part 2, 1788.

Footnote 15: London Gazette, 12,256. 25 to 29 December, 1781. ----- General Eliott in his despatch on this sortie, observes, “The pioneers,” meaning artificers, “and artillerists, made wonderful exertions, and spread their fire with such amazing rapidity, that in half an hour, two mortar batteries of ten 13-inch mortars, and three batteries of six guns each, with all the lines of approach, communication, traverses, &c. were in flames and reduced to ashes. Their mortars and cannon were spiked, and their beds, carriages, and platforms destroyed. Their magazines blew up one after another, as the fire approached them.”[16] ----- Footnote 16: London Gazette, 12,256. 25 to 29 December, 1781. ----- Shortly after the sortie the repairs to the defences at the north front and other works of the fortress, found full employment for the company. Leisure could not be permitted, and the necessary intervals of rest were frequently interrupted by demands for their assistance, particularly in caissonning the batteries at Willis’s.[17] Sickness also set in about this time; nearly 700 of the garrison were in hospital; the working parties were curtailed; and officers' servants and others, unused to hard labour and unskilled in the use of tools, were sent to the works to lessen the fatigue to which their less-favoured comrades were constantly subjected. Much extra duty and exertion were thus necessarily thrown upon the company, and though frequently exposed to imminent danger, they worked, both by night and day, with cheerfulness and zeal. In the sickness that prevailed, they did not share so much as might be supposed from the laborious nature of their duties, sixteen only being returned sick, leaving eighty-one available for the service of the works. ----- Footnote 17: To narrate the different services performed by the company during the siege, would not only be tedious, but necessarily incomplete, from no _detailed_ record of them being preserved. A reference, however, to ‘Drinkwater’s History,’ though particularization is not even there attempted, will afford a tolerable idea of their labours. ----- On a fine day in May 1782, the Governor, attended by the Chief Engineer and staff, made an inspection of the batteries at the north front. Great havoc had been made in some of them by the enemy’s fire; and for the present they were abandoned whilst the artificers were restoring them. Meditating for a few moments over the ruins, he said aloud, “I will give a thousand dollars to any one who can suggest how I am to get a flanking fire upon the enemy’s works.” A pause followed the exciting exclamation, when sergeant-major Ince of the company, who was in attendance upon the Chief Engineer, stepped forward and suggested the idea of forming galleries in the rock to effect the desired object. The General at once saw the propriety of the scheme, and directed it to be carried into execution.[18] ----- Footnote 18: Whether the sergeant-major obtained the thousand dollars as a douceur from the General is a question never likely to be satisfactorily answered. The probability is, that he did not receive the reward for his suggestion in this form, but some daily allowance commensurate with his skill and the importance of the duty. I was informed by the late Quarter-master-sergeant Britton Francis, who possessed a remarkable memory, and whose father was in the company before him, that Ince contracted for the work, and—such was the story current in his day—received for all the excavations, one guinea per running foot! Judging from an expression in a letter from the Duke of Richmond to Captain Evelegh, the Commanding Engineer at Gibraltar, dated 4th August, 1784, this tradition is an extravagant exaggeration. His Grace observes, “I am told that the excavation of the galleries is now constructed for, all expenses included, at one rial per foot cube;” and he adds, “I am very glad to find that a work which promises to add such effectual defences to the place, can be carried on at so cheap a rate; and I make no doubt, that great improvements will still be made by the Governor in this system of defences and lodgment for stores and troops under the rock.” ----- Upon orders being issued by the Chief Engineer, twelve good miners of the company were selected for this novel and difficult service, and sergeant-major Ince was nominated to take the executive direction of the work. On the 25th of May, he commenced to mine a gallery from a place above Farringdon’s Battery (Willis'), to communicate, _through the rock_, to the notch or projection in the scarp under the Royal Battery. The gallery was to be six feet high and six feet wide. The successful progress of this preliminary work was followed by a desire to extend the excavation from the cave at the head of the King’s lines, to the cave at the end of the Queen’s lines, of the same dimensions as the former gallery. A body of well-instructed miners was expressly appointed for the duty,[19] and on the 6th July, they began this new subterranean passage. On the 15th, the first “embrasure was opened in the face of the rock communicating with the gallery above Farringdon’s.” To effect this, “the mine was loaded with an unusual quantity of powder, and the explosion was so amazingly loud, that almost the whole of the enemy’s camp turned out at the report: but what,” adds the chronicler, “must their surprise have been, when they observed whence the smoke issued!”[20] The gallery was now widened to admit of the placement of a gun with sufficient room for its recoil, and when finished, a 24-pounder was mounted in it.[21] Before the ensuing September, five heavy guns were placed in the gallery; and in little more than twelve months from the day it was commenced, it was pushed to the notch, where a battery, as originally proposed, was afterwards established and distinguished, on account of its extensive capacity, by the name of “St George’s Hall.”[22] ----- Footnote 19: The Chief Engineer’s orders for the performance of this service were as follows:—“22nd May, 1782. A gallery 6 feet high, and 6 feet wide, through the rock, leading towards the notch nearly under the Royal Battery, to communicate with a proposed battery to be established at the said notch, is immediately to be undertaken and commenced upon by 12 miners, under the executive direction of sergeant-major Ince.” Again: “5th July, 1782. A gallery of communication, 6 feet 6 inches high, and 6 feet wide, through the intermediate rock, between the cave at the head of the King’s lines, and the cave near the west end of the Queen’s lines, is forthwith to be commenced upon by a body of miners and labourers expressly appointed for that service.”—See also ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, pp. 112 and 117. ----- Footnote 20: ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 118. ----- Footnote 21: Drinkwater observes, page 118, that “the original intention of this opening was to communicate air to the workmen, who, before, were almost suffocated with the smoke which remained after blowing the different mines; but on examining the aperture more closely, an idea was conceived of mounting a gun to bear on all the enemy’s batteries, excepting Fort Barbara.” To ascribe it to this accidental circumstance is natural enough, but there is reason to suppose, the statement excusably differs from the fact. The galleries were begun with the express object of arming them with ordnance to play on the enemy’s works; and the formation of the embrasure alluded to, was simply the earnest of a settled scheme; the first hostile step in its development. Footnote 22: ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, note, p. 118. ----- At Princess Anne’s Battery (Willis'), on the 11th June, a shell from the enemy fell through one of the magazines, and, bursting, the powder instantly ignited and blew up. The whole rock shook with the violence of the explosion, which, tearing up the magazine, threw its massive fragments to an almost incredible distance into the sea. Three merlons on the west flank of the battery, with several men who had run behind them for shelter, were blown into the Prince’s lines beneath, which, with the Queen’s lower down the rock, were almost filled with the rubbish ejected from the upper battery, as also with men dreadfully scorched and mangled. The loss among the workmen was very severe. Fourteen were killed and fifteen wounded.[23] Private George Brown, a mason of the company, was amongst the former. ----- Footnote 23: ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 113. ----- In July the company could only muster ninety-two men of all ranks, including the wounded and sick, having lost twenty-two men during the siege by death, six of whom had been killed. This was the more unfortunate, as the siege was daily assuming a more serious aspect, the enemy collecting in greater force, and the effect of the cannonade upon the defences more telling and ruinous. Naturally the Governor’s attention was called to the deficiency; and as his chief dependence rested upon the soldier-artificers for the execution and direction of the more important works, he was not only anxious for their completion to the authorized establishment, but convinced of the desirableness of augmenting them. In this view he was the more confirmed, by the representations of Major-General Green, the chief engineer, and Lieutenant-General Boyd. As soon, therefore, as an opportunity offered, he urgently requested the Duke of Richmond, then Master-General of the Ordnance, to fill up the company with mechanics from England, and also to make a liberal increase to its establishment. His Grace accordingly submitted the recommendation to His Majesty, and a Warrant, dated 31st August, 1782, was issued ordering the company to be increased with 118 men. Its establishment now amounted to— 1 Sergeant-major. 10 Sergeants. 10 Corporals. 209 Working-men. 4 Drummers. —— Total 234 To carry out the wishes of General Eliott, the Duke of Richmond employed parties in England and Scotland to enlist the required number, which for the most part consisted of carpenters, sawyers, and smiths. With great spirit and success the recruiting was conducted; and in less than a month 141 mechanics—more than enough to meet both the deficiency and the authorized increase—were embarked for the Rock on board the transports which accompanied the relieving fleet under Lord Hood. Twenty landed on the 15th October; a similar number next day, and the remaining 101 on the 21st. By this increase the carpenters were 66 in number, the sawyers 31, and the smiths 57. The masons at this time were 30 strong. The non-commissioned officers,[24] as they stood immediately after this augmentation, were as follows:— _Sergeant-major_—Henry Ince. _Sergeants_:— David Young, _carpenter_. Edward Macdonald.[25] Robert Blyth,[26] _mason_. Alexander Grigor. James Smith, _smith_. Thomas Jackson, _smith_. Robert Brand, _mason_. Robert Daniel. Joseph Makin, _mason_. Thomas Finch,[27] _carpenter_. _Corporals_:— Robert Newell, _mason_. Hugh Sirrige, _carpenter_. Joseph Chambers,[28] _mason_. James Carey, _carpenter_. Joseph Woodhead,[29] _mason_. John Morrison, _mason_. John Harrison, _mason_. John Fraser, _carpenter_. Thomas Harrenden, _carpenter_. Antonio Francia,[30] _mason_. And the officers were, in addition to those mentioned at pp. 4 and 5, Lieutenants William M‘Kerras, John Johnston, and Lewis Hay. ----- Footnote 24: It is not intended to give the names of the non-commissioned officers entire at any future period. In this instance they have been mentioned, not so much for the interest of the general reader, as to preserve them. With those whose names have already been noted, these constitute the first race of non-commissioned officers in the corps. ----- Footnote 25: By the Chief Engineer’s Order of 27th October, 1781, sergeant Macdonald, an active and good non-commissioned officer, was appointed to inspect and take care of all the drains throughout the fortress in the room of sergeant-major Bridges, as also to keep the keys of the gratings, and to see them locked, to prevent ingress or egress by their means. This duty was considered a very important one, both from the facility the drains afforded for the entrance of the enemy and for desertions from the place, and also from the health of the garrison being in a great measure affected by their state. Not unfrequently during heavy rains, the gravel on the rock, washed down by the torrent, would rush into the drains and choke them up. To clear them, the company of artificers was invariably called upon, often at night; and on one occasion, in April, 1813, private William Liddle, who was foremost in one of the great drains, after unlocking the grating, was carried down the sewer with the flood into the sea, and drowned. ----- Footnote 26: Blyth served fifteen years in the 2nd Foot, and joined the company 14th June, 1773. He was promoted to be sergeant on the 18th April, 1781, in succession to sergeant Brown who died at Fez, and whose widow became the Sultana of Morocco. By his industry and frugality he amassed considerable property, and expended about 20,000 dollars in buildings at the fortress. He was well known as a zealous freemason, and erected a wine-house at the corner of the Eleventh, since called South Parade, in which the meetings or lodges of the fraternity were held free of expense. He was much respected by the inhabitants, and became very popular among them. On the 31st January, 1800, he was discharged from the corps, after a service of nearly forty-two years, and died at the Rock about 1804, Blyth had a nephew in the Tripoline navy, of whom a few particulars may not be uninteresting. His name was Peter Lisle. When quite a youth, Peter was wrecked at Zoara, on the coast of Tripoli. He was one of three only who escaped. For a time he endured great hardships, but at length succeeded in getting on board a British merchantman. In 1792 he was at Gibraltar, on board the ‘Embden’ letter of marque, Lynch and Ross, owners. This vessel afterwards went to Tripoli with two consuls on board; and Lisle, then chief mate, was placed in charge of the cargo, some of which was corn. On arriving at Tripoli, the barrels containing the corn were found to have been plundered, and Lisle was called upon to account for the deficiency. This he could not do; a quarrel ensued between the captain and himself, and resigning his situation, he landed, and entered the service of the Bashaw. Having been chief mate of an English vessel was a strong recommendation in his favour, and he was at once appointed gunner of the castle. Associated with a strange people, he readily conformed to their manners and customs, embraced Mahommedan tenets—at least in appearance—and assumed the name of Mourad Reis. About 1794 he was nominated captain of a xebeck mounting eighteen guns; and in the course of time, by his naval skill and abilities, became the High Admiral of the Tripoline Fleet and Minister of Marine. He married one of the daughters of the Bashaw, Sidi Yusuf, had a fine family, and enjoyed an ample income. Besides a house in the city, he had a villa and gardens in the Meshiah among the date-groves, which exhibited evidence of great taste and care, and were enriched with many trees of various species brought by him from different places at which he touched in Europe. He was a prudent and sagacious counsellor, gave excellent advice to the Bashaw, which was always based on good common sense—a quality not superabundant in the Divan—and was of great service to Lord Exmouth during his Algerine expedition. His appearance was venerable, he dressed richly, commanded much respect, and when addressing British officers—whom he always treated with great courtesy and hospitality—spoke with a broad Scotch accent, and sometimes entertained them with a relation of his own stirring adventures. He was unpopular at times, as great politicians sometimes are. Blaquiere says (1813), “Poor Peter was no longer an object of consideration with any party.” During the stay of Captain Lyon at Tripoli in 1818, Peter was in banishment, but the consul and chief people gave him an excellent character. Later, however, he again rose into confidence, for when Captain Beechey was there in 1821, Mourad Reis was much considered by his Highness, and acted as interpreter on the occasion of the Captain’s audience with his Highness the Bashaw. He also proved of great service to Captain W. H. Smyth, R.N. On the fall of the Bashaw—Yusuf Karamanli—he retreated to Sfax in Tunis, since which his fate is uncertain. When in the zenith of his power and greatness he paid occasional visits to Gibraltar. On entering the bay, he always fired a salute of four guns in honour of his uncle, serjeant Blyth, whom he treated with marked respect. This practice, however, he at length discontinued, owing to a shot, fired by mistake from one of his guns, having struck the wall of a ramp just above Hargrave’s Parade whilst he was paying his relative the usual affectionate compliment. ----- Footnote 27: Finch joined the company on the 21st October, 1782, at the request of the Duke of Richmond, in whose service he had been employed at Goodwood. Anxious to secure him for the company, his Grace promised not only to make him a sergeant at once, but to give him a written protection to preserve to him as long as he remained, irrespective of his conduct, the pay of that rank. Under these circumstances Finch accepted the protective credential, enlisted, and sailed with Lord Hood for the Rock. Holding such a charter, it was not to be wondered at if he sometimes overstepped the line of prudence. Not by any means particular in his appearance, nor scrupulous in his conduct or habits, he was not unfrequently brought before his officers; but no matter how flagrant his offence, the only punishment that could be awarded to him was suspension for a month or two from rank, but not from pay. Captain Evelegh, of the engineers, finding that Finch was becoming rather troublesome, and his sentences of but little effect, endeavoured to obtain the Duke’s warrant from its possessor, but he refused to surrender it, observing to the captain, “If you get hold of it, good-bye to my rank and pay.” Finch, however, was a first-rate carpenter and foreman, and these qualifications more than counterbalanced his occasional delinquencies. He was discharged from the corps on the 13th April, 1802. ----- Footnote 28: Chambers joined the company 21st September, 1772, from the 2nd Regiment of Foot, in which he had served two years. In 1791 he was promoted to be sergeant-major, on the discharge of Ince. In the summer of 1796 he was sent to Woolwich in a deranged state of mind, and on the 1st December of that year was discharged. Soon afterwards he was domiciled in a madhouse, where, his malady increasing, he was—it has been reported—smothered according to the cruel practice then in vogue with regard to incurable cases. ----- Footnote 29: Woodhead joined the company 16th May, 1774, from the 12th Regiment, in which he had served seven years and a quarter. In November, 1791, he was promoted to be sergeant, and was discharged 17th July, 1807, on a pension of 2_s._ 7_d._ a-day, after a service of upwards of forty years. At Gibraltar he was found to be invaluable in the construction and repairs of the sea-line wall. He possessed a good share of intelligence; was a strong, portly, blustering mason, and well adapted for the heavy and laborious duties for which he was always selected. At Woolwich he was the military foreman of masons for many years, and was intrusted by Captain Hayter, then Commanding Royal Engineer, with the building of the wharf wall in the Royal Arsenal—a work highly creditable to the Engineer Department, and to Woodhead as the executive overseer. Footnote 30: Afterwards anglicised to Anthony Francis, was wounded by a shell at Willis’s. He and his brother Dominick were natives of Portugal, and the only foreigners in the company. Antonio was a Catholic; and as it was desired to preserve the Protestant character of the corps, a simple but effectual plan was taken to win his adherence to the Church of England. He asked leave to be married. The indulgence was refused unless he became a Protestant. _La Fiancée_ was also a Catholic; but as a great event in their lives—which promised them no end of happiness—was likely to be indefinitely postponed by a stubborn acquiescence to a creed for which, probably, they felt but little interest, both renounced the belief of their fathers, and were married as members of the national faith. Their family were baptized and educated as Protestants, but the old man on his death-bed, returned to Mother-Church and died a Catholic. Three of his sons, now old men, fill comfortable appointments at Gibraltar. Their cousins, merchants at the Rock, own the plain called the “Spanish Race-course,” above a mile beyond the Lines. One, Mr. Francis Francia, is British Consul at San Roque. Midway between the village of Campo and the consulate stands his farm, which is cultivated with enlightened taste, and enriched with rare exotics in fruits and flowers.—Kelaart’s Botany and Topography of Gibraltar and its neighbourhood, pp. 179, 183. ----- 1782-1783. Siege continued—Magnitude of the works—Chevaux-de-frise from Landport Glacis across the inundation—Précis of other works—Firing red-hot shot—Damage done to the works of the garrison, and exertions of the company in restoring them—Grand attack, and burning of the battering flotilla—Reluctance of the enemy to quit the contest—Kilns for heating shot—Orange Bastion—Subterranean galleries—Discovery of the enemy mining under the Rock—Ulterior dependence of the enemy—Peace—Conduct of the company during the siege—Casualties. In August the siege daily wore a more significant appearance, and the enemy was diligent in concentrating his resources—unlimited both in means and materials—to make an extraordinary attack upon the fortress. To cope with these preparations General Eliott was no less alert. All was ardour and cheerfulness within the garrison, and every one waited impatiently for an opportunity to end the strife, which had held thousands close prisoners to their posts for more than three years. At this time the defensive works were very extensive, and many important alterations had yet to be made in several of the batteries, to afford more effectual cover to the artillery. The workmen consequently were greatly increased. Daily, nearly 2,000 men of the line were handed over to the engineers for the service of the fortifications; and the soldier-artificers were employed in their greatest force—two only being in hospital—to instruct and oversee them. In the more difficult works requiring experience, and the exercise of skill and ability, the company always laboured themselves. In the most vulnerable part of the fortress, from the foot of Landport Glacis adjoining Waterport, to the sloping palisades on the causeway across the inundation, the greater part of the carpenters of the company were occupied in fixing a chevaux-de-frise. They completed the work without the least interference from the enemy—a surprising instance of his inattention or forbearance. While the chevaux-de-frise was in course of erection, covered ways were being constructed at the different lines on the north front, large and lofty traverses were raised along the line wall, the flank of the Princess Anne’s Battery was rebuilt, the subterranean passages were pushed forward with vigour, and a covered way from the Grand Parade to the Orange Bastion was completed. Green’s Lodge and the Royal Battery were also caissoned with ship-timber, and considerable alterations were made at Willis’s. Indeed nothing was omitted to render the fortress capable of sustaining any attack to which it might be subjected from the enemy’s immense and well-armed batteries. These works and many others of a similar nature were in progress when the firing of red-hot shot from the north front, under General Boyd’s directions, commenced upon the enemy’s batteries. The effect of this destructive expedient was astounding, and the demolition of the enemy’s lines in great part soon followed. Panic-stricken or confused, the besiegers returned but a tardy fire, and the injury sustained by it was of little moment. The bold attack of the garrison, however, aroused the Spaniards, who, quickly repairing their works, opened, on the next day, a warm and powerful fire upon the Rock from 170 guns of large calibre. Nine line-of-battle ships also poured in their broadsides, in which they were assisted by fifteen gun and mortar boats. Considerable injury was thus done to the north front, as also to the Montague and Orange Bastions; the obstructions at Landport were likewise in great measure demolished, and many other works were partially razed. The engineers with the artificers and workmen were unremitting in their exertions, both during the night and in the day-time, to restore the defences where their importance, from their exposed situation, rendered immediate reparation desirable. At Landport, notwithstanding the sharp firing of the enemy, the carpenters of the company were constantly detached to repair the fresh-recurring breaches, which, Drinkwater states, “were kept in a better state than might have been expected.” This attack and retaliation, however, were as yet only preliminary to the greater one which was to follow. The interval was filled up by discharges of cannon, averaging 4,000 rounds in the twenty-four hours. On the 12th September the combined fleets of France and Spain arrived before the Rock with ten floating batteries, bearing 212 guns; while their land batteries, strong and terrible, mounted 200 heavy guns, and were protected by an army of 40,000 men. In their several stations the battering flotilla were soon moored, and the fleet anchored in less than ten minutes. The first ship having cast her anchors, that moment the garrison artillery began to throw its burning missiles. A tremendous rejoinder from the enemy succeeded. Upwards of 400 pieces of the heaviest artillery were disgorging their dreadful contents at the same instant. Of these the garrison only employed 96. For hours the balance of the contest was equal, the battering ships seemed invulnerable; but, at length, the red-hot shot gave evidence of their efficacy in the sheets of resistless flame that burst in all directions from the flotilla. By the 14th the whole of the floating batteries were burnt: their magazines blew up one after another; and it was a miracle, that the loss of the enemy by drowning did not exceed the numbers saved by the merciful efforts of the garrison. Notwithstanding this appalling reverse the enemy were still reluctant to quit the contest. Many proofs they had had of the unconquerable spirit of the besieged even whilst suffering from pinching privation, and warring against such overwhelming odds; but they still clung to the hope of compelling the surrender of their invincible adversaries, though their repeated defeats should have taught them a far different lesson. This obstinacy, of course, necessarily caused other and more effectual preparations to be made in the fortress, to meet and withstand any future attacks. Red-hot shot was considered to be the grand specific. To supply it in sufficient quantities, the company of artificers erected kilns in various parts of the garrison. Each kiln was capable of heating 100 shots in little more than an hour. By this means, as Drinkwater writes, “the artificers were enabled to supply the artillery with a constant succession for the ordnance.” The struggle continued for some time much less terrific than has just been stated. From 1,000 to 2,000 rounds, however, were poured into the garrison in the twenty-four hours, and were followed up with more or less briskness for a few months, according to the varying caprice of the assailants. During this cannonade, the artificers under the engineers were constantly engaged in the diversified works of the fortress, and they began to rebuild the whole flank of the Orange Bastion on the sea-line, 120 feet in length. All the available masons and miners of the company were appointed to this important work, and were greatly strengthened on the arrival of the 141 mechanics under Lord Hood. In the face of the enemy’s artillery, the artificers continued fearlessly to rear the flank, and at last completed it in about three months, to the amazement and satisfaction of the Governor and the garrison. The erection of such a work, in solid masonry, and under such circumstances, is perhaps unprecedented in any siege, and is alike highly honourable to the engineers and to the company. Nor was the subterranean gallery under Farringdon’s Battery prosecuted with less zeal under serjeant-major Ince. Five embrasures by this time had been opened in the front of the Rock facing the neutral ground. The miners exerted themselves with an energy that was conspicuous and commendable. This singular work seemed to be the Governor’s hobby; he expected much from it, and ordered a similar Battery for two guns to be cut in the Rock, near Croutchet’s Battery, above the Prince of Hesse’s Bastion. Its completion, however, was not effected until after the siege. To the schemes of the enemy there appeared to be no end; neither did they lack hope nor want confidence. They had failed to obtain the submission of the garrison by famine; equally so, by a protracted bombardment; nor was their tremendous attack by a bomb-proof flotilla, assisted by their formidable land batteries, attended with better success. They now attempted a fourth stratagem, to mine a cave in the Rock by which to blow up the north front, and thus make a breach for their easy entrance into the fortress. Chimerical as the project might appear, it was conducted with some spirit, and occasioned the garrison much employment. Information of the infatuated design was, in the first instance, given by a deserter from the enemy, which, however, was cautiously received; and as it was impracticable to perceive the miners at work, doubts still existed whether the enemy had actually embarked in the scheme. These doubts were at length removed by sergeant Thomas Jackson,[31] of the artificer company, by whose enterprising efforts the movements of the enemy were rendered indisputable. It was his duty to reconnoitre[32] the north front, in addition to other services for which he was held responsible. Anxious to ascertain the cause of so much mysterious activity at the Devil’s Tower, he descended the steep and rugged rock by means of ropes and ladders. The attempt was as bold as it was hazardous. Stopped by an opening very near to the base of the cliff he explored the entrance, and hearing the hum of voices and the busy strokes of hammers and picks he was well assured of the purpose for which the excavation was intended. Climbing the steep again, he reported what he had discovered. A stricter watch was therefore kept upon the Tower to prevent communication between it and the Rock. Hand-grenades and weighty fragments of stone were frequently hurled over the precipice to terrify the workmen below, and choke up the entrance to the gallery; and though these means did not make the intrepid miners relinquish their project, they yet greatly interrupted its progress. The notion of the engineer who proposed the mine must have been the result of desperation, for what must have been its nature to crumble in its explosion a huge mass of compact rock, nearly 1,400 feet of perpendicular height, into a roadway, by which to enter the fortress as through a breach? ----- Footnote 31: Joined the company August, 1776, from the 56th Foot, in which he had served eleven years. Discharged about 1789. Footnote 32: Reconnoitering appears to have been a duty that devolved upon sergeants of the company. On the 25th December, 1782, two soldiers attempted to desert from Mount Misery; one “got down, though the rope broke, which accident was the cause of the other being retaken. A few days after a sergeant of the artificers was ordered to reconnoitre the place where this deserter descended, and he got down far enough to discover the unfortunate man dashed to pieces at the foot of the precipice,”—‘Drinkwater.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 100. ----- Since the flotilla had been burnt and the fleet had disappeared, it was evident that the enemy now depended for a triumph on their gun-boats and land-batteries, and also the mine at the Devil’s Tower. For a time they warmly plied the fortress with shot and shell, to which the garrison responded with considerable animation. Intervals followed, induced by indecision or caprice, in which the firing from the enemy was very desultory and inefficacious; but that from the garrison was always well sustained. The soldiers of the Rock seemed to rise in spirit and activity as the enemy declined in these qualities. With the latter, the barometer of their hopes fell with their energies. Still they fruitlessly laboured on, the mine under the Rock being the principal object of their attention, until relieved from the disgrace of another defeat, by the arrival of news from home of the signing of preliminaries for a general peace. The intelligence was communicated to the garrison on the 2nd February, 1783, and on the 5th, the last shot in the conflict was fired from the fortress. Thus terminated a siege, extending over a period of nearly four years, which, when all the circumstances connected with it are taken into account, can scarcely find its parallel in the chronicles of ancient or modern warfare. During the whole of this memorable defence, the company of artificers proved themselves to be good and brave soldiers; and no less conspicuous for their skill, usefulness, and zeal on the works. With their conduct and exertions in the performance of their various professional duties, their officers were always well pleased; and, not unfrequently, the Governor, and General Boyd, in witnessing their services, encouraged and flattered them with expressions of their admiration. In later days, when the expediency of raising a _corps_ of military artificers was discussed in the House of Commons, Captain Luttrell stated, “that during the siege, the corps at Gibraltar had been found of infinite service.”[33] ----- Footnote 33: ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ 58, 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, Part ii., 1840, p. 379. Footnote 39: Maule’s ‘Campaigns of North Holland and Egypt,’ &c., p. 303. ----- Since these excavations—these vaults of solitude—which excite some degree of awe from their magnitude, and the proud array of ordnance that arm them—have always been highly praised by military men, and been visited both by officers and others as a species of marvel at the fortress, it will not be out of place to introduce the projector—Henry Ince—to notice. He was born in 1737 at Penzance in Cornwall, was brought up to the trade of a nailor, and afterwards acquired some experience as a miner. Early in 1755 he enlisted into the 2nd Foot, and served some time with it at Gibraltar, where he had been much employed on the works in mining and blasting rock. After a service of seventeen and a half years in the 2nd regiment, he joined the company, then forming, on the 26th June, 1772. The same day he was promoted to be sergeant. Having showed superior intelligence in the execution of his duties as a foreman, and distinguished himself by his diligence and gallantry during the siege, he was, in September, 1781, selected for the rank of sergeant-major. In the following year he suggested the formation of the galleries, and was honoured by being directed to conduct the work himself. This he continued to do until it was finished. As “overseer of the mines,” he had the executive charge of all blasting, mining, battery building, &c., at the fortress, and was found to be invaluable. He was active, prompt, and persevering, very short in stature, but wiry and hardy in constitution; was greatly esteemed by his officers, and frequently the subject of commendation from the highest authorities at Gibraltar. In February, 1787, when the Duke of Richmond was endeavouring to economize the ordnance expenditure at the Rock, the emoluments of sergeant-major Ince claimed his attention: but remembering his fair fame, his Grace thus wrote concerning him:— “I do not object to sergeant-major Henry Ince being continued as overseer of mines at 4_s._ per day, as I understand, from all accounts, that he is a meritorious man, and that he distinguished himself during the siege; but, as such allowance, _in addition to his pay_, is very great, I desire it may not be considered as a precedent; and whoever succeeds him must only receive 2_s._ 10_d._ per day, like the foremen in other branches, if he should be appointed a foreman.” In 1791, after a period of thirty-six years' active service, he was discharged from the company, but was still continued on the works as an overseer. On the 2nd February, 1796, he was commissioned as ensign in the Royal Garrison Battalion, and on the 24th March, 1801, was promoted to be lieutenant. In 1802 the regiment was disbanded. All this time, however, Ince was attached to the department as assistant-engineer; but at length, having worn himself out in the service of the fortress, he returned to Penzance, and died in June, 1809, at the age of seventy-two.[40] ----- Footnote 40: Ince had a farm at the top of the Rock, which is still called by his name. He had an only son, a clerk in the Commissariat department at Gibraltar, under Commissary-general Sweetlove, who, together with his wife, died in the fever of 1804, leaving an infant son, who was brought up by his grandmother. The eldest daughter of Lieutenant Ince was married at Gibraltar to Lieutenant R. Stapleton, of the 60th Rifles, who exchanged with Lieutenant Croker into the 13th Foot, and then sold out. One day Mr. Ince was trotting at an easy pace up the Rock, when the Duke of Kent, overtaking him, observed, “That horse, Mr. Ince, is too old for you.” “I like to ride easy, your Royal Highness,” was the subaltern’s meek reply. “Right, but you shall have another, more in keeping with your worth and your duties;” and soon afterwards the Duke presented him with a very valuable steed. The old overseer, however, was unable to manage the animal, and he rode again to the works on his own quiet nag. The Duke, meeting him soon after, inquired how it was he was not riding the new horse, when Ince replied, he was unable sufficiently to curb his spirit and tranquillize his pace. Ince then prayed his Royal Highness to honour his servant by receiving the noble creature into his stud again. “No, no, overseer,” rejoined the Duke; “if you can’t ride him easily, _put him into your pocket_!” The overseer readily understood his Royal Highness, and exchanged the beautiful steed for his worth in doubloons. ----- Among the various stirring incidents narrated by Drinkwater, is the following, relative to the peculiar advantage of the boys of the soldier-artificer company during the siege. “In the course of the day,” 25th March, 1782, “ a shot came through one of the capped embrasures on Princess Amelia’s Battery (Willis’s), took off the legs of two men belonging to the 72nd and 73rd regiments, one leg of a soldier of the 73rd, and wounded another man in both legs; thus four men had seven legs taken off and wounded by one shot. The boy, who was usually stationed on the works where a large party was employed to inform the men when the enemy’s fire was directed to that place, had been reproving them for their carelessness in not attending to him, and had just turned his head toward the enemy, when he observed this shot, and instantly called for them to take care; his caution was, however, too late; the shot entered the embrasure, and had the above-recited fatal effect. It is somewhat singular that this boy should be possessed of such uncommon quickness of sight as to see the enemy’s shot almost immediately after they quitted the guns. He was not, however, the only one in the garrison possessing this qualification; another boy, of about the same age, was as celebrated, if not his superior. Both of them belonged to the artificer company, and were constantly placed on some part of the works to observe the enemy’s fire; their names were Richmond (not Richardson, as stated by Drinkwater) and Brand; the former was reported to have the best eye.”[41] Joseph Parsons,[42] another youth of the company, was also employed as a _looker-out_ on the works; and though his name has escaped the notice of the historian, he was nevertheless no less efficient. ----- Footnote 41: ‘Drinkwater.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 108. ----- Footnote 42: Parsons joined the company in February, 1779, and was discharged, as a private artificer, 1st January, 1809, on 1_s._ 4_d._ a-day. It was an object that every one in the fortress should be rendered useful in some way or other, and the boys of the company—out of sympathy for their youth—were, for some time after the commencement of the siege employed on the works at Europa quarry, then but little annoyed by the enemy’s fire. At length, inured to labour, and taught by events to expect danger, it was considered of greater advantage to occupy their time at the different batteries; and on the 15th February, 1782, the Chief Engineer directed their removal to the works and fortifications,[43] with the view of looking out for the enemy’s projectiles, and giving warning of their approach. On the 21st June following, such of the boys as were masons in the company were engaged under Mr. Hutchinson, a civil foreman, in rounding stones, agreeably to the instructions of Major Lewis of the artillery. These stones, according to Drinkwater, were “cut to fit the calibre of a 13-inch mortar, with a hole drilled in the centre, which being filled with a sufficient quantity of powder, were fired with a short fuse to burst over the enemy’s works.” It was an unusual mode of annoyance, and for its novelty was employed for some time; but not effecting the damage that was desired, it was ultimately laid aside.[44] On the failure of this experiment, the boys returned to the perilous posts assigned to them on the batteries to look out. At this duty they continued as long as the siege lasted, and doubtless, by their vigilance in its execution, they were the means of saving many valuable lives, or otherwise preventing casualty. ----- Footnote 43: Order Book—Chief Engineer’s. Footnote 44: ‘Order-Book’ (Chief Engineer’s) of 21st June, 1782; and ‘Drinkwater,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 118. ----- Of the two boys who have been so favourably noticed by Drinkwater, it may not be unacceptable to devote a small space here to their brief but honourable history. Their names were Thomas Richmond[45] and John Brand; the former was known at the Rock by the familiar sobriquet of _shell_, being the better looker-out; and the latter by the name of _shot_. Richmond was trained as a carpenter; Brand as a mason. Their fathers were sergeants in the company.[46] Richmond’s was killed at the siege. As might be expected, the beneficial services of these boys at the batteries acquired for them no common celebrity and esteem. ----- Footnote 45: Not Richardson, as Drinkwater has it, p. 108. Footnote 46: Brand’s father, a mason by trade and a Perthshire man, was the first artificer enrolled in the company. ----- The siege being over, the youths were sent to Mr. Geddes’s school, at that time the principal seminary at Gibraltar. This gentleman paid every attention to their instruction and improvement, and, as a consequence, they progressed rapidly in their studies. Being found quick, intelligent, and ingenious, some officers of the company patronized them, and placed them in the drawing-room under their own eye, with the view of making them competent to fill better situations. Brand in time became corporal, and Richmond lance-corporal, which ranks they held on the 8th May, 1789, when they were discharged from the corps, and appointed by the Commander-in-Chief assistant-draughtsmen.[47] ----- Footnote 47: ‘Order-Book’ (Chief Engineer’s), 8th May, 1789. ----- Having made considerable proficiency in their trades, they were employed for some years previous to their discharge as modellers, which art they continued to follow with great tact, skill, and perseverance, until they quitted the fortress. After several trial models of various subjects, these young men commenced the gigantic task of modelling Gibraltar, at which they worked with unwearied application for nearly three years. Succeeding so well in this their first great and public undertaking, Brand[48] was directed to make a model in polished stone of the King’s Bastion, and Richmond[49] a model of the north front of Gibraltar. Nearly the whole of the years 1790 and 1791 were spent in perfecting them; and for these noble specimens of art they were favoured with the flattering congratulations of the highest authorities at the fortress. The better to exemplify the appreciation entertained of the models, and of the merits and talents of the modellers, they were recommended to the Duke of Richmond for commissions. His Grace immediately ordered them to proceed to Woolwich, to undergo some slight preparatory training. That training was short—a few months sufficed, and then they were honoured with appointments as second lieutenants in the royal engineers. Their commissions were dated 17th January, 1793.[50] Soon the young subalterns, rich in intelligence and full of promise, were sent abroad; but before the close of the year, both fell a prey to the prevailing yellow fever in the West Indies.[51] ----- Footnote 48: Assisted by sergeant James Shirres, an ingenious artizan and modeller. This non-commissioned officer, after serving at the capture of Minorca, was made a sergeant-major of the company that served there, 2nd May, 1800, and on the 31st December, 1804, was appointed overseer in the royal engineer department at Plymouth. Footnote 49: Assisted by Antonio Marques, a Minorcaen artificer. Footnote 50: ‘London Gazette,’ 13,494. 15 to 19 January, 1793. Footnote 51: The education of these youths is highly creditable to the officers of engineers. Many similar instances of boys in the corps acquiring distinction by their talents, have subsequently occurred, the honour of which, in great measure, is due to the officers. Assistance and encouragement they never fail to give in cases where their efforts are likely to meet with success, and numbers have thus qualified themselves to fill important situations with efficiency and credit, in their own profession, and afterwards in civil life. Richmond and Brand, however, are the only instances in which commissions have been given from the ranks of the artificers, or sappers and miners, into the corps of engineers. ----- The three models alluded to were brought to England in 1793 by desire of General O’Hara. The large model of the entire Rock was deposited in the museum in the Royal Arsenal, and the other two were presented to His Majesty George III. Private Joseph Bethell had charge of the first model,[52] and Private Thomas Hague[53] of the other two. The large model, from being lodged in a public place open to visitors, was well known. It was an object of considerable attraction, “and was much admired,” so Drinkwater writes, “for beauty of execution and minute correctness.”[54] A visitor to the Arsenal in those days corroborates the just encomium of the historian, and thus records his impressions:— “I walked yesterday morning to Woolwich Warren, that immense repository of military arts, the _palladium_ of our empire, where one wonder succeeds another so rapidly, that the mind of a visitor is kept in a continual gaze of admiration. Should I be asked what has made the strongest impression on mine, it is a magnificent view of the rock of Gibraltar, which was made there, formed of the very rock itself, on a scale of twenty-five feet to an inch, and presents a most perfect view of it in every point of perspective.”[55] ----- Footnote 52: Drinkwater says (p. 108), “that one of the works of these young men, while pursuing their studies at Woolwich, was to finish the large model of the rock of Gibraltar.” The historian has certainly been misled here: the model was finished before it left the fortress, and did not reach the Arsenal until after its makers had been commissioned, and left England for the West Indies. The placement and adjustment of its several parts were intrusted to a military artificer named Bethell. He was to have been assisted by another private, who accompanied him for the purpose, from Gibraltar; but having broken his leg at Woolwich, his services were thus lost. Private John McNaughton, a carpenter of the Woolwich company, was put to the model in his place. I knew McNaughton well, and he assured me that the model was not touched by any hands but his own and Bethell’s, and that on no occasion were the modellers present during its fixation. McNaughton seems to have been an excellent artificer, and always an active soldier. During the mutiny of Parker, he was employed in repairing Tilbury Fort, and in erecting temporary defences below Gravesend. He afterwards served under the great Abercrombie in Egypt; next was employed in constructing the towers on the Sussex coast, at the time of the projected invasion of Napoleon; and, lastly, was many years in Newfoundland. He was discharged 24th January, 1815, on 1_s._ 4_d._ a-day, and died at Woolwich in April, 1853, aged 84. Footnote 53: Hague was a tall, intelligent mechanic, a fine modeller, and a smart soldier. On account of these qualities, he was selected to take charge of the models for George III. Having put them together on their tables at Buckingham Palace, His Majesty, the Queen, and royal family, with other illustrious personages of the court, came to see them. Hague was cited before them to explain the model, and to point out the defences which, from their prominence in the late siege, had acquired historic identity. His observations were listened to with attention, and His Majesty awarded him a gratifying proof of his royal approbation. Soon afterwards Hague returned to Gibraltar, and on the 31st March, 1815, was discharged and pensioned at 1_s._ 8_d._ a-day. He was subsequently employed as a modeller in the grand store; was married in 1827; and died at the Rock about 1833, upwards of 100 years old. Footnote 54: ‘Drinkwater.’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 108. Footnote 55: To this the visitor adds a description of the model, which is adjoined here, on account of the model itself having long since been destroyed. “First then,” says the writer, “are the Spanish lines; then the perpendicular rock, rising bold from the neck of the neutral ground, which is not many feet above high-water mark. On the east, or left hand, is the Mediterranean Sea; and on the west, within the mole or pier, is the Bay of Gibraltar, in which the largest ships in the British Navy may ride safe. The garrison, town, and forts, are to the westward, whence the rock rises with a more gradual acclivity to the summit,—the east side of which is also perpendicular, and inhabited by monkeys. On the highest point is the Levant Battery, which is nearly three times and one half the height of St. Paul’s church, or 1375 feet above the level of the sea. The southern extremity of the model of this rock towards Europa Point, being too large for the room, and less important, is cut off. This description ought to fill a volume.”—Gentleman’s Magazine, 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.