well as upon the inside edges of the skirts, which were very broad, descending to the leggings, and were buttoned back at the bottom to show the white shalloon lining. Small plaited frills about five inches long, were worn at the breast, to the right; and full ruffles at the wrists. Over the black leather stock, a white false collar fell down about an inch. The waistcoat was white cloth, bound with yellow ferreting, and came well down over the abdomen. At the bottom, it was cut so that the angle or corner of each front separated about seven inches. The pocket-holes were slashed; each slash was two inches deep, and bound round. The buttons were small and flat, similar in device to the coat-buttons. The breeches were white, of a texture like kerseymere, and secured below the knee with three small buttons. The leggings were black cloth, reaching to the knee and strapped under the shoe; they buttoned on the outside, and were fastened to a small button above the calf of the leg. The buttons were like those worn on the waistcoat. The hat was cocked, the same as that commonly worn; the cock was in the front, directly over the nose, with a cockade to the right of it supporting a black feather. In other respects it was quite plain. The arms and accoutrements consisted of white leather cross-belts, black cartouch-box with frog, and musket and bayonet.[63] The breast-plate was oval, bearing the Ordnance device: above the balls was the word GIBRALTAR; below the guns SOLDIER-ARTIFICERS. The sergeants had swords, silver-mounted, with a plain guard of one bar only; tassel, white leather. The distinctions with regard to ranks were as follows: the sergeants had clothing of a superior fabric; their breeches and waistcoats were kerseymere; the lace on their coats was gold; they also wore a crimson sash with tassels, under their coats, and laced shoulder-straps. All the other ranks wore linen or cotton ferreting; but the corporals had gold fringed shoulder-knots, and the lance corporals one gold knot on the right shoulder.[64] (Plate I.)
-----
Footnote 62:
I have been informed that previously to 1786, the coat was somewhat similar in colour, cut, and ornament to that shown in Plate I., but that the breeches were blue instead of white. The black leggings were banded above the knee. The working dress consisted of a long duck frock, and mosquito trowsers with gaiters attached. Everything was white even to the felt round hat, which at this period had the military symbols of a yellow band and yellow edge to the brim. Serge pantaloons were worn in winter.
Footnote 63:
The sergeant-major and sergeants were armed with carbines and bayonets.
Footnote 64:
This novel way of distinguishing the non-commissioned officers led to frequent misconception and mistake in the garrison. When dressed with the bayonet belt only, strangers regarded the corporals as the highest rank, and lance-corporals the next. Sometimes when taking an excursion into Spain, sentries have presented arms to them, and guards even have turned out to pay the compliment due to field officers! This military blunder continued, with greater or less observance, until the adoption of chevrons, about 1805.
-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
‘SOLDIER Plate II. ARTIFICER Printed by M & N Hanhart.
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The working-dress was a plain long red jacket in winter, and a linen one in summer, with a single row of large brass buttons, wide apart, down the front. It descended to the hips, opened from the chest upwards to show the shirt, and from that point downwards to show the waistcoat. Convenient to the hand on each side was a huge pocket covered with a broad slash. The collar and cuffs were of yellow cloth, the former turned over or rolled, and at the small of the back were two large buttons. Under the jacket a waistcoat was worn—in summer linen, in winter flannel—of the same cut as the regimental one, but not laced or ferreted. Similar in material were the pantaloons; and to these were attached a pair of black gaiters, of linen or cloth, corresponding with the season. They reached a little above the ankle, and buttoned on the outside. No particular regard was paid to the neck covering. Stocks of leather, or velvet, or silk, or black handkerchiefs, were indiscriminately used. A white hat completed the suit. It was about six inches high, had a straight pole with yellow band of an inch in width, and a broad brim edged with yellow tape or ferreting. Plate II. The description of working-dress worn by the non-commissioned officers has not been ascertained, nor can any record be discovered of the precise uniform dress adopted for the drummers, or of the peculiar badge that distinguished the sergeant-major from other sergeants.
The only complete record that has turned up to research, showing the names of the officers who were attached to the companies since the year 1772, is a return for 1787, by which it seems the following officers did duty with them:—
Captain Robert Pringle, chief engineer. Captain William Campbell Skinner, died 24th April, 1787. First Lieutenant, Thomas Skinner. First Lieutenant, William Kerstiman. Joined 25th May, 1787. Second Lieutenant, Thomas Smart. Second Lieutenant, Samuel T. Dickens. Draughtsman, James Evans.[65]
-----
Footnote 65:
These officers were also present with the corps in 1788; but after that year until 1797 no record has been discovered.
-----
About this time, it appearing to be of some consequence to cut and form a ditch immediately under the Crillon Battery, situated on the south flank of the King’s, Prince’s, and Queen’s Lines, a strong party was set to work by order of the Chief Engineer. They executed their laborious task in a comparatively short period, which elicited the warmest praises of General O’Hara. To mark his sense of their services, however, in a form more gratifying than words, he gave permission to the companies to pass to the neutral ground, and out of garrison, on Sundays and all holidays without a written pass, or restraint of any kind. With this privilege was also conceded the liberty to appear on such occasions in whatever apparel their fancy suggested, except in their uniform coats. It was not uncommon, therefore, for the non-commissioned officers and the respectable portion of the privates, to stroll about the garrison or ramble into Spain, dressed in black silk or satin breeches, white silk stockings, and silver knee or shoe-buckles, drab beaver hats, and scarlet jackets, tastefully trimmed with white kerseymere.
Governor O’Hara was a constant visitor at the works, and took much interest in their progress. Even as early as the morning gun-fire, he was perambulating the fortifications and batteries, and worming his way among the mechanics. Almost to the last man, he could call each by name, and knew the best artificers too well ever to forget them. Familiar with their zeal and exertions, he regretted sometimes to find that a few men were absent from the works undergoing sentences of confinement to the barracks. This induced the General to relax a little in strictness towards the companies. None of the men would he suffer to be punished for intoxication, or other slight offences committed when off duty or on the works, in order that he might have them all employed. This slackening the reins would, no doubt, be looked upon now-a-days as a monstrous and culpable dereliction, however plausible might be the object intended to be gained by it. To justify or condemn the act is obviously out of place here. It is simply mentioned as a fact; and while it remains a singularity in military jurisprudence, the main point that originated it must not be overlooked, viz., the estimation in which the Governor held the corps for their services in the restoration or improvement of the works of the fortress.[66]
-----
Footnote 66:
This laxity of discipline seems, in time, to have become general among the troops at the fortress, and the extent to which it was carried both by officers and men was little short of disgraceful.—‘Wilkie’s British Colonies considered as Military Posts,’ in ‘United Service Journal,’ 2, 1840, p, 379.
-----
In enlarging the works of the garrison, the military artificers frequently opened up cavities in the promontory which were mostly of sufficient interest to excite the curiosity of geologists; but one discovered in 1789, by some miners of the corps, while scarping the back of the Rock, attracted, at the time, unusual attention. It was situated about 160 feet from the foot of the cliff, on its eastern side, nearly under the Signal House, and its extent classed it among some of the largest within the area of the fortress. Removing the rank vegetation which had overgrown its mouth, a small chasm was bared, opening into a cave containing several chambers and grottoes, entered by narrow funnel-shaped crevices, some so low and winding that ingress could only be obtained by crawling through the long misty passages on all-fours. Seemingly, the roofs were supported by a number of pillars, which the dripping of ages had congealed into all shapes and sizes and into all degrees of hardness, from patches of soft silvered powder to the bold indurated columnar stalactite. On the floors, at different heights, were stalagmites, some peering up like needles, and others, swollen and grotesque, rose from frothlike cushions of delicate finish, which, “on being rudely touched, dissolved instantly into water.” The hall at the extremity was divided into two oblong recesses, floored by a “deep layer of vegetable earth,” where not a clump of the lowliest weed or a blade of grass was seen to show that vigour was in the earth.[67] Nothing seemed capable of living there but a colony of bats, some flapping about on lazy wing, and others torpid; no process to be active, but the cold one of petrifaction, which, in nature’s own confused method, had elaborated throughout the cavern, columns and pinnacles and cushions, puffs and concretions, some as fleecy as snow, others as crisp as hoar-frost, and others of an opal hue as transparent as crystal. All was rich, beautiful, and sparkling. It was a marvel to adventurers, but unfit for habitation; yet, in later years, this hole of the mountain was possessed by a Spanish goat-herd, who reached his solitude by the same threadlike but dangerous tracks as his goats. There might the recluse have lived till his bones fell among the petrifactions, but he was at length expelled from its gloomy precincts on account of his contraband iniquities.
-----
Footnote 67:
Martin’s British Colonies, 1835, p. 51-53.
-----
1779-1788.
Colonel Debbieg’s proposal for organizing a corps of artificers—Rejected—Employment of artillerymen on the works at home—Duke of Richmond’s “Extensive plans of fortification”—Formation of corps ordered—Singular silence of the House of Commons on the subject—Mr. Sheridan calls attention to it—Insertion of corps for first time in the Mutiny Bill—Debate upon it in both Houses of Parliament.
When Spain declared war with England in June, 1779, Lieutenant-Colonel Hugh Debbieg of the engineers, seems to have been impressed with the necessity of raising a corps of artificers for service in this country. He had made several excursions through Kent and a part of Sussex, no doubt with the object of ascertaining the probabilities that existed for resisting any attempt at invasion. Whether such was his intention or not, these professional tours appear to have assisted his views greatly, in all that was essential to prepare the country to repel aggression. He therefore made large demands for cutting tools; conceiving, as he states, “very extensive ideas of their use in all cases,” and recommended the formation of a corps of artificers. In his letter to General Lord Amherst, of the 30th July, 1779, he wrote: “I must take the liberty of mentioning how very advantageous to the service it would be, if a corps of artificers was to be selected from the army. The present establishment of pioneers to each regiment will prove in no case sufficient or equal to the purpose of advancing an army through such a country as this.”
As if to show that his proposal was no crude idea, nor the dreamy suggestion of some needlessly-alarmed engineer, the Colonel dipped a little into the history of the subject, to claim respect for it on the ground of its antiquity, and pointed out the way in which the measure could be effected. He says, “The great attention of the ancients to this particular was wonderful, and the highest point of perfection in the Roman legion was, that when it made detachments, though ever so small, they carried with them a just proportion of the component parts of its excellent system—artificers of all denominations. Modern armies differ from those of the ancients scarcely in nothing but the arms they use; in all other points, we cannot imitate them too exactly. I am sensible the subject is not new to your lordship, and if it did not strike me as a thing absolutely necessary for the good of His Majesty’s service, particularly at this time, I should not have troubled your lordship thereon.
“It is a most essential part of the soldiers' duty, I allow, to be as expert as possible at covering themselves with earthworks; but then, there is also a necessity for a band of leading men capable of instructing others, and of conducting works with more regularity than has been usually done where I have yet been upon service, as also with greater dispatch.
“I will not presume to point out to your lordship the means of establishing such a corps, nor how far two men per company would go towards making it numerous enough for the purpose from the militia alone; but I will venture to say, had such a body of men been constantly here, these lines (Chatham) would have been nearly completed; and you know what state they are in at present.”
Colonel Debbieg’s attempt to revive an old practice, constituting one of the military glories of the ancients, was certainly worthy of the best attention, involved as England was at the time in a struggle with France and Spain; and it would have been more so, had allusion been made to the beneficial services of the companies at Gibraltar. Omitting this is singular enough, and readily urges the supposition, that their name and duties were scarcely known beyond the scarps of the Rock, even to the engineers themselves. However, Lord Amherst, much as he may have appreciated the represented perfection of the Roman legion in the organization of its detachments, was not by any means disposed to incur the responsibility of reproducing that system in the English army; and on the 11th August following communicated his sentiments on the subject to the Colonel. “Your idea,” writes his lordship, “about forming a corps of artificers from the army, is a very good one, as far as that such a corps would be very desirable; but at a time when it is a material subject of consideration to increase the army by every possible means, the forming such a corps cannot be thought of. In the case of any service happening in this country, the general business of the pioneers must be done by the able-bodied men amongst the peasants of the country.”
His lordship here confesses the desirableness of the measure, but at the same time repudiates it as inexpedient, because the army requires to be increased! No rejoinder or explanation appears to have been made by Colonel Debbieg; and the proposal, somewhat modified, was left to be iterated at a subsequent period by Charles, third Duke of Richmond.
On the appointment of the Shelburne administration in July, 1783, his Grace was nominated Master-General of the Ordnance. Immediately after his installation, he caused the fortifications to be examined, and finding they were in such a state as to need the intervention of the House of Commons to put them in repair and completeness, he demanded large sums of money for the purpose in the Ordnance estimates for 1783.
His Grace’s projects were on a scale of great magnitude, and his estimates were necessarily large; but in order to curtail the amounts as much as possible, and thus win the concurrence of both parties to his plans, he proposed to employ a considerable part of the royal artillery as artificers and labourers in the arsenal at Woolwich, Purfleet, and the outports, giving them only half the wages then paid to civil mechanics for performing similar work, whereby it was computed that a saving of 12,000_l._ to 15,000_l._ a-year would be realized, and that the services of the ordnance being more regularly performed, the regiment would have a body of artificers, always available for active duty in the event of a war, for which they would be much required.[68] There was nothing in this suggestion to excite alarm or particular remark. No new corps was recommended to be raised, but simply the adaptation of means already disposable (which would have to be maintained under any circumstances) to a twofold object, as also to lighten the existing pressure upon the finances of the State. The proposal, being merely incidental to the graver matter with which it stood connected, gave rise to no discussion; and it is presumed, though no specific organization of artificers such as his Grace contemplated took place, that artillery soldiers were employed in great numbers at the different stations mentioned in his Grace’s famous report.
With the change of ministry in April, 1783, the Duke of Richmond quitted his post as Master-General; but resumed it again in the following December on the formation of the Pitt Cabinet. The fortifications continued to be his Grace’s hobby. Yearly he requested large sums for the erection of new works and the repair of old ones. Consequently, public attention was excited to review these apparently exorbitant items of expenditure, and, as may be expected, very little was done towards effecting his Grace’s views. Money was voted for the purpose, but none was expended.
In 1785, his Grace’s plans for national defence were more extensive than ever, and were brought forward as usual by Mr. Pitt. Though anxious to carry out the gigantic projects proposed, still, from the growing inquisitiveness of the country, and probably the misgivings of the Minister himself as to their maturity and utility, Mr. Pitt submitted them for the opinion of a Board of general and flag officers. Guided by their recommendation, he again introduced the subject for the consideration of the House, but on the 27th February, 1786, it was rejected by the casting voice of the Speaker as a “measure totally inexpedient and dangerous.”
-----
Footnote 68:
‘Journal, House of Commons,’ 14th February, 1783; vol. xxxix. p. 208.
-----
In no way discouraged, however, on the 17th May following, he ventured to submit a similar question to the House considerably reduced in its demands. But as the subject of the fortifications had long been before the public, had also been well investigated, and was extremely unpopular both in the House and out of it, it may occasion no wonder to state, that the Duke’s favourite scheme was again set aside; and its noble projector, subjected to repeated and vexatious disappointments, was made a butt for the keen attacks and provoking taunts of individuals, who scrupled not to lay bare his Grace’s engineering, and to question his Grace’s professional attainments. In this last defeat, however, some little concession was made to Mr. Pitt, by which he was permitted to make an estimate for improving and completing the old works at Portsmouth and Plymouth dockyards, which on being presented was ultimately agreed to.[69]
-----
Footnote 69:
If a particular acquaintance with the Duke’s plan of defence, &c., be desired, it can be obtained by referring to a work entitled ‘Observations on the Duke of Richmond’s Extensive Plans of Fortification,’ published first in 1785, and again in 1794. This work, which was brought before the public in an anonymous form, is known to have been written by Lieutenant James Glenie, of the engineers, who, after serving in the corps a few years, was compelled, as he says, p. 241, to leave it, “to avoid being ruined by the expense of continually moving from one station to another.” The attack made by this gentleman appears to have been conducted with much force and talent, displaying an intimate acquaintance with the principles of his profession. It made a great impression on the public mind, and augmented to a considerable extent the popular ferment against the new fortifications. Several of the engineers joined in opinion against them, among whom was Colonel Debbieg, who, for some expressions that he ventured, reflecting upon the Duke’s plans, was tried by a General Court-martial in 1789. In the concluding paragraph of the later edition of Mr. Glenie’s essay, the author promised to take an early opportunity of delivering his sentiments at full length respecting the corps of royal military artificers and horse artillery, which, he stated, were unquestionably great impositions on the public; but the promised _exposé_ I have not succeeded in procuring. If it never appeared, the gallant officer, very probably, prudently relinquished the idea, or suppressed the MS., from a conviction that it was as unnecessary as unmerited. It is certainly curious that Mr. Glenie and Colonel Debbieg, who were the most violent and persevering of the Duke’s opponents, should have differed in opinion about the usefulness and importance of the corps of artificers. By the only evidence as yet discovered, it is obvious that Mr. Glenie would willingly have disbanded it; Colonel Debbieg, on the other hand, only a few years before aspired to the honour of originating it.
-----
In the diminished estimate for 1786 the amount asked was quite inadequate to effect the purposes designed; and to enable his Grace the better to accomplish them, he suggested to Mr. Pitt the necessity of raising a corps of military artificers on the model of the companies employed at Gibraltar. Experience had demonstrated beyond all dispute their excellency as artificers and soldiers, and the economy of their services. He had watched and studied their discipline and advantage for some years, and with these incentives, he felt no hesitation in urging their immediate formation. Better reasons could scarcely have been desired by Mr. Pitt, who readily gave his assistance in obtaining a warrant from the King to sanction the measure. He did not attempt, however, to enlighten the House upon the matter before appealing to His Majesty, knowing that it would be treated with unmerited distrust, and probably crushed under a weight of prejudice and misconception. Strictly speaking, there was nothing unconstitutional in this manner of proceeding; it was warranted by many precedents, but it gave rise in a subsequent session of Parliament to some observations which required Mr. Pitt to explain his conduct in the affair. The warrant was signed on the 10th October, 1787.
The Ordnance estimates for that year were not brought forward until a late hour on the 10th December; and, as but little time was afforded for discussing their merits, and particularly the novel measure of embodying a corps of military artificers, a motion was made that their consideration should be adjourned to the next day. It was lost by a large majority, and the sums asked for were voted without debate.
In this vote was involved the formation of the corps. That a measure on so extraordinary a principle, and so hateful to the sentiments of the country generally, should have passed without scrutiny is remarkable; but Mr. Sheridan, on the 17th December following, thinking that the estimates were imprudently hurried through the House, introduced them again to notice. At the same time he endeavoured to bring the suggestion of raising a corps of mechanics into contempt. He called the project singular and extraordinary; ridiculed the idea of putting the artificers under martial law, and thereby to abridge their liberty. Moreover, he did not conceive that men, capable of earning half-a-crown a-day, would enlist as soldiers and work in their respective occupations at one-third of that sum for the mere douceur of military discipline. Then, with regard to the economy of the measure, he remarked, “That in the report of 1783, the Master-General had stated, that by suffering some of the artificers at Woolwich, Sheerness, &c. to be put into companies, the artillery would never want artificers; and a saving of 15,000_l._ would be made to Government. Before, therefore, any new plan of raising a distinct corps of artificers was authorized, it would be proper to know what the saving made in consequence of the original plan had amounted to; because, if no great saving had been made, the plan now proposed would evidently be attended with additional expense to the public.”[70] Mr. Sheridan did not embody this subject in his motion. His remarks upon it were merely incidental to his speech on the intended fortifications in the West Indies, and elicited no discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to Mr. Sheridan; but he spoke only to the motion, and made no allusion whatever to the new corps. Thus quietly did the Duke of Richmond gain a project, which there was reason to expect would not be granted without decided indications of repugnance and hostility.
-----
Footnote 70:
Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register,’ 1788. Second edit., 1790, p. 96.
-----
The scheme, however, though it easily received the approval of the House of Commons, was doomed, ere long, to have a severe sifting. In both Houses the question was very roughly handled by the Opposition. Had it been brought forward as a specific measure at first, it would, in all probability, have been rejected or passed by a scanty majority; but being covered by a vaster and more momentous question, it escaped observation and slipped through the Commons concealed under the wings of its parent. The time, however, had arrived, when the subject, stripped of its covering, should be laid bare, and fairly and openly discussed; but after a warm debate, the project was again sanctioned, and the formation of the corps confirmed. A summary of the debate, which originated in the introduction, for the first time, of the corps of artificers into the Mutiny Bill, and which is given in Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register’ for 1788,[71] is subjoined.
-----
Footnote 71:
Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register.’ Second edit., 1790, pp. 121-123.
-----
“On the 12th of March, the report of the Committee on the Mutiny Bill was brought up; and on reading the clause for incorporating in the army the newly-raised corps of military artificers, the same was strongly objected to as a dangerous innovation, and as militating against the most favoured principles of the constitution. The same system, it was said, might next be extended to shipwrights, and so on to every description of persons in the service of the executive government; and therefore the House was called upon to repel so alarming an innovation _in limine_. In defence of the measure it was urged, that it would be attended with an annual saving of 2,000_l._, upon an expenditure of 22,000_l._; and that it was necessary to extend the military law to the corps in question, as the only means of keeping them together, and preventing their desertion of the public service in time of war.
“This disposition to adopt a new principle of expediency and economy, upon a subject which went to the diminution of the liberties of the subject, instead of the old principle of actual necessity, was severely reprobated. Several country gentlemen declared, that if the House should agree to put 600 Englishmen under martial law, merely for the paltry consideration of saving 2,000_l._ per annum, they would betray their constituents, and would be devoid of those feelings for the constitution, which ought to make their distinguishing character. It was denied that any necessity for so extraordinary a surrender of the liberties of a part of the community was made out; it having never been asserted, nor being indeed true, in fact, that there was any difficulty in procuring artificers for the Ordnance service in time of war. The sense of the House being taken on the clause, there appeared, ayes 114, noes 67.[72]
-----
Footnote 72:
Clause Lxxv. Public Acts, 28 Geo. III., vol. i., p. 369. This was not a specific clause to meet the case of the artificers, but the same which had existed, with possibly slight variations, since its first insertion in the Act It merely included the corps by name, and made other necessary alterations to embrace classes of persons heretofore inadvertently omitted. Why it should have caused so much discussion, more especially with reference to the formation of the corps, is almost marvellous, since a more fitting opportunity was afforded for that purpose, when the Ordnance estimates were presented and passed in December of the previous year. What were Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Courtenay, and the other opponents of the Duke of Richmond’s schemes about, to allow this measure to steal a successful march upon them?
-----
“The same subject was again discussed on the third reading of the Mutiny Bill, when it was asked, whether any part of the corps was already enlisted and embodied? This question being answered in the affirmative, it was strongly contended that the authors of the measure had been guilty of an illegal act, in raising a body of men without the consent of Parliament; and that it was a violent and arbitrary measure to subject those men to military law, who at the time of their enlisting, were evidently not included in the Mutiny Act. On the other hand, Mr. Pitt contended, that, by a liberal interpretation of the King’s prerogative, government was authorized, on the late alarm of war, to raise the corps in question: and Sir Charles Gould, the Advocate-General, maintained, that every soldier enlisted, became, _ipso facto_, subject to be tried by martial law. The House again divided on the question, ayes 142, noes 70.
“Upon the commitment of the Bill in the Upper House, the Duke of Manchester rose and declared his intention of opposing the novel clauses that it contained. He was an avowed enemy, he said, to the extension of military law, unless in cases of absolute necessity; and that the present Bill went unnecessarily to extend that law, by making a number of artificers subject to its severe effects, who had hitherto enjoyed their liberty in common with their fellow-subjects. Could it be proved necessary for the defence of the kingdom, he should not entertain the least objection to the increase of the army; but in a time of profound peace, the adoption of a measure of so singular a nature as the present, called for jealousy and caution.
“The Duke of Richmond entered into a full explanation of the plan of which he had been the author. It had occurred to him, he said, that the formation of a regular corps of artificers, who would in future wars, be applicable to any service when wanted, either at home or abroad, could not but be attended with very beneficial consequences. In all the armies abroad, such a corps made part of those armies, and as their utility was unquestionable, he had concluded that there ought to be such a corps in our army, and therefore he had considered it as his duty to submit the proposition to His Majesty, who had approved of it, and it had been since laid before the House of Commons, and voted by that branch of the legislature. With regard to putting them in the Mutiny Bill, being a part of the army, enlisted regularly as soldiers, like other soldiers, they ought undoubtedly to become subjected to the same law, as the policy of the State had considered it as right that all soldiers should continue in such a state of subordination. At the same time, it was not to be considered as any hardship, since no species of trial, however popular it might be, was, he believed, more fair and candid than trials by court-martial. He added, that the corps of artificers proposed to be formed, was not only highly useful, but, at the same time, so far from being an additional expense, they would prove a saving, because the difference between getting such a number as heretofore, and having them formed into a regular corps as intended, would render the usual expense less by 2,000_l._
“Lord Porchester objected principally to that part of the new establishment which subjected the artificers to the arbitrary punishment of the Master-General of the Ordnance. In one instance they might be reduced for want of skill, of which the Master-General was made the sole judge, to the rank of labourers, and thereby be deprived of one-third of their pay; and in another, he was also the sole judge of the quantum to which their pay should be reduced in cases of idleness or misbehaviour.
“Lord Carlisle ridiculed the strange reason given for adopting the new project, that it would be a saving of 2,000_l._ a year. If their lordships were to be governed by such arguments, they would be led into so absurd a matter as the calculation of what the surrender of the rights of the subject was worth per man; and if the rights and liberties of 600 artificers were worth just 2,000_l._, they would see that the noble lord valued the rights of every individual exactly at 3_l._ 10_s._ each.
“Lord Cathcart and Lord Rawdon were of opinion, that the plan formed by the noble duke would be attended with many considerable military advantages; and the question being at length put, the clause was carried without a division. The corps now, for the first time, was made legally amenable to the provisions of the Mutiny Act; and, for a few years at least, was permitted to go on with its organization and duties without being again noticed or interrupted by the opposition in Parliament.”[73]
-----
Footnote 73:
In the protracted debates which occurred in 1788, on the Regency, Mr. Sheridan took occasion, when opposing the measure for reserving the patronage of the royal household, to attack the Minister—Mr. Pitt, and to wing from his bow another caustic shaft at the royal military artificers. Mr. Pitt, at some previous time, had charged a right honourable friend of Sheridan’s, on quitting office, “with having left a fortress behind him.” Sheridan admitted that the accusation was true; “but then,” continued he, in a vein of sparkling raillery, “like a coarse, clumsy workman, his right honourable friend had built his plan in open day, and retired with his friends, who served without pay. * * * Not so the right honourable gentleman over the way. Like a more crafty mason he had collected his materials with greater caution, and worked them up with abundantly more art. Perhaps he had taken the advice of the noble Duke—famous for fortification—and, with the aid of that able engineer, had provided a corps of royal military artificers, and thrown up impregnable ramparts to secure himself and his garrison. Upon this occasion the King’s arms doubtless might be seen flying as a banner on the top of his fortress, and powerful indeed must prove the effect of the right honourable gentleman’s thundering eloquence from without, and the support of the royal artificers from within, against his political adversaries.”—Sheridan’s Dramatic Works. See Life, p. 138. Bohn’s edit., 1848.
The last reference to the military artificers in Parliament was made by Mr. Courtenay on the 21st April, 1790, when, moving for a committee to inquire into the expenditure of the public money by the Duke of Richmond from the 1st January, 1784, he stated, among a variety of matter, that the corps of which his Grace was the founder, “were neither soldiers nor artificers.”—‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’