Kitabı oku: «History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, Vol. 1», sayfa 3
The next in rotation in the best lists is
Sir Richard Southwell, Knight, shown by 'Kane's List' as appointed in February, 1554, and, by certain indentures and Ordnance accounts which are still extant, as being Master of the Ordnance, certainly in 1557 and 1558.
The next Master held the appointment for many years. He was
Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick, and can be proved from indentures in the possession of the late Craven Ord, Esq., which are probably still in existence, and from which extracts were made in 1820 by the compiler of a manuscript now in the Royal Artillery Library, to have been appointed on the 19th February, 1559, and to have held the office until 21st February, 1589, over thirty years.
Possibly owing to the difficulty of finding any one ready to undertake the duties of one who had had so much experience – a difficulty which occurred more than once again – the office was placed in commission after 1589, probably until 1596. From 'Burghleigh's State Papers' we learn that the Commissioners were, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord High Admiral, the Lord Chamberlain, and Vice-Chamberlain Sir J. Fortescue.
On 19th March, 1596, Robert, Earl of Essex, was appointed Master of the Ordnance, and held the appointment until removed by Elizabeth, in 1600. No record of a successor occurs until the 10th September, 1603, when
Charles, Earl of Devonshire, was appointed. He died in 1606, and was succeeded by
Lord Carew, appointed Master-General throughout England, for life, in 1608. He was created Earl of Totnes in 1625, and died in 1629. From a number of Ordnance warrants and letters still extant, there can be no doubt that he held the office until his death. For a year after, until 5th March, 1630, we learn, from the Harleian Manuscripts, that there was no Master-General. On that date
Howard Lord Vere was appointed, and held office until the 2nd September, 1634, when
Mountjoy, Earl of Newport, was appointed.
Then came the troubles in England – the Revolution, the Commonwealth, and at last the Restoration. Lord Newport seems to have remained Master-General the whole time; for on Charles II. coming to the throne, he issued directions specifying, "Forasmuch as the Earl of Newport may, by Letters Patent from our Royal Father, pretend to the office of our Ordnance, We, for weighty reasons, think fit to suspend him from said charge, or anything belonging thereto; and Our Will is that you prepare the usual Bill for his suspension."
On the 22nd January, 1660, a most able Master-General was appointed, whose place the King afterwards found it most difficult to fill. He was
Sir William Compton, Knight, and he remained in office until his death. By letters patent, on the 21st October, 1664, specifying that he had not determined with himself to supply the place of office of his Master of the Ordnance, then void by the death of Sir William Compton, and considering the importance of his affairs at that time to have that service well provided for, the King appointed as Commissioners to execute the office of Master of the Ordnance
John, Lord Berkly of Stratton, }
Sir John Duncombe, Knight, and }
Thomas Chicheley. }
This Commission lasted until the 4th June, 1670, when the last-named Commissioner (now Sir Thomas Chicheley, Knight), was appointed Master of the Ordnance, and in the warrant for his appointment, which is now in the Tower Library, there is a recapitulation of the names of previous Masters, which includes one – placed between Sir Richard Southwell and the Earl of Essex – which does not appear in any other list, but which one would gladly see included —
Sir Philip Sidney.
After the death of Sir Thomas Chicheley, the office was again placed in Commission, the incumbents being
Sir John Chicheley, son of the late Master,
Sir William Hickman, and
Sir Christopher Musgrave, the last-named of whom afterwards became Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance. This Commission lasted from 1679 to 8th January, 1682, when the celebrated
"George, Lord Dartmouth," became Master, having held the office of Lieutenant-General under the Commission from 1st July, 1679, as plain Colonel George Legge. He remained in office until after the Revolution of 1688, when he forfeited it for his adherence to the King. His successor, appointed by William III. in 1689, and afterwards killed at the Battle of the Boyne, rejoiced in the following sounding titles:
Frederick, Duke de Schomberg, Marquis of Harwich, Earl of Brentford, Baron of Teys, General of their Majesties' Forces, Master-General of their Majesties' Ordnance, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Count of the Holy Roman Empire, Grandee of Portugal, General of the Duke of Brandenburg's forces, and Stadtholder of Prussia.
After his death, the Master-Generalship remained vacant until July, 1693, when it was conferred upon
Henry, Viscount Sidney, afterwards Earl of Romney, who held it until 1702. He was succeeded, almost immediately on Queen Anne's accession, by her favourite, the great
John, Earl of Marlborough, who held the appointment until he fell into disgrace with the Queen, when he resigned it, with his other appointments, on 30th December, 1711. He was succeeded by
Richard, Earl Rivers, who, after six months, was followed, on 29th August, 1712, according to the British Chronologist, or on the 1st July, 1712, according to Kane's List, by
James, Duke of Hamilton, who was killed in a duel in November of the same year.
For two years the appointment remained vacant, but in 1714 it was again conferred upon
John, now Duke of Marlborough, who held it until his death, in 1722. He was succeeded, as follows, by
William, Earl of Cadogan, on 22nd June, 1722, and by
John, Duke of Argyle and Greenwich, on 3rd June 1725.
At this period there is an unaccountable confusion among the various authorities. The 'British Chronologist' and the 'Biographia Britannica' make the list run as follows: – The Duke of Argyle and Greenwich was succeeded, in 1740, by John, Duke of Montague, and resumed office again, for three weeks, in 1742, when, for the last time, he resigned all his appointments, being again succeeded by the same Duke of Montague, who continued to hold the office until 1749, when he died.
'Grose's List,' on the other hand, makes the Duke of Argyle's tenure of office expire in 1730, instead of 1740, and makes no allusion to his brief resumption of the appointment in 1742, and 'Kane's List' has followed this. It is possible that for the brief period that he was in office the second time, no letters patent were issued for his appointment, which would account for its omission in most lists; but the difference of ten years in the duration of the first appointment is more difficult to account for. There is no doubt that, in 1740, the Duke of Argyle resigned all his appointments for the first time, but it is not stated whether the Master-Generalship was one, although it has been assumed. On the other hand, he might have been away during these ten years to a great extent, or allowed his officers of the Ordnance to sign warrants, thus giving an impression to the casual student that he no longer held office. The manuscript in the Royal Artillery Library, already referred to, bears marks of such careful research, that one is disposed to adopt its reading of the difficulty, which is different from that taken by Grose's and Kane's Lists, and agrees with the other works mentioned above.
After the death of the Duke of Montague, the office remained vacant until the end of 1755, when it was conferred upon
Charles, Duke of Marlborough, who held it until his death, on 20th October, 1758.
During the vacancy immediately preceding the appointment of the last-named Master-General, Sir J. Ligonier had been appointed Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance, and for four years had performed the duties of both appointments, – acted as Colonel of the Royal Artillery, and Captain of the Cadet Company. A few months after the death of the Duke of Marlborough – namely, on the 3rd July, 1759 – he was appointed Master-General, being by this time
Field-Marshal Viscount Ligonier. He was succeeded, on the 14th May, 1763, by
John, Marquis Granby, who held it until 17th January, 1770, when we find that he resigned all his appointments, except the command of the Blues. For nearly two years the office remained vacant, and on the 1st October, 1772, it was conferred upon
George, Viscount Townshend, whose tenure of office extended over nearly the whole of that anxious period in the history of England which included such episodes as the American War of Independence and the great Siege of Gibraltar. The sequence of the remaining Masters may be taken from Kane's List, and is as follows: —
On the abolition of the Board of Ordnance, the command of the Royal Artillery was given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces at that time,
Field-Marshal Viscount Hardinge, G.C.B. His successor (appointed Colonel of the Royal Artillery on the 10th May, 1861, and at this date holding that office) was
H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge, K.G., &c. &c., now Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.
CHAPTER II.
The Infancy of Artillery in England
The term Ordnance was in use in England before cannon were employed; and it included every description of warlike weapon. The artificers employed in the various permanent military duties were called officers of the Ordnance.
The first record of cannon having been used in the field dates from Henry III.; and with the increasing skill of the founders the use of cannon speedily became more general. But the moral influence of the guns was far beyond their deserts. They were served in the rudest way, and their movements in the field and in garrison were most uncertain, yet they were regarded with superstitious awe, and received special names, such as "John Evangelist," the "Red Gun," the "Seven Sisters," "Mons Meg," &c. In proportion to the awe which they inspired was the inadequate moral effect produced on an army by the loss of its artillery, or by the capture of its enemy's guns.
In the earliest days cannon were made of the rudest materials, – of wood, leather, iron bars, and hoops; but as time went on guns of superior construction were imported from France and Holland. The first mention of the casting in England of "great brass cannon and culverins" is in the year 1521, when one John Owen began to make them, "the first Englishman that ever made that kind of Artillery in England." The first iron guns cast in this country were made by three foreigners at Buckstead in Sussex, in the year 1543. In this same year, the first shells were cast, for mortars of eleven inches calibre, described as "certain hollow shot of cast iron, to be stuffed with fireworks, whereof the bigger sort had screws of iron to receive a match, and carry fire to break in small pieces the same hollow shot, whereof the smallest piece hitting a man would kill or spoil him." The following table2 gives the names, weights, and charges of the guns which were in general use in the year 1574. There were, in addition to these, guns called Curtals or Curtaux, Demicurtaux, and Bombards: —
Among the earliest occasions recorded of the use of Artillery by the English, were the campaigns in Scotland of Edward II. and Edward III.; the capture of Berwick by the latter monarch in 1333; his campaigns in Flanders and France in 1338-39-40; his siege of Vannes in 1343; his successful raid in Normandy in 1346; the battle of Cressy on the 26th August in that year, when the fire of his few pieces of cannon is said to have struck a panic into the enemy; the expedition to Ireland in 1398; Henry IV.'s defeat of the French in Wales, in 1400; another successful siege of Berwick in 1405; the capture of Harfleur in 1415; and the battle of Agincourt on the 25th October of that year; the sieges of Tongue and Caen in 1417; of Falaise and other towns in Normandy in 1418; concluding with the capitulation of Cherbourg and Rouen after protracted sieges, stone projectiles being thrown from the cannon with great success; the engagements between Edward IV. and Warwick, when Artillery was used on both sides; the expedition to France in 1474, and to Scotland in 1482, when yet another successful siege of Berwick took place, successful mainly owing to the Artillery employed by the besieging force; the capture of Sluis, in Flanders; and the attack on Calais and Boulogne in 1491. In the sixteenth century may be enumerated the expedition to Flanders in 1511, in aid of the Duchess of Savoy; the Siege of Térouenne and Battle of the Spurs in 1513; the Siege of Tournay; the Battle of Flodden Field, where the superior accuracy of the English Artillery rendered that of the Scotch useless; the descent on the coast of France and capture of Morlies in 1523; the Siege of Bray and Montedier in 1524; the siege of Boulogne in 1544; the expedition to Cadiz under the Earl of Essex in 1596, and that to the Azores in 1597. In the next century, daring the Civil War, and in all Cromwell's expeditions, the use of Artillery was universal; and the part of the century after the Restoration will be alluded to in a subsequent chapter.
The use, therefore, of Artillery by the English has existed for centuries; but, – regarding it with modern eyes, its application would better deserve the term abuse. Nothing strikes the student so much as the absence of the scientific Artillery element in the early trains; and this feeling is followed by one of wonder at the patience with which our military leaders tolerated the almost total want of mobility which characterized them. Not until the last decade of the eighteenth century was the necessity of mobility officially recognized, by the establishment of the Royal Horse Artillery; and it took half a century more to impress upon our authorities that a Field Battery might not unreasonably be expected to move occasionally faster than a walk.
It is difficult, in reviewing such a period as the last fifteen years have been in the history of Artillery in England – so full of improvements in every way – to single out any one of these as more worthy of mention than the rest; but when posterity comes to review it dispassionately, the improvement in equipment and mobility of our Field Artillery will most probably be considered the prominent feature of the time. And these are the very qualities which for centuries remained in England unimproved and stagnant. The eighteenth century saw Artillery conducted by drivers, not under military discipline, nor marked by distinctive costume; who not unfrequently fled with their horses during the action, leaving the gunners helpless, and the guns at the mercy of the enemy. In this year, 1872, our drivers go into action unarmed, it being considered that the possession of defensive weapons might distract their attention from their horses. But we do not commit the old error of using men not under martial law. A driver who, on an emergency, finds himself with his whip merely to defend him, may possibly feel aggrieved: but however far he may run away, he cannot escape the embrace of the Mutiny Act, and is as liable to punishment as the man who deserts before the enemy, after his country has sent him into the field armed from head to foot.
In the very earliest days of Artillery in England, the number of gunners borne on permanent pay on the books of the Ordnance bore a very small proportion to the artificers so borne. With the increasing use of cannon, an increase in the number of artillerymen took place, but by no means pari passu: and, as towns in England became gradually fortified, a small number of gunners in each was found to be necessary to protect and take care of the stores, and to fire the guns on high days and holidays. In 1344, although no fewer than 321 artificers and engineers were borne on the books of the Ordnance in time of peace, only twelve gunners and seven armourers appear. In 1415, at the Siege of Harfleur, there were present 120 miners, 130 carpenters, and 120 masons; but only 25 master, and 50 servitor gunners – the latter corresponding probably to the matrosses of a later date. At the Siege of Tongue, in 1417, no less than 1000 masons, carpenters, and labourers were present, but only a small number of gunners. At this time, the driving of the guns, the placing them in position, and shipping and unshipping them, devolved on the civil labourers of the trains, and there was a military guard to escort the guns on the march. The gunner's duty seems to have been a general supervision of gun and stores, and the laying and firing it when in action. He was the captain of the gun in war – its custodian in peace. After the fifteenth century there was a marked increase in the number of artillerymen in the trains, although still totally inadequate. For example, in the train ordered on service in France, in 1544, where the civil element was represented by 157 artificers, 100 pioneers, and 20 carters, there were no less than 2 master-gunners, 264 gunners, and a special detachment of 15 gunners, for the guns placed immediately round the King's tent. The principal officers of the Ordnance also accompanied the expedition.
There was a distinction between the gunners of garrisons and those of the trains, as regarded the source of their pay, or rather its channel. At first, both were paid from the Exchequer; but after the proper establishment of an Ordnance Department at the Tower, the gunners of the various trains were paid by it, the others receiving their salaries as before. The company of fee'd gunners at the Tower of London differed from the gunners of other garrisons in receiving their pay from the Ordnance directly. It must not be imagined, however, that the gunners of garrisons were beyond the control of the Board of Ordnance because their pay was not drawn on the Ordnance books. Not merely had the Master of the Ordnance the nomination of the gunners of garrisons, but the power also of weeding out the useless and superannuated. The instance given in the Introductory Chapter of this volume, shows how directly they were under the Board in matters of discipline; and although, as a matter of Treasury detail, their pay was drawn in a different department, a word from the Ordnance Office could stop its issue to any gunner in any garrison who was deemed by the Board to have forfeited his right to it in any way. It was not until 1771, long after the formation of the Royal Artillery, that these garrison gunners were incorporated into the invalid companies of the regiment; and at the present date they are represented by what is called the Coast Brigade of Artillery. The pay of the old gunners of garrisons depended on the fort in which they resided. Berwick, for example, as an important station, was also one in which the gunner's pay was higher. In the reign of Edward VI. we find the average pay of a master-gunner was 1s. a-day, and of the gunners, from 4d. to 1s. Later, the pay of the master-gunner was raised to 2s. a-day, and that of the gunners rarely fell below 1s. In time of war, the pay of the gunners of the trains far exceeded the above rates. The senior master-gunner was styled the Master-Gunner of England. From 2s. a-day, which was the pay of this official in the sixteenth century, it rose to 160l. per annum, and ultimately to 190l. His residence and duties lay originally in the Tower, and chiefly among the fee'd gunners at that station; but after Woolwich had attained its speciality for Artillery details, quarters were allotted to him there in the Manor House. Among the oldest Master-Gunners of England whose names are recorded may be enumerated Christopher Gould, Richard Webb, Anthony Feurutter3 or Fourutter,4 Stephen Bull, William Bull, William Hammond, John Reynold, and John Wornn – all of whom held their appointments in the sixteenth century, and the majority of them by letters patent from Elizabeth. From the fact that in the wording of their appointments two of the above are particularized as soldiers by profession, it would appear that the others were not so; and it is more probable that they were chosen for their knowledge of laboratory duties, and of the "making of pleasaunt and warlike fireworks."
The company of fee'd gunners at the Tower, which might be supposed to have had some military organization, really appears to have had little or none. Their number in Edward VI.'s reign was 58, with a master-gunner; but gradually it was increased to 100, which for many years was the normal establishment. They were supposed to parade twice a week, and learn the science of gunnery, under the Master-Gunner of England; but their attendance was so irregular, and their ignorance of their profession so deplorable, that a strong measure had to be adopted, to which allusion will be made in a later chapter. Colonel Miller, in his researches among the warrants appointing the gunners, found some venerable recruits – who can hardly have been of much value in the field – of ages varying from sixty-four to ninety-two. There is no doubt that these appointments were frequently sold, or given in return for personal or political services, without any regard to the capability of the recipient. The clerks at the Ordnance Office had their fees for preparing these men's warrants, whose wording of the duties expected of the nominee must have frequently read like a grotesque satire. The situations were desirable because they did not interfere with the holders continuing to work at their trades near the Tower; and if the gunners were ordered to Woolwich for the purpose of mounting guns, or shipping and unshipping stores, they received working pay in addition to their regular salaries. It was from their ranks that the vacancies among master-gunners and gunners of garrisons were almost invariably filled.
When a warlike expedition had been decided upon, the Master of the Ordnance was informed what size of a train of Artillery was required; but he was permitted to increase or decrease its internal proportions as he thought fit. To him also was left the appointment of all the officers and attendants of the train; and, with the exception of any belonging to the small permanent establishment, it was understood that the services of any so appointed were only required while the expedition lasted. This spasmodic method of organizing the Artillery forces of this country was sufficient to account for the want of progress in the science of gunnery, and the equipments of our trains, which is apparent until we reach the commencement of the eighteenth century. But it took centuries of stagnation, and of bitter and shameful experience, to teach the lesson that Artillery is a science which requires incessant study, that such study cannot be expected unless from men who can regard their profession as a permanent one, and the study as a means to an end; and that, even admitting the possibility of such study being carried on by men in the hope of occasional employment, it would be too theoretical, unless means of practice and testing were afforded, beyond the power of a private individual to obtain. Nor could habits of discipline be generated by occasional military expeditions, which, to an untrained man, are more likely to bring demoralization; it is during peace-service that the discipline is learnt which is to steady a man in the excitement and hardships of war.
As samples of the trains of Artillery before the Restoration, the following, of various dates, may be taken: and an examination of the constituent parts will well repay the reader.
The first is a train in the year 1544, already alluded to, and which was commanded by the Master of the Ordnance himself, Sir Thomas Seymour.
1. Train of Artillery ordered on Service in 1544.
John Rogers, of the privy ordnance and weapons.
15 Gunners appointed to the brass pieces about the King's tent.
55 Gunners appointed to the shrympes, with two cases each.
4 carpenters.
4 wheelers.
3 armourers.
Charles Walman, an officer employed to choose the gunpowder.
N.B.– The pioneers received 2s. a piece transport money from Boulogne to Dover, and conduct money from Dover to their dwelling-places – 4d. a mile for the captain, and ½ d. for every pioneer.
Harl. MS. 5753.
2. Establishment of a Small Train of Artillery in 1548.
3. Establishment of a Train of Artillery in the year 1618.
4. Establishment of a Train of 22 pieces of Ordnance in the year 1620.
5. Establishment of a Train of 30 pieces in the year 1639.
It will be seen that in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, the Artillery element is alone given. Nor are the proportions of the trains, and their constituent parts, such as to enable us to draw any fixed law from them. They are merely interesting – not very instructive. Table 1, on the other hand, is both interesting and instructive. The appearance of medical officers in the train of 1618, and of matrosses – a species of assistant-gunner – in that of 1639, will not have escaped the reader's notice.
In the next chapter we shall find that the presence of a man like Lord Dartmouth, and his predecessor, Sir William Compton, at the Ordnance, reveals itself in the greater method visible in the Artillery arrangements; and with the introduction of Continental artillerists, under William III., comes a greater experience of the value of Artillery, which nearly brought about, in 1698, that permanent establishment which was delayed by circumstances until 1716.
