THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE BRITISH ARMY IN THEAMERICAN REVOLUTION CHAPTER
I1 THE
BRITISH ARMY AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE REVOLUTION: A GENERAL SURVEY Ever
Since the American Revolution became a subject of investigation, no
little attention has been paid to the Continental army. The British
army on the other hand has received but passing notice. Writers have
frequently assumed that it was a smooth-running fighting machine
which failed because badly directed. The impression has been created
that it wanted in nothing save success. We are asked to picture
Washington's men as ragged and half-starved while Howe's are to be
imagined as warmly clothed and well-fed. In fact the well-equipped
forces of the crown, in scarlet coats and gold braid, have
traditionally been used as a foil to set off the wants and sufferings
of the tattered Continentals. To test the accuracy of this view and
also to shed light upon the methods employed by the British
government in recruiting, transporting, and subsisting its army in
America is the purpose of the present study. At
the outbreak of the Revolution, the total land forces of Great
Britain exclusive of militia numbered on paper 48,647 men, of which
39,294 were infantry; 6,869 cavalry; and 2,484 artillery. These
troops were unequally divided between two separate military
establishments - the English establishment and the Irish
establishment. The Scottish establishment had been abolished in 1707.
The English establishment comprised 25,871 infantry organized into 46
regiments and 20 independent companies; 4,151 cavalry organized into
16 regiments; and 2,256 artillerymen organized into one regiment of 4
battalions. Of the aforesaid infantry one regiment of 482 men (the
41st) and the 20 independent companies of 1,040 were largely
non-effective, being composed of "invalids"2 doing garrison duty in Great Britain and
the Scilly Islands.3 The
Irish establishment consisted of 13,423 infantry divided into 28
regiments; 2,718 cavalry divided into 12 regiments; and 228
artillerymen embodied into one regiment of four companies. Such
were the numbers of the British army in 1775 and such they had
approximately been ever since the close of the Seven Years' War. An
examination of the location of the British army in 1775 reveals the
fact that while small detachments of it were to be found in many
distant quarters of the globe, the bulk of it was distributed
unequally among three different countries. There were roughly
speaking 15,000 men in England, 12,000 in Ireland, and 8,000 in
America. The remaining 10,000 were distributed among the West Indies,
Africa, Minorca, Gibraltar, and Scotland. The following table
indicates the situation in detail: England,
19 Regs. Infy. 11,396 Scotland,
1 Reg. Infy. 474 Isle
of Man, 3 Cos. Infy. 142 Ireland,
21 Regs. Infy. 9,815 Minorca,
5 Regs. Infy. 2,385 Gibraltar,
7 Regs. Infy. 3,339 West
Indies, 3 Regs. Infy. 1,909 America,
18 Regs. Infy. 8,580 Africa,
1 Corps Infy. 214 Total
of Infy. 38,254 Total
overall 45,1234 The
regiments of the British army were of two kinds - household regiments
and regiments of the line. The former included three regiments of
Foot Guards (the 1st or Grenadier Guards, the 2d or Coldstream, the
3d or Scots Guards) and three regiments of Horse Guards. These were
the oldest corps in the army and constituted a body of picked men.
Ordinarily they were stationed at London and Westminster as a
bodyguard to the king. During the American Revolution, a "brigade of
Guards," formed by selecting fifteen men from each of the sixty-four
companies of household infantry, served in America.5 The
regiments of the line were simply the ordinary regiments of the army.
The infantry were numbered from 1 to 70; the cavalry, from 1 to 18;
although some of the regiments had names as well as numbers. The
whole matter is set forth in detail in the appendix to this
chapter. The
average strength of an infantry regiment on the English Establishment
was 477 and on the Irish 474 men. The ordinary regiment consisted of
one battalion organized into 10 companies.6 The strength of a company varied. In a
regiment of 477 men it consisted of 38 privates. Of the 10 companies
in each regiment, one consisted of grenadiers and another of light
infantry. When introduced into the army in 1677, the function of the
grenadiers had been to hurl hand-grenades among the enemy's ranks at
close quarters. The size and weight of these missiles demanded that
the throwers should be tall of stature and muscular of build. By 1775
the grenades had disappeared, but the grenadiers still remained,
representing in height and strength the flower of each regiment.
Light infantry had been introduced, largely through the exertions of
Sir William Howe, shortly before the American Revolution, to provide
each regiment with a corps of skirmishers. Good marksmen of light
build and active temperament were required for the service.7 Thus the grenadiers and light infantry
had come to constitute the picked men of a regiment. During an
engagement they were usually placed in the flanks, and hence were
known as the "flank companies." In an army it was customary to form
them into one or two special battalions in order to make their united
strength available for work requiring the highest courage and skill.
For example, it was the flank companies of the garrison of Boston
that Gage dispatched to Lexington and Concord on that memorable April
night in 1775. At the battle of Bunker Hill, the grenadiers flanked
the British line on the left and the light companies, on the right.
When Howe landed at Staten Island in 1776, he organized the
grenadiers into a reserve and grouped the light infantry into three
battalions. During Burgoyne's expedition, 1777, the grenadier and
light infantry companies were formed into an "Advanced Corps" under
General Frazer. At Freeman's Farm, 7 October, 1777, the grenadiers
and light infantry were disposed on the flanks of the British line.
Lord Rawdon set out for the relief of Ninety-Six in June, 1781, with
six flank companies of the 3d, 19th, and 30th Foot. Many other
illustrations of this sort might be given.8 The
internal organization of an infantry regiment of 477 men may be
exemplified by the 23d or Royal Welsh Fusileers, a corps which saw
much service in America. Field
and Staff Officers Colonel,
Lieutenant Colonel, Chaplain, Adjutant, Surgeon and Mate. One
Company Captain,
2 Lieutenants, 2 Sergeants, 3 Corporals, 1 Drummer, 38 Private Men.
Seven companies more of the like numbers. One
Company of Grenadiers Captain,
2 Lieutenants, 2 Sergeants, 3 Corporals, 1 Drummer, 2 Fifers, 38
Private Men. One
Company of Light Infantry Captain,
2 Lieutenants, 2 Sergeants, 3 Corporals, 1 Drummer, 38 Private
Men. Throughout
the war the strength of the cavalry regiments was less uniform than
that of the infantry. The majority numbered 231 men. They were
ordinarily divided into 6 troops each. The internal organization may
be illustrated by the 17th Dragoons, the first corps of horse sent to
America during the war. In April, 1775, its strength was increased to
288 sabres, and it was organized as follows: Colonel,
Lieutenant Colonel, Major, Chaplain, Adjutant, Surgeon. One
Troop Captain,
Lieutenant, Cornet, Quarter Master, Sergeants, 2 Corporals, 1
Hautbois, 37 Private Men. Five troops more of the like numbers. At
the outbreak of the war, the artillery was grouped into 1 regiment or
4 battalions, each battalion consisting of 8 companies. A single
battalion was organized as follows: One
Company 1
Captain, 1 Captain Lieutenant, 2 First Lieutenants, 2 Second
Lieutenants, 4 Sergeants, 4 Corporals, 9 Bombardiers, 18 Gunners, 73
Matrosses, 2 Drummers. Total 116. Seven
more companies of the same numbers.11 While
the gunners and matrosses were enlisted men, the drivers in the
artillery were hired civilians.12 "As late as 1798 field guns appearing at
a Woolwich review were drawn by horses in single file and driven by
ploughmen on foot wearing smock frocks and armed with long
whips."13
When the army was campaigning in foreign parts, horses, wagons, and
drivers were obtained from the peasantry sometimes by hire and
sometimes by impressment. After the battle of Long Island, Howe
bought a hundred horses from loyalist farmers for the artillery and
hired eighty two-horse wagons with drivers for the carrying of
ammunition and stores.14
While tumbrils were usually drawn by three horses, the number of
horses allotted to each gun varied with the size of the piece. In
Burgoyne's army, 1777, a 6-pounder fieldpiece was drawn by four
horses, a 3-pounder by three horses, a "royal howitzer" by three
horses.15
Both Howe and Burgoyne were supplied with 3-pounders mounted on light
carriages, known as Congreve carriages, which made it possible to
carry them on the backs of horses or mules in difficult country.16
It was customary to allot two guns to each regiment of foot and these
were known as "battalion guns."17 The practice was criticized by some
officers because it prevented concentration of artillery fire.
Burgoyne seems to have abandoned it, marshaling his field guns into
three "brigades" or batteries, each of which comprised four
6-pounders. One of these "brigades" was assigned to the left, another
to the centre, and a third to the right. In addition, Burgoyne took
with him a park of heavy guns, howitzers, mortars, 12- and
24-pounders, to reduce earthworks and blockhouses erected by the
Americans and to clear away abattis.18 The
military music which stirred the heart and quickened the step of the
British redcoat was for the most part of a simple sort. Each regiment
of foot had a few fifers and drummers and each regiment of horse a
few trumpeters. Each regiment of the Guards enjoyed in addition a
band of eight pieces, two oboes, two clarinets, two horns, two
bassoons. The musicians, who are said to have been excellent
performers, were civilians, hired at good pay by the month. Their
chief duty was to play "from the parade on the Horse Guards to St.
James's Palace, while the Kings guard was mounted, and back to the
Horse Guards." The Royal Artillery Regiment also had a band composed
of a master musician and eight other musicians, two trumpets, two
French horns, two bassoons, and four clarinets or hautbois, ten
instruments being provided for eight men. The players were ranked as
matrosses and were under the Articles of War. These were apparently
the only corps enjoying bands.19 The
infantry, cavalry, and artillery constituted the three most important
branches of the army. There were in addition to these a company of
military artificers (the ancestors of the Royal Sappers and Miners)
and a small but efficient corps of engineers. The former saw no
service in America but several officers of the latter did excellent
work abroad.20 Captain John Montrésor and
Lieutenant Page were present at Bunker Hill, where Page was wounded.
Montrésor and Lieutenants Kesterman and Fyers participated in
Howe's New York campaign of 1776. Lieutenant Twiss rendered capable
service under Burgoyne in 1777. It was he who pointed out the fact
that Sugar Hill overlooked the American works at Ticonderoga and
urged its occupation, thus forcing the rebels to evacuate a strong
position. Major Moncrieff won high praise for his share in the
defence of Savannah in 1779 and his conduct of the siege of
Charleston in 1780. Sir Henry Clinton in his dispatch of 13 May,
1780, to Germain said: "But to Maj. Moncrieff, the commanding
Engineer, who planned and with the assistance of such capable
officers under him, conducted the siege with so much judgment,
intrepidity, and laborious attention, I wish to render a tribute of
the highest applause and most permanent gratitude, persuaded that far
more flattering commendations than I can bestow will not fail to
crown such rare merit."21
Of Lieutenant Sutherland, who was chief engineer at Gloucester,
Cornwallis wrote at the conclusion of the Yorktown campaign,
"Lieutenant Sutherland the commanding Engineer...merited in every
respect my highest approbation."22 The
supply and transport services were still in a crude and embryonic
state. Mention is made in the Army List of a Commissary General and a
Waggon Master General for the forces at home and abroad, but the
nature of their duties and the scope of their authority are
uncertain. The one, however, was the parent of the Commissariat
Department and the other of the Transport Service, both of Which were
later combined into the Army Service Corps.23 No
medical corps in the modern sense of the word existed. Ever since the
time of Charles II, there had been a Physician General and a Surgeon
General, and since 1758, Inspectors of hospitals; but little is known
regarding their functions. According to the regulations, a surgeon
and mate were attached to each regiment of foot. They were, however,
essentially regimental officers. Although holding their commissions
of the king, they were really appointed by the colonel, whose
servants they had originally been. Sometimes the offices of captain
and surgeon would be combined in one person. Many of the medical
officers were Scotsmen, doubtlessly owing to the excellent facilities
afforded for the study of medicine at Glasgow and Edinburgh in the
eighteenth century. In many instances their professional knowledge
must have been slight. The surgeons were not required to hold a
medical diploma or degree, nor the mates to pass a medical
examination. Sergeant Lamb, the author of the Journal of the
American War, acted as assistant surgeon to the 9th
and 23d regiments in America, although he had received no medical
education whatsoever. Nurses were sometimes obtained among the women
who followed the army, for it is a curious fact that the government
permitted the common soldiers dispatched to America to take their
"wives" with them and even rationed them from the public stores.24 The medical service, in short, was
largely extemporaneous, and the feeling seems to have been that it
was cheaper "to levy a recruit than to cure a soldier." Army
doctors labored under many other disadvantages besides ignorance and
inexpert assistance. They were poorly paid. In 1775 the stipend of a
surgeon's mate in the 60th Foot amounted to 3s. 6d. a day. Although
given a certain allowance for medicines they had to provide their own
surgical outfits; were not allowed uniforms; and occupied an inferior
social status among the other commissioned officers. In the matter of
medicines, they were governed to a large extent by a warrant issued
in 1747 whereby a certain individual had been appointed Apothecary
General with the monopoly for himself and his heirs of providing
drugs for the army.25 If
the physical welfare of the soldier was ill-cared for, his spiritual
welfare was practically neglected. While there are occasional
references to church parades in British orderly books of the
Revolutionary period, there is little else to indicate that
commanding officers took more than passing interest in the religious
life of the men. There was no Chaplain's Department or Chaplain
General. The regulations called for a chaplain of the Church of
England for each regiment, but this was often treated as a dead
letter. Like the surgeons, the chaplains were essentially regimental
officers, holding commissions of the king but being nominated by the
colonel. In some cases the latter pocketed their pay and dispensed
with their services; in other cases they themselves drew their pay
but consigned the performance of their duties to deputies. For
example, the chaplains on the roster of the Royal Regiment of
Artillery clubbed together and hired a curate to perform their joint
duties at Woolwich while they continued to enjoy fat livings
elsewhere in rural parishes. Their attendance was rarely required. In
1785 they were directed to appear at headquarters since the king
intended to review the regiment. One of them begged to be excused on
the ground that he was eighty-six years of age.26
Scant mention is made of chaplains in connection with the forces in
America. Their number was probably small. Carleton complains to
Barrington in November, 1777: "Not any of the Chaplains of the
regiments serving in this Army are Come over, and had it not been
that the Reverend Mr. Brudenell accompanied General Phillips to this
country, and an other Gentleman who came over as deputy there would
have been no person to officiate in so considerable a body of
Troops."27 Reverend Mr. Brudenell was in fact the
only chaplain to attain prominence during the war. He accompanied
Burgoyne's expedition in 1777, and we have from the pen of that
general a Napieresque picture of him at the burial of General Fraser
after the battle of Freeman's Farm (7 October, 1777): "The incessant
cannonade during the solemnities, the steady attitude and unaltered
voice with which the chaplain officiated, though frequently covered
with dust which the shot threw up on all sides of him, the mute but
expressive mixture of sensibility and indignation upon every
countenance, these objects will remain to the last of life upon the
mind of every man who was present."28 Mr.
Brudenell was doubtless an exception to the ordinary run of his
profession. The majority of chaplains had but a poor reputation, and
were typical of an age of spiritual torpor. The only divine who took
active and effective interest in the religious life of the army was
John Wesley. He sought the soldiers in their camps and barracks and
won many followers. Old-fashioned colonels refused to allow their men
to attend church or chapel, preferring to keep them in quarters of a
Sunday, on the ground that instead of going to worship they would
resort to alehouses and get drunk. Religious feeling in the army was
indeed at a low ebb. Dean Swift declared some years prior to the
American Revolution that he had been told by prominent officers that
"in the whole compass of their acquaintance they could not recollect
three of their profession who seemed to regard or believe one
syllable of the gospels." It was observed abroad, according to the
dean, that no race of mortals had so little sense of religion as the
English soldiers. On the other hand, Sergeant Lamb, speaking from
long experience, declared that a large proportion of the soldiery
were not only moral but truly pious.29 The
uniform of the private soldier was ill adapted for comfort and speedy
movement. In the majority of regiments, it consisted of the familiar
red coat (whose voluminous folds were buttoned back to form lapels),
stock, waistcoat, smallclothes, gaiters reaching just above the knee,
and cocked hat.30
Ordinary regiments had facings of yellow; royal and household
regiments, of blue.31 Officers and men wore the hair
"clubbed"; that is, plaited and then turned up and tied with tape or
ribbon. In case the supply of hair on a man's head was insufficient,
he was obliged to eke it out with a switch. Over his left shoulder
the foot soldier wore a broad belt supporting a cartouch box, while
another belt around his waist supported a bayonet and short sword. On
service the infantryman also carried a knapsack containing extra
clothing and brush and blackball, a blanket, a haversack with
provisions, a canteen, and a fifth share of the general equipage
belonging to his tent. These articles (estimating the provision to be
for four days)32 added to his accoutrements, arms, and
sixty rounds of ammunition made, according to Burgoyne, a bulk
totally incompatible with combat and a weight of about sixty
pounds.33 The
dragoons were armed and clad very much like the foot, except that
they wore high boots and carried pistols and long swords. Being still
regarded as a species of mounted infantry, they also carried
firelocks and - in the case of heavy dragoons - bayonets."34 The
uniform of the artillery consisted of a blue coat, cocked hat, white
waistcoat, white breeches, and black spatterdashes. Sergeants
apparently carried halberds, but corporals, bombardiers, gunners, and
matrosses were armed with carbines and bayonets.35 Bandsmen were dressed in the color of
the regiment's facings.36 In
every branch of the service the uniforms of the officers were similar
to those of the men. They wore sashes of considerable length and
breadth, which might serve as a kind of "slung stretcher" for
carrying the owner off the field in case he were wounded. Perhaps
their scarlet hue was intended to conceal traces of blood. The most
striking feature of the officer's uniform was the gorget. Originally
this was a large steel plate designed to protect the throat, but with
the abandonment of medieval armor it had shrunk in size until at the
time of George III it was purely ornamental, being simply a small
plate - often of gold - hung about the neck in front and bearing the
regimental device.37 The
British regular fought the embattled farmers of America with the
"Brown Bess." This was a smoothbore flintlock musket with a priming
pan, three feet eight inches long in the barrel, and weighing
fourteen pounds. It had an effective range of three hundred yards,
but its accuracy was unreliable at a distance greater than one
hundred. A soldier who could hit his enemy at that interval must have
been a first-class marksman and have possessed a Brown Bess of
exceptionally good quality. At a distance of over one hundred yards,
the firing line during an engagement relied not so much upon the
shooting of each individual as upon the general effect of the volleys
it delivered. The bayonet, which weighed over a pound and was about
fourteen inches in length, did not increase shooting accuracy when
fixed to the muzzle of the gun. The missile used in the Brown Bess
was a round leaden bullet weighing about an ounce and made up with a
stout paper cartridge.38 In loading, the soldier first tore the
end off the cartridge with his teeth, then sprinkled a few grains of
powder from it into the priming pan, and finally rammed the ball and
cartridge down the muzzle of the barrel with an iron ramrod.39 Although twelve separate motions were
required in using the Brown Bess, it is said that a clever marksman
could load and fire five times a minute. The average soldier,
however, fired only two or three rounds a minute. With bayonets
fixed, only one round could be fired to much purpose; since the
bayonet made it difficult to ram down the charge. The men often put
in powder and ball without ramming, and the effect was, of course,
slight. Rapid firing was not considered by some officers as very
essential. "There is no -necessity," wrote Wolfe, "for firing very
fast; a cool well-levelled fire with the pieces carefully loaded is
more destructive and formidable than the quickest fire in
confusion."40
Burgoyne criticized his men for the impetuosity and consequent
uncertainty of their fire in the action of 19 September, 1777.41 Another
firearm in use was the fusil, which has been defined by one authority
as a musket of less than ordinary length and weight, and by another
as a light, rifled musket.42 It was supplied to light companies and
fusileer regiments. At
this period an improved rifle was just being brought to the attention
of the military authorities. Major Patrick Ferguson (of King's
Mountain fame), egged on by the boasted skill of the American
marksmen, had invented a breech-loader. The breech was opened by a
screw plug to allow admission of ball and cartridge; special
arrangements were made to prevent the fouling of the plug and the
accumulation of gas, and the piece was sighted for one hundred to
three hundred yards. In June, 1776, he gave a demonstration at
Woolwich before Lord Amherst, Viscount Townshend, General Harvey, and
several other prominent officers. He astonished the beholders.
"Notwithstanding a heavy rain and a high wind, he fired," according
to a contemporary, "...after the rate of four shots per minute at a
target two hundred yards distant. He next fired six shots in one
minute. He also fired (while advancing after the rate of four miles
per hour) four times in the minute. He then poured a bottle of water
into the pan and barrel of the piece when loaded, so as to wet every
grain of powder; and in less than half a minute, he fired with her,
as well as ever, without extracting the ball. Lastly, he hit the
bull's eye, lying on his back on the ground. Incredible as it may
seem to many, considering the variation of the wind, and wetness of
the weather, he only missed the target three times, during the whole
course of the experiment."43 Ferguson
took out a patent for his improvements, and was allowed to form a
corps of riflemen composed of volunteers from regiments serving in
America. While rifled flintlocks were not officially adopted by the
regular army until many years later, colonels are said to have
supplied them to one or two good shots in their regiments; and before
the close of the war, every battalion in America had organized a
rifle company for itself.44 Aside
from their clumsiness, the firearms of the period had one very
serious drawback: their efficiency was dependent upon the weather. A
high wind might blow the powder out of the pans. "If a man was
shooting towards the wind he had to take precautions against getting
his face scorched and his eyes injured by the back blown flare from
the touch-hole."45
A rainstorm might either wash the powder out of the pans or dampen it
so that it failed to ignite. If sufficiently heavy and prolonged, a
downpour of rain might soak through the cartouch boxes and turn every
cartridge into pulp. When Howe's army landed at the Elk River, 26
August, 1777, a heavy rain fell for thirty-six hours. The cartouch
boxes were wet through and the Guards alone lost 1,600 rounds of
ammunition.46 Thus fire effects were extremely
uncertain in wet weather. Not one shot in four might go off ; and if
the infantry were attacked by cavalry, their only reliance was the
bayonet. During the siege of Louisburg in 1745, the troops were
cautioned that since the air of Cape Breton was moist and foggy, they
must be especially careful to keep their firearms dry. Quaintly the
commander added that "the Light Infantry should fall upon some method
to secure their arms from the dews and droppings of the trees when
they are in search of the enemy." In the course of the Revolution,
more than one engagement was terminated by rain. In Pennsylvania,
during the autumn of 1777, for example, the 20th Foot came to close
quarters with some American troops; but, a violent wind and rainstorm
arising, the firelocks were rendered useless and the two forces
separated.47 Perhaps,
after all, it made little difference whether the weather was fair or
foul. Under any circumstances the marksmanship in most regiments was
poor. Scant mention is made of target practice, and the inference is
that there was little of it. It has been claimed that the soldiers
did not aim at anything in particular. This probably accounts for the
saying that it took a man's weight in bullets to kill him. An
American who was taken prisoner by the 42d Highlanders during the
assault on Fort Washington in 1776 relates: "Not less than ten guns
were discharged with their muzzles toward us, within forty or fifty
yards, and some were let off within twenty...I observed that they
took no aim, and the moment of presenting and firing was the same."
These conditions gave rise to the sharpshooter, a man who not merely
aimed his musket, but aimed it at something or somebody. During the
campaign of 1777, Burgoyne formed a body of sharpshooters by
selecting a group of sober, active, robust men from each
regiment.48 Officers trained in the school of
European warfare, however, were prone to place more reliance upon the
bayonet than upon the bullet.49 Burgoyne in particular urged his men to
use the bayonet: "Men of half [your] bodily strength and even
Cowards may be [your] match in firing; but the onset of
Bayonets in the hands of the Valiant is irresistible...It will be our
glory and preservation to storm where possible."50 After the first battle at Freeman Is
Farm (19 September, 1777), the same commander, while complimenting
the gallantry of his troops, lamented "the mistake they are still
under, in preferring [firing] to the Bayonotte
[sic]51 In
passing, it should be pointed out that the flints used by the British
soldier during the war were notoriously poor. Colonel Lindsay of the
46th lamented that the valor of his men was so often "rendered vain
by the badness of the pebble stone." He exclaimed indignantly against
the authorities for failing to supply every musket with the black
flint which every country gentleman in England carried in his fowling
piece. In this respect the rebels were acknowledged to be far better
off than the king's troops. A good American flint could be used to
fire sixty rounds without resharpening, which was just ten times the
amount of service that could be expected from those used by the
British forces. Among the rank and file of the redcoats, the saying
ran that a "Yankee flint was as good as a glass of grog."52 The
sword was not the weapon of the officers in all cases. Infantry
officers carried spontoons, or half-pikes, and sergeants bore
halberds. The latter were about seven feet in length and had a
crosspiece near the point to prevent overpenetration after a thrust.
The woody character of the country in America induced many of the
officers to discard these awkward medieval weapons and to replace
them by firelocks. Fusils were carried apparently by all officers of
the 7th and 23d (fusileer) regiments and by certain officers of the
grenadier and light companies of some other regiments."53 The
subject of pay is a difficult and confusing topic in the history of
the army.54
The pay of the private soldier at the time of the American Revolution
amounted to 8d. a day. Of this he got little in food and drink and
probably nothing in coin. His pay was divided into two parts, one
known as "subsistence," the other as "gross off-reckonings." The
first, amounting to 6d. a day or £9:2:6 a year, was
supposed to be applied to the cost of his food and was nominally
inviolable. In reality, however, several charges were made against it
for items that had nothing whatsoever to do with victuals. Thus, 6d.
a week was subtracted from it to pay for his shoes, stockings,
gaiters, medicines, shaving, and the repair of his arms; and 1d. a
week was retained as a fee by the regimental paymaster and divided
between him and the surgeon.55
From the other part of the soldier's pay, the "gross off-reckonings,"
amounting to 2d. a day or £3:0:10 a year, three deductions
were ordinarily made: first, the "poundage" or payment of 1s. in the
pound on the full pay to the paymaster general of the forces;56
second, the "hospital," or payment of one day's full pay (8d.) to
Chelsea Hospital; third, the "agency" or payment of 2d. in the pound
on the full pay to the regimental agent. The balance, known as the
"net off-reckonings," was applied to the cost of the soldier's
clothing.57 This
brief summary affords but a faint idea of the complicated and
cumbersome method of paying the troops. "The chaos of 'subsistence,'
'gross off-reckonings,' 'net off-reckonings,' 'stock purses,' and
'non-effective funds' in the financial departments of the military
service" writes Fortescue, "was simply indescribable. The computation
of 'off-reckonings' alone was a branch so extensive as to give title
to an official in the Pay Office; and if he were truly a master of
that most abstruse of sciences he must have been a very remarkable
man."58 A parliamentary commission appointed in
1780 to investigate the finances of the army is said to have
abandoned its task in despair.59 One
of the curiosities of regimental finance was the warrant men. These
were six fictitious personages on the rolls of practically every
regiment of foot. Their pay formed a fund to meet a variety of
expenses. The pay of two of the warrant men constituted an allowance
to the widows of regimental officers. The pay of the remaining four
constituted an allowance to the colonel for clothing lost by
deserters, an allowance to the captain for recruiting, and allowances
to the colonel and the agent for their own use. Moreover, each
company of foot had on its rolls several non-effectives called
contingent men, whose subsistence was paid to the captain to keep the
regimental arms in repair, and to defray other contingent
expenses.60 The
feeling in the army respecting pay was probably reflected in an
anonymous pamphlet published in London in the same year as the battle
of Bunker Hill.61
The author, an officer, stresses the fact that since the current rate
of pay was established, the prices of bread and butchers' meat had
increased to four times their previous cost. Common toilers in other
callings were far better remunerated than the soldiers. A tailor,
weaver, or mechanic could live on his wages more respectably than an
officer. As for the private in the ranks, after the usual deductions
had been made in his stipend, he had not enough left to subsist
himself healthfully or to enjoy any recreation costing a little
money. "From the eight pence per day which is issued for the pay of a
soldier, when all deductions are made, for clothing, for necessaries,
for washing, for the paymaster, for the surgeon, and for the
multiplied articles of useless and unmilitary fopperies, (introduced
by many colonels to the oppression of the soldier for what they call
the credit and appearance of the regiment) there is not sufficient
overplus for healthful subsistence; and as to the little enjoyments
and recreations, which even the meanest rank of men can call their
own in any country, the brave, the honorable, the veteran soldier,
must not aspire to." As
has been intimated, the system of buying and selling commissions was
still in vogue despite repeated attempts to suppress it.62
A commission in the cavalry was usually more expensive than one in
the infantry; and a commission in the household regiments, more
costly than one in the line regiments. In 1777, for example, a
company of foot sold at £2,200 while a troop of horses
brought 4,000 guineas. A lieutenant-colonelcy in the line cost
£4,500 while one in the household brigade cost
£4,800. It is not surprising that commissions in the
Guards sold at higher figures than those in the line. The household
troops were indeed a privileged body. Lieutenants of the Guards
ranked as captains in the rest of the army; and captains, as
lieutenant colonels. Officers of the Guards generally had "better
birth, more money, and greater opportunities for pushing" their
advancement than officers of the line. "High commands," as one writer
has aptly put it, "were regarded as plums for a guardsman's
consumption."63
In fact, an officer of the line had no chance of promotion to a
vacancy if there was a Guardsman anywhere in view. This came to be a
sore grievance. "The rise in the Guards," so a contemporary letter
runs, "is so rapid from the suppressions of the ranks of Lieutenant
and Major that officers of the Line have always the mortification to
find after long and painful service, a body of men who supersede them
in the profession, and claim most of the elevated posts in the army.
When the road seems smooth to a regiment, an inundation of captains
in the Guards, by dint of Court rank and etiquette of preceding,
defeat all the prospects of the actual soldier, and trample on a life
of dangers and fatigue."64 Statistics
seem to bear out the complaint voiced in this letter. "In 1769 out of
every twelve commissioned officers, one was a Guardsman; while out of
every three men commanding regiments, one had been a Guardsman."65 The
purchase system had an amusing side. Although royal authority had
forbidden it in 1711, custom still allowed infants to hold commands.
This was done in order to provide support for the orphans of
distinguished officers by securing to them the annual pay and
allowances of a commission. Mere boys were frequently taken out of
school, and placed in responsible regimental positions.66
One of Howe's regiments was commanded by a lieutenant colonel so
overcome with gout that he could barely walk. Another was nominally
commanded by a lunatic. In both cases this was due to the
impossibility of finding purchasers for the commissions, the gouty
colonel having waited for at least three years for someone to relieve
him.67 The
purchase system had a noteworthy effect upon the character of the
officers in the lower and higher grades of the army. It hampered men
of moderate means from climbing very high up the ladder of rank. As a
result most of the regimental officers - the lieutenants, captains,
and majors - came from the middle ranks of society, that is, from the
rural aristocracy in the country and the mercantile classes in the
cities. The higher officers - the major generals, lieutenant
generals, and generals - sprang as a rule from the nobility. Howe,
Gage, Burgoyne, Clinton, and Rawdon, for example, "belonged to
ancient ennobled families." These men were politicians as well as
soldiers, another fact which must also be considered in accounting
for their advancement. While commanding iN America, Howe, Clinton,
and Burgoyne had seats in the House of Commons. Burgoyne returned
home to attend parliament during the winter of 1775-1776. Cornwallis
was about to depart on the same errand in December, 1776, when the
mishap to the Hessians at Trenton detained him in America.68 Many
of the regimental officers were none the worse soldiers for the
purchase system. Realizing that their lack of wealth blocked the way
to high military advancement, they came to love their calling for
itself. Often forced to renounce marriage owing to the insufficiency
of their pay, they regarded "the regiment as their home," and grew
gray in uniform. To them the chief interest in life came to be the
efficiency and reputation of the battalion. Although perhaps a little
rusty on the literature of their own time, they were, many of them,
deep students of the older military literature, particularly the
classical. When taking up the pen to engage in any military
controversy, they signed themselves "Valerius," "Postumius," or
"Cincinnatus, " and illustrated their views by examples drawn from
ancient warfare.69 Off parade they treated the subalterns
as their peers and allowed nothing to interfere with the equality
which they deemed should "exist between one gentleman and another."
Burgoyne, who was reputed to be the pattern of military manners,
declared, "Any restraint upon conversation, off parade, unless when
an offence against religion, morals, or good breeding is in question,
is grating; and it ought to be the characteristic of every gentleman
neither to impose, nor submit to, any distinction but such as
propriety of conduct, or superiority Of talent, naturally
create."70 While there were marked exceptions, many
regimental officers displayed sympathetic consideration for the
comfort and happiness of their men. The bond between them and the
non-commissioned officers was often extremely close; and they came to
regard the corporals and sergeants, who in many cases had been in the
regiment as long as, if not longer than, themselves, with the same
kindly feeling as a master does an old family servant.71 To
this admirable picture there was unfortunately a dark side.
Discipline was harsh. The lash was used to punish offences whether
trivial or heinous. Nor was it applied either lightly or sparingly.
Sergeant Lamb relates: "I well remember the first man I saw flogged.
During the infliction of his punishment, I cried like a child."72 Howe's Orderly Book bears testimony to the stern
disciplinary methods of the day. In turning its pages, one is
repeatedly confronted with such entries as the following: "Boston,
24th Nov. 1775. Thomas Bailey, Grenadier in His Majesty's Corps of
Marines, tried by the General Court Martial...for Striking Lieut.
Russell of the 4th, or King's own Regiment, and of Insolent Mutinous
behaviour. The Court...have found him guilty of the latter, and do
therefore Sentence him to receive Eight Hundred Lashes on his bare
back with a Cat of nine Tails...3 Jan. 1776. Thomas MacMahan, Private
Soldier in His Majesty's 43d, Regiment of Foot, and Isabella
MacMahan, his wife, tried by...Court Martial for Receiving Sundry
Stolen Goods, knowing them to be such, are found Guilty of the Crime
laid to their Charge, and therefore Adjudge the said Thomas MacMahan
to Receive 1,000 lashes on his bare back with a Cat of nine
Tails...and the said Isabella MacMahan, to receive 100 Lashes on her
bare back, at the Cart's Tail, in Different portions and the most
Conspicuous Parts of the Town, and to be imprisoned three months.
Thomas Owen and Henry Johnston, Private Soldiers in His Majesty's
59th Regiment of Foot, tried by the General Court Martial...for
having broken into and Robbed the Store of Messrs. Coffin,
Storekeeper, of Sundry goods. The Court, having duly Considered the
whole matter before them is of opinion that the prisoners...are
guilty of the Crime laid to their Charge, and doth, therefore, by
virtue of the Power and Authority to them given and Granted by the
Second Article of War, Section 20, Adjudge that the said Thomas Owen
and Henry Johnson do suffer Death by being hanged by the neck until
they are Dead."73 There
were not wanting officers, however, who preferred an appeal to the
better feelings of their men to an application of the cat. Lamb has a
passage which illustrates this, and which incidentally throws light
on other methods of military punishment. Referring to Major Bolton of
the 9th Foot, he states: "On the occasion of punishing a man for
desertion...the Major attended by the officers of the regiment, came
to see the sentence of law-martial enforced. After the third drummer
inflicted his twenty-five lashes [i.e., when the offending
soldier had received seventy-five] Major Bolton, without
addressing either the surgeon or officers in attendance, advanced,
evidently much affected, to the halberts, in a compassionate manner
expostulated with the man concerning the magnitude of his offence,
and afterwards ordered him to be taken down, remitting the remainder
of the intended punishment, on the soldier's promise of future good
conduct. Such severe inflictions were unusual whenever he commanded:
he avoided flogging the men as much as possible, and only resorted to
it for those great crimes which required extraordinary coercion. For
the common breaches of military laws and duties, he used to send them
some hours of the day to drill, sometimes making them wear the
regimental coat turned inside out, in order to exhibit them as
examples of ill behaviour and disgrace. They were, moreover,
prevented from going on any command, or mounting the principal
guards. On some occasions he confined the ill-conducted soldier to
his barrack room, or the guard-house, and when his offence deserved
it, the man was condemned to the black-hole, and at times obliged to
live on bread and water. In short his mode of treating men showed
them his unceasing strictness in preserving order and discipline, as
also his fine feelings and dispassionate motives."74 The
standard of morality in the army did not rise higher than that of the
age. A passion for gambling pervaded all ranks. The author above
quoted relates how private soldiers would play for the very clothes
on their backs and how many of them without a stitch that they could
call their own had to borrow clothes from their comrades in order to
pass muster on inspection.75
Eighteenth- century redcoats were also hard drinkers. In an age when
the Foxes, Pitts, and Graftons drank to excess, it was not to be
expected that the Braddocks, Howes, and Burgoynes would keep within
the bounds of temperance. Howe
must have seen many "crapulous mornings" at New York; and we have
Madame Riedesel as an authority for the statement that Burgoyne
nightly sought oblivion in drink towards the close of the Saratoga
campaign.76
Charges of gross immorality have also been laid against the army, but
here one plunges into a fog of rumor and hearsay where the truth is
difficult to ascertain. Although Burgoyne passionately denied it,
some two thousand women are said to have followed the unlucky
expedition from Canada in 1777.77
Both Howe and Burgoyne are reported to have found intimacy with the
wives of subordinate officers a solace to the rigors of
campaigning.78
Stedman, himself a British commissary, is authority for the statement
that His Majesty's officers shocked Quaker sensibilities by sometimes
bringing their mistresses with them into the houses where they were
quartered during the occupation of Philadelphia.79 The extent to which the troops were
guilty of rapine and plunder is not easy to estimate. While American
writers have probably tended to exaggerate the guilt of the redcoats
in this particular, the fact remains that their own officers have
sometimes condemned the conduct of the rank and file in strong
terms.80 Deviations from the rules of humane
warfare, however, were rarely condoned by those high in command, and
Howe, Burgoyne, and Cornwallis strove to stay the hand of thief and
marauder.81 When
one surveys as a whole the conduct of the British army in the
American Revolution, comparing its deportment with that of European
armies in the eighteenth century, he must come fairly to the
conclusion that The forces of George III manifested unusual respect
for the persons and property of noncombatants.82 1In this work the citations Adm.
(Admiralty), A.O. (Audit Office), H.O. (Home Office), C.O. (Colonial
Office), T. (Treasury), and W.O. (War Office), refer to MSS. in the
P.R.O. (Public Record Office, London). The reference, Addit. MSS.,
refers to collections in the British Museum. When a printed work is
frequently referred to, only the name of the author is given. The
complete title of the work may be found by consulting the
Bibliography. Other references are self-explanatory. 2"The invalids in the British
forces...consist of soldiers partly disabled by wounds and veterans,
who from old age and length of service are rendered incapable of the
duties of an active campaign, but are still judged fit for garrison
duty." Grose, Military Antiquities, I, 164. In 1775 a detachment of invalids
was dispatched to garrison Newfoundland. Duncan, History of the
Royal Artillery, I, 268. 3The statistics in this and the next few
paragraphs have been compiled from the Court and City
Register, 1775, and 35 Commons Journal, pp. 35-37. 4This includes the 41st, Col. Wren's
regiment of invalids, but does not include the 20 independent
companies of invalids doing garrison duty. The forces in India were
under the control of the East India Company. They did not become a
part of the British army until 1858. Clode, Military Forces of the
Crown, I, 268. 5W.O. 1:681, Germain to Barrington, 23
Mar. 1776; ibid., 4:273, Barrington to Howe, 13 May. 1776.
Cf. Trevelyan, The American
Revolution, II, 101. 6The 1st Foot and 60th Foot had two
battalions in 1775. 7The light infantry carried a special kind
of musket which was lighter than used by most companies. See W.O.
1:992, Loudoun to Barrington, 28 Feb. 1776. Regarding Howe's
responsibility for light infantry, see Lamb, Memoir,
p. 89; Dictionary National Biography,
"Sir William Howe." 8Fortescue, III, 149, 156; Trevelyan, IV,
177; Lamb, Journal,
pp. 112, 159; W. Rogerson, Historical Records of the 53d, p. 4; Digby, Journal, p. 109; London Gazette, 10 Oct. 1779;
Smythies, Historical Records of the 40th,
p. 42. 9W.O. 24:480. 10W.O. 24:481. 11W.O. 55:373, p. 299. See also
Parliamentary Report on Ordnance Estimate for 1783. A royal warrant of 1779 raised the number of companies
per battalion from 8 to 10. 12"The artillery drivers are not Servants
to the Crown but only Servants to the Contractors who supply
Government with horses and are paid by the Contractors nine shillings
a week per man." W.O. 1:996, Robert Clarke to Barrington, 22 Oct.
1778. Cf. Duncan, Hist. of R. A.; Scott, History of the British
Army, III, 328: "A decision was given at the
Court of King's Bench on the 6th of June, 1780, that the horses,
conductors and drivers on contract with the Board of Ordnance for the
service of the Royal Artillery, while on actual service, shall be
received by Innkeepers by billet, and accommodated with quarters at
the rate of dragoons and their horses." 13Vincent, Records, of Woolwich, II, 387. 14Duncan, Hist. of R. A., I, 131, 303, 309. 15Burgoyne, State of the
Expedition, p. 92. 16Duncan, Hist. of R. A., I, 307, 309;
Burgoyne, State of the Expedition,
pp. 13-16. 17C.O. 5:164, Townshend to Germain, 15 Mar.
1778; T. Simes, Military Guide,
II, "Field-pieces"; Duncan, Hist. of R. A., I, 50, 212; Scott, Hist. of British
Army, III, 328. 18Burgoyne, State of the
Expedition, pp. 13-16. 19Farmer, Memoirs of the Royal Artillery
Band, pp. 37, 39, 48; Kappey, Military
Music, p. 87. 20Porter, History of the Royal
Engineers, I, 203-207; Chichester, Records and
Badges of the British Army,
pp. 152-153; Fortescue, IV, 915. Artificers are occasionally
mentioned as participating in the American campaigns, but
they were not members of the
company mentioned above. In some cases they were probably civilians,
who were hired to serve for the campaign as masons or carpenters.
Such apparently were the two hundred artificers engaged for
Burgoyne's expedition (State of the Expedition, p. 93). In other cases they were
doubtless privates with a knack at the building trades. Twiss
recommended the formation of a corps of military artificers for
American service, but no action seems to have been taken. W.O. 46:11,
Townshend to Haldimand, 18 Oct. 1779. Infantry and artillery officers
were sometimes detailed to serve as assistant engineers. For staff of
engineers in Canada, 1776-1778, and at New York, 1774, see appendix
to this chapter. 21Quoted by Porter, I, 207. 22Ibid. 23Chichester, pp. 908-909. The commissary
general acted under the orders of the Treasury. He was not a military
officer as was the waggon master general. 24Whether the women accompanying the army
were always lawfully wedded wives of the men is not certain. Sergeant
Lamb states (Memoir, p. 75) that privates were obliged to
obtain written permission of the officers of the company in order to
marry, "as but few young women could be taken on board when the
regiment embarked for foreign service." Lieutenant Colonel Maunsell,
who was in charge of embarkations at Cork, stated on one occasion
that it was necessary to allow a certain number of women to accompany
the soldiers on the transports bound for America in order to prevent
the men from deserting. Only a fixed number of women were tolerated
in the field. Howe permitted six per company during the campaigns of
1776 and 1777; Burgoyne permitted three per company during the
invasion of New York, 1777. Children as well as women connected with
the army were fed and clothed out of the public stores. This must
have increased the difficulty of maintaining the royal forces in
America. Children were sometimes born on the march and wives are
known to have accompanied their redcoated husbands upon the field of
battle. Kemble Papers, I, 345, 374, 381-382, 386; Lamb,
Memoir, p. 182; ibid., Journal, p. 143; Burgoyne, Orderly
Book, p. 45; ibid., State of the
Expedition, p. 116; "Minute Book of a Board of
General Officers " (N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll. 1916), p. 84; Wier-Robinson
Correspondence, Wier to Robinson, 20 May, 1777; Stryker, Trenton
and Princeton, p. 25, note; W.O. 1:12, Carleton to Sir
Geo. Yonge, 21 Dec. 1782; ibid.,
1:2, Gage to Barrington, 15 Aug. 1775; ibid., 1:991, "Return of Four Detachments
embarked on Board Victualling Ships at Cove, 27 March, 1776." 25Belcher, I, 328-330; Fortescue, IV,
922-923; Chichester, p. 925; Lamb, Journal, pp. 388-389; Goodenough and Dalton, Army Book of the
British Empire, p.
266; Duncan, Hist. of the R. A., II, 15. 26Duncan, Hist. of R. A., II, 18-19. 27W.O. 1:11, 17 Nov. 1776. 28Memoirs of Madame Riedesel, p. 122, note. 29Trevelyan, III, 271-279; Lamb,
Memoir, p. 70; Fortescue, IV, 925; Belcher, I,
330 ff.; Chichester, p. 916. 30Skrine, Fontenoy, p. 64. Various attempts
have been made to explain the origin of the red coat. Authorities
concur that it was first introduced into the British army as the
uniform of the New Model Army in 1644-1645. The problem is to
ascertain why red was selected as the parliamentary color. It seems
strange that the Puritans, who were noted for their plain and sombre
attire, should have chosen to clothe their soldiery in scarlet.
Stocqueler, who holds Cromwell responsible for the innovation,
implies that the idea originated in the fact that the livery of the
king's bodyguard was red. This would seem to be a reason against the
Parliamentarians adopting the hue rather than one for their adopting
it. Fortescue, however, expressly points out that red was not
Cromwell's color; for when he became protector he arrayed his
bodyguard in gray and silver. He traces the red coat to the troops of
the Eastern Association, but confesses that "it is not clear why they
should have given the pattern to the whole army; and even if it were
clear, we are quite in the dark as to the ground of its predilection
for that particular color." Macmillan's Magazine, Sept. 1893, J. W. Fortescue, "A Chapter on Red
Coats." 31For a "View of the Facings, etc. of the
several Marching Regiments of Foot...," see appendix to this chapter.
Illustrations of uniforms may be found in Belcher, I, 283, 320, 322;
Chichester, pp. 167, 235; Cannon's Regimental Records,
passim; A Representation of the Cloathing of His
Majesty's Household and of all the Forces upon the Establishments of
Great Britain & Ireland, 1742. Gen. Wolfe is said to have
invented "a working dress to save the soldiers' clothing, which was
composed of a red jacket with sleeves, over which a sleeveless
redcoat could be slipped for parade or for active service." Nevill,
British Military Prints, p. xvi. 32Cornwallis testified that each man
carried three, sometimes four, days' provisions. A View of the
Evidence, p. 16. 33Burgoyne, State of the
Expedition, p. 148, note. Stedman declares that the
weight of the entire equipment at Bunker Hill might be estimated at
125 lbs. American War, I, 128. 34Lamb, Memoir, p. 178; Fortescue, II, 592, note; III,
537; Belcher, I, 281-285. 35Duncan, Hist. of the R. A., I, 154, 242, 265, 329. 36Farmer, Memoirs of the R. A.
Band, p. 53. 37Nevill, British Military
Prints, pp. xxxii, 14. 38There were 14 1/2 bullets to the pound.
T. Simes, Military Guide,
II, "Musquet." Maj. Gen. Terry in L. Butler, Annals of the King's
Royal Rifle Corps,
Appendix, p. 43, states that in 1800 the weight of the musket was 10
lb. 2 oz. and of the bayonet 1 lb. 2 oz., length of barrel 3 ft. 4
in., diameter of bore .753 in., charge of powder 6 drs. F.G. with 3
flints to every pound. Cf. Sawyer, Firearms in American
History, pp. 101-103, with illustrations; plate
no. 10. 39The ramrods were sometimes of wood,
sometimes of steel. W.O. 28:7, "Report on small arms in Canada," 1
Aug. 1781. 40Quoted in Lloyd, Review of the History
of Infantry, p. 155.
Furthermore, the soldier did not carry more than threescore rounds as
compared with the 100 that he carries to-day. At Fontenoy each man
had only 24 rounds. See also ibid., p. 145; Belcher, II, 59; Fortescue, III,
536; Encyc. Brit.,
"Brown Bess"; Oman, Wellington's Army,
pp. 301-302; T. Simes, Military Guide, II, "Manual of Exercise...in 1764." 41Orderly Book, p. 116. 42Fortescue, III, 536, note; Butler,
Annals of King's Royal Rifle Corps,
Appendix, p. 2. In a return of arms at Quebec, 1 Jan. 1782 (W.O.
28:7), mention is made of musquetoons. These were short muskets of
large calibre used especially by cavalry. Carbines are also mentioned
as used by cavalry in America. Types of muskets and cartridges used
by the army in 1775 may be seen in the Museum of the Royal United
Service Institution, London. 43Lamb, Journal, pp. 308-309. see also Dict. Nat.
Biog., XVIII, 348-350. A picture and detailed
description of Ferguson's breech-loader will be found in W. W.
Greener, The Gun, p. 89. 44Fortescue, The British Army,
1783-1802, p. 83. For some time prior to their
departure for America, it is said that the Guards had been
"practicing with a rifle-gun in Hyde Park, against a small target
three hundred yards off." Quoted from contemporary source in
Trevelyan, II, 101. 45Sawyer, Firearms in American
History, p. 99. 46Trevelyan, IV, 224. 47Belcher, II, 59; Oman, Wellington's
Army, pp. 301-302. It has been alleged that
the Hessians failed to stave off defeat at Trenton because the rain
fell so hard that their muskets would not go off. 48Orderly Book, 2 Sept. 1777, p. 91. 49Trevelyan, III, 6; IV, 158, and note;
Belcher, I, 323. 50Orderly Book, 20 June, 1777, p. 3. 51Ibid., p. 116. 52Lindsay, A Military Miscellany (1796), referred to by Trevelyan, IV,
34. 53Oman, Wellington's Army, p. 303; Fortescue III, 535; Trevelyan,
II, 101; W.O. 1:995, John Campbell to Barrington, 13 Mar. 1778;
ibid., 1:999, Ross and Gray, agents, to
Barrington, 2 Mar. 1778; Butler's Annals of King's Royal Rifle
Corps, Appendix, p. 43. 54The schedule of pay for all ranks is
given in the appendix to this chapter. The
best and fullest account of the pay system is in the 9th Report on
Public Accounts (1783) in 39 Commons Journal, pp. 325-344. A partial explanation relating chiefly to
the net off-reckonings is in the Report on the Land Forces and
Marines (1746). See also Fortescue, The
British Army, 1783-1802,
p. 8; History of the British Army, I,
318; III, 510-515; Andrews, Guide to Materials in P.R.O., II, 131, 132, 134-135; J. W. Williamson,
A Treatise of Military Finance,
1782. 55After 1771, the last-mentioned sum was
repaid. 56Repaid after 1771. 57An excellent description of the system of
net off-reckonings will be found in W.O. 1:1005. Several other rather exceptional
stoppages should be mentioned. A deduction of 3d. per diem was made from the soldier's pay when he
was on board ship being transported from England to America, and a
deduction of 4d. per diem
when he was in the hospital. A fraction of his pay was sometimes
deducted, also, to meet the expense of a regimental chaplain. W.O.
1:10, Howe to Barrington, 27 Mar, 1777; ibid., 1:52, Edward Matthew to Richard
Fitzpatrick, 31 July, 1783; Andrews, Guide to Materials in
P.R.O., II, 274. 58History of the British Army, III, 514. 59Ibid., p. 514. 6039 Commons Journal, p. 330. 61Observations on the Prevailing Abuses
in the British Army...,
London, 1775. Cf.
Fortescue, III, 41. 62The purchasing of commissions was not
allowed in the artillery. Forteseue, The British Army,
1783-1802, p. 34. For the prices of commissions,
see appendix to this chapter. 63Belcher, I, 270. For sale-price of
commissions as fixed by royal authority in 1766, see T. Simes,
Military Guide, I, 348. 64London Evening Post, Feb. 1776, quoted in Trevelyan, II,
94. 65Belcher, I, 270, 287-288. 66Except in the case of orphans mentioned,
commissions were not as a rule granted to youths under sixteen years
of age. See note appended by Barrington to a letter from William
Dalrymple, 31 July, 1778, in W.O. 1:996. 67Belcher, I, 267-268; Clode, II, 91-92;
Trevelyan, II, 93. 68Belcher, I, 271; Trevelyan, II, 95. 69Trevelyan, II, 96. 70Quoted in Trevelyan, II, 96. 71Trevelyan, II, 95-99; Fortescue, The
British Army, 1783-1802,
p. 32; Lamb Memoir, pp. 68, 109. 72Ibid., p. 66. 73Pp. 263, 288. 74Memoir, p. 68. When it was intended to flog a man, three halberds
were arranged in a triangle, across the top of which a fourth was
placed "in order to make a whipping post, to which the culprit was
tied." Hence arose the expression, "brought to the halberds." The cat
was applied to the bare back, usually by a drummer, and from the
sanguinary results, British soldiers were sometimes derisively called
"bloody backs." It will be recalled that this epithet was applied to
Capt. Preston's men on the night of the Boston Massacre. Nevill,
British Military Prints, p. xvi. 75Lamb, Memoir, p. 74. 76Memoirs, p. 125. 77Burgoyne, State of the
Expedition, pp. 114, 171. 78Memoirs of Madame Riedesel, p. 125; Jones, History of New
York, I, 351; Von Elking, Die Deutschen
Húlfstruppen in Nordamerikan Befreiungskriege,
pp. 29, 316. 79American War, I, 309. 80Ibid.,
pp. 241-242, 309; Narrative of Sir William Howe, p. 59; Kemble, Journal, I, 91. 81During Burgoyne's expedition, 1777, for
example, two soldiers were sentenced to receive 1,000 lashes for
robbing a man at Fort Edward. Burgoyne, Orderly Book,
p. 74. 82On this topic, see also Belcher, I, 274,
278-280; Fortescue, The British Army, 1783-1802, p. 35.
16 Regs. Cav. 4,151
Total 15,547
Total 474
Total 142
12 Regs Cav. 2,718
Total12,533
Total 2,385
Total 3,339
Total 1,909
Total 8,580
Total 214
Total of Cav. 6,869