Читать книгу History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, Vol. 1 - Duncan Francis - Страница 6

There are many reasons why the Masters-General of the Ordnance must interest the student of the History of the Royal Artillery. In the days before the Regimental organization existed, all Artillery details came under the care and superintendence of the Masters-General; and to a distinguished one of their number does the Regiment owe its formation. The interest becomes deeper and closer after that date; for in addition to the general superintendence which had already existed, the Master-General had now a special interest in the Royal Artillery, in his ex officio capacity as its Colonel.

And whatever objections may be urged against the Board of Ordnance, the Royal Artillery, save in one particular, has always had abundant and special reason for regarding it with affection and gratitude. The almost fatherly care, even to the minutest details, which the Board showed to that corps over which their Master presided, was such as to awaken the jealousy of the other arms of the service. Had their government not been of that description which attempts to govern too much, not a word could be said by an Artilleryman, save in deprecation of the day when the Board of Ordnance was abolished. Unfortunately, like a parent who has failed to realize that his children have become men, the Board invariably interfered with the duties of the Artillery under whatever circumstances its officers might be situated. No amount of individual experience, no success, no distance from England, could save unhappy Artillerymen from perpetual worry and incessant legislation. The piteous protests and appeals which meet the student at every turn give some idea of the torture to which the miserable writers had been exposed. The way, also, in which the Board expressed its parental affection was often such as to neutralize its aim. It was rare indeed that any General Officer commanding an army on service made an appointment of however temporary or trivial a nature, which had to come under the approval of the Board, without having it peremptorily cancelled. Even in time of peace, the presence in every garrison of that band of conspirators, known as the Respective Officers – who represented the obstructive Board, and whose opinion carried far more weight than that of the General commanding – was enough to irritate that unhappy officer into detestation of the Honourable Board and all connected with it.

It has been declared – and by many well able to judge, including the Duke of Wellington himself – that in many respects the Board of Ordnance was an excellent national institution and a source of economy to the country. It may be admitted that in its civil capacity this was the case, and the recent tendency to revive in the army something like the Civil Branch of the Ordnance proves that this opinion is general. But, if we take a more liberal view than that of mere Artillerymen, we must see that the military division of its duties was only saved from exposure and disgrace by the fact that the bodies of troops over which it had control were generally small and scattered. The command of the Royal Artillery, now that it has attained its present numbers, could not have remained vested in the hands of a Board constituted as the Board of Ordnance was. What General Officer could have hoped to weld the three arms of his division into any homogeneous shape, while one of them could quote special privileges, special orders, and sometimes positive prohibition, from a body to which they owed a very special obedience? The Royal Artillery may indeed have lost in little comforts and perquisites by the abolition of the Board of Ordnance, but in a military point of view, in proficiency, and in popularity, the Regiment has decidedly been a gainer.

While admitting, however, the advantages, nay, the necessity of the change which has taken place, the long roll of distinguished soldiers and statesmen who have successively held the office of Master-General of the Ordnance is too precious an heirloom in the eyes of an Artilleryman to let pass without special notice and congratulation.

From 1483, the earliest date when we can trace one by name, down to the days of the Crimean war, when the last Master-General died in harness, the brave, gentle Lord Raglan, the list sparkles with the names of men who have been first in Court and field, and who have deserved well of England.

Their duties were by no means honorary in earlier times, although during the last fifty years of the Board's existence the chief work fell upon the permanent staff, and the visits of the Master-General were comparatively rare and ceremonious. If any one would learn what they had to do in the seventeenth century, let him go to the Tower, and examine the correspondence of Lord Dartmouth, the faithful friend and servant of Charles II., a professional Artilleryman and James II.'s skilled Master-General to the last. He created order out of chaos in the Department of the Ordnance, under Charles II., and so admirable were his arrangements, that on King William ascending the throne, he issued a warrant ratifying all previous orders, and leaving the details of the management of the Ordnance unaltered. In the autumn of 1688, Lord Dartmouth's office – never a sinecure – became laborious in the extreme. Daily and hourly requisitions reached him from the excited King and his Ministers, for the arming of the ships and the Regiments which were being raised in every direction. Authority was given to raise more gunners, as if experience could be created in a moment and the science of Artillery begotten in a man's mind, without previous study, for "twelve-pence by the day." To Chatham the Master-General hurries to superintend the fitting-out of the men-of-war, and next day, for the same purpose, to Sheerness, where he finds a despatch from the trembling Privy Council, ordering him to fill six merchant ships with fireworks to accompany the King's fleet, as fire-ships against the enemy. A terrible life did poor Lord Dartmouth lead at this time. Sometimes his letters are written from on board ship in the river, sometimes from his cabin in the 'Resolution,' at Portsmouth; very frequently from Windsor, where James anxiously kept him near his person, plying him now with questions and now with contradictory orders. Sometimes we find him writing at midnight, ordering his loving friends, the principal officers of the Ordnance, to meet him next day at the Cockpit, in Whitehall; at other times he swoops down unexpectedly on the bewildered officials in the Tower. In the old, quiet days, his correspondence was distinguished by an almost excessive courtesy; but now, in these days of fever and in the depth of his anxiety, it almost disappears; orders are issued like minute-guns; explanations of delay are fretfully demanded; and a bombardment is incessant of peremptory inquiries as to the state of His Majesty's ships and stores.

His Lieutenant-General, Sir Henry Tichborne, has a hard place of it at this time. With so energetic a Master at the Board, his work hitherto has been of the lightest, and his head seems now to reel under the change. For a few weeks he holds out, but by the end of November in that eventful year matters came to a crisis with poor Sir Henry. He can no longer attend the meetings of the Board; a violent fit of the gout prevents him, which he carefully warns his colleagues will, in all likelihood, continue some time: and with a piteous prayer that, out of the small sum in hand, the Board will pay the salaries of the "poor gunners, as subsisting but from day to day," Sir Henry's name disappears from the Board's proceedings, and the History of the Ordnance knows him no more.

After this time the Honourable Board seems, when its Master was absent, to have enacted the part of the Unjust Steward, for we find various debts remitted to creditors who could not pay, and not a small issue of debentures to those whose friendship it was desirable to retain. All through the records of their proceedings at this time is to be traced, like a monotonous accompaniment in music, the work of that immovable being the permanent clerk. From the dull offices in the Tower issue the same solemn Warrants, appointing this man an Ordnance labourer at six-and-twenty pounds a year, and that man a gunner at twelve-pence a day, just as if no Revolution were at hand, and no foreign foe were menacing the very existence of their King and Honourable Board together. Lord Dartmouth may be guilty of curt and feverish memoranda, but the permanent clerk never moves out of his groove, nor shall posterity ever trace any uneasiness in his formal work.

And then comes the sudden gap in all the books; the blank pages more eloquent than words; the disappearance of the familiar signature of Dartmouth; and the student takes up a fresh set of books where England took up a fresh King.

The duties of the Master-General, and the various members and servants of the Board of Ordnance, were first reduced to a systematic form in Charles II.'s reign, while Lord Dartmouth was in office. The Warrant defining these was confirmed by James II. on the 4th February, 1686; by William III., on the 8th March, 1689; by Queen Anne, on the 30th June, 1702; by George I., on the 30th July, 1715; and by George II., on the 17th June, 1727.

Although some alterations were made by George III., they were very slight, and rendered necessary by the occasional absence of the Master-General and by the creation of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich – the Cadets attending that institution being placed in a very special manner under the care and superintendence of the Master and Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance. The orders under which the Board worked up to the beginning of this century were, therefore, practically those instituted during Lord Dartmouth's term of office; and in examining them, one cannot fail to be struck with their exhaustive anticipation of every circumstance which might arise for consideration.

The Master of the Ordnance, as he was originally called – sometimes also termed the Captain-General of the Artillery – received, in 1604, the title of Master-General; and was considered one of the most important personages in the realm. Since the great Marlborough held the office, it has seldom been given to any one not already possessed of the highest military rank: but this was not always the case. Lord Dartmouth was plain Colonel Legge when first appointed, and the social, as well as military rank of his predecessors, was sometimes far from exalted. It became, therefore, necessary to attach to the office some relative military status: and accordingly we find a Warrant issued by James II., bearing date the 13th May, 1686, directing that the Master-General of the Ordnance should always have "the rank, as well as the respect, due to our youngest Lieutenant-General: and that our will and pleasure is, that he command in our Garrisons as formerly, but do not take upon him the charge or command as a Lieutenant-General in the field, without our especial commission or appointment." The command in the Garrisons referred to in the Warrant is in allusion to the Master-Gunners and Gunners of the various Garrisons, whose allegiance to the Board of Ordnance, as being, in fact, custodians of the Ordnance Stores, was always insisted on.

The relative rank awarded to the Master-General entitled him, when passing through any Camp or Garrison, to a guard of 1 officer, 1 sergeant, and 20 men; the guards were compelled to turn out to him and the drums to beat a march; and the officers and soldiers of the Regiments he passed had to turn out at the head of their respective camps. In the old pre-regimental days, when the Master-General took the field in time of war, in his official capacity, he was attended by a Chancellor, thirty gentlemen of the Ordnance, thirty harquebusiers on horseback, with eight halberdiers for his guard, two or three interpreters, a minister or preacher, a physician, a master-surgeon and his attendant, a trumpeter, kettledrums, and chariot with six white horses, two or three engineers, or more if required, and two or three refiners of gunpowder. These kettledrums do not seem to have been used in the field after 1748. They were used by the train of Artillery employed in Ireland in 1689, and the cost of the drums and their carriage on that occasion, was estimated at 158l. 9s. As the reader comes to compare the wages of the drummer and his coachman – 4s. and 3s. per diem respectively – with the pay given to other by no means unimportant members of an Artillery train, he will realize what a prominent position these officials were supposed to hold. The drummer's suit of clothes cost 50l., while a gunner's was valued at 5l. 6s. 4d. Even the coachman could not be clad under 15l.– nearly three times the cost of a gunner's clothes.

Prior to the date of King Charles's Warrant, the pay of the Master-General had been very fluctuating, being considerably affected by fees, and even by sales of places in the department. By that Warrant, however, it was fixed at a certain sum, inclusive of all perquisites, and the amount would appear to have been 1500l. per annum. This remained unchanged until the formation of the Cadet Company, when the annual sum of 474l. 10s. was added to the Master-General's salary, in his capacity as Captain of the Company, and charged in the Regimental accounts of the Royal Artillery. Considerable strides in the direction of further augmentation were afterwards made, more especially in 1801, until we find Lord Chatham, in 1809, drawing no less than 3709l. per annum as Master-General of the Ordnance.

There was an order forbidding any increase to the establishment of the Ordnance without the King's sign-manual, but it speedily became a dead letter; and changes were frequently made without authority, involving additional expense, and covered by something akin to supplementary estimates. In fact, the Parliamentary Commission which sat in 1810 to inquire into the various departments of the Ordnance ascertained that both in matters of personnel and matériel the power of the Master-General in his own department was simply unfettered. That it was not more frequently abused speaks well for the honesty of the department, and the honour of its chief officers.

The Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance at the meetings of the Board was like the Deputy-Chairman of a Company. His powers were in abeyance when the Master was present: although there were one or two cases in which his signature was required as one of the quorum necessary to legalize the business transacted. His office was created by Henry VIII., the designation of General being added subsequently. Until the days of Sir Christopher Musgrave he had an official residence in the Minories; and on its being taken from him he received in lieu the annual allowance of 300l. Another perquisite of the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was the ground called, as the old deed expresses it, "Y^e old Artillery Garden situate near y^e Spitle in y^e parish of St. Buttolph, Bishopsgate: " but this also being taken away from him, he was allowed, in March, 1683, the large manor-house and grounds commonly known as the Tower Place at Woolwich, together with the Warren, &c., where the Royal Arsenal now stands, a name given on the occasion of the visit paid to it by George III. in the spring of 1805. The use of this property by the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was, however, trammelled by the following conditions: – "That the proving of great guns should go on as heretofore in Woolwich: that the Government should have full control over all wharves, magazines, cranes, &c., and that a dwelling for the Master-Gunner of England should be allowed in the said Mansion-house, and lodging for ten fee'd gunners in the adjoining houses, and also for such Ordnance labourers as might be necessary."

The proper salary of the Lieutenant-General at first was 800l. per annum, supplemented, as mentioned above, by 300l. in lieu of a house; but rising like the pay of the other officers of the Board, we find in 1810, that it amounted to 1525l., besides an allowance for stationery. The Parliamentary Committee which sat in 1810 and 1811 suggested the abolition of the office of Lieutenant-General – a suggestion which was ultimately carried out in 1831. It was revived for a short time during the Crimean war, Sir Hew Ross holding the appointment during the absence at the seat of war of the Master-General, Lord Raglan; but this was a contingency which the Committee had foreseen, and was prepared to meet.

In examining the individual, apart from the collective, duties of the principal officers of the Ordnance, we find that the Lieutenant-General had the supervision of the military branch, and acted as a sort of Adjutant to the Master, who looked to him for all information connected with the various trains of artillery at the Tower and elsewhere. These he was bound always to have fit and ready to march: he had to direct and superintend the practice of the Master-Gunner of England, Firemaster and his mates, Fireworkers and Gunners, and acquaint the Master with their proficiencies; and also to see that all officials connected with the Department did their several duties.

The other four principal officers of the Ordnance were the Surveyor-General, the Clerk of the Ordnance, the Storekeeper, and the Clerk of the Deliveries, any three of whom formed a quorum. At the beginning of the present century the salaries of these officials were respectively 1225l., 825l., 725l., and 1000l. with a further annual sum of 200l. to the Clerk of the Deliveries during war. The whole of the principal officers were allowed 25l. a year for stationery, besides certain patent fees varying from 54l. 15s. in the case of the principal Storekeeper, to 18l. 5s. in that of the Clerk of the Deliveries. The departmental expenses were swollen by an army of public and private secretaries, clerks, and attendants.

As the work of the Lieutenant-General lay with the personnel, so that of the Surveyor-General lay with the matériel. On him lay the responsibility of superintending all stores, taking remains, and noting all issues and receipts.

The Clerk of the Ordnance had, in addition to the ordinary correspondence of the department, to look after salaries, debts, debentures, and bills falling due, and generally to perform, on a large scale, the duties of a modern book-keeper. If we may judge by the correspondence on financial matters which is to be found among the Ordnance Records, there must have been many a Clerk of the Ordnance whose days and nights were haunted by visions of bills falling due which could not be paid. During the times of the Stuarts, the poverty of the office was sometimes as terrible as the shifts to which the Board had recourse were pitiable.

Money seems to have been more plentiful during the reign of William III.; but when Queen Anne came to the throne, England's continental wars drained the Ordnance exchequer wofully; and while most of their debts were only paid in part, many were never paid at all. An amusing incident of the Board's impecuniosity occurred in 1713. An expedition to Canada having taken place, the gunners and matrosses employed were found after a time to be sadly in want of clothing. The Commissary of the Ordnance on the spot, being without funds, drew a bill on the Honourable Board for 140l., which instead of selling as usual to the merchants, he disposed of to one of the gunners, apparently a man of means, and destined ever after to be immortal, Mr. Frederick Price.

The bill, in due course, reached the Tower, but only two-thirds of the amount were paid. Mr. Price naturally remonstrated; but as the proceeding seems not to have been unusual, the Board took no notice. So the injured gunner petitioned the Queen, and a courteous letter from the Treasury speedily reached the Tower, in which a nice distinction was drawn between Mr. Price's case and that of the merchants, who had been similarly treated, "who had been great gainers as well by the exchange as by the stores and provisions which they had sold." The Board admitted the force of the reasoning, and the creditor got his own again.

The duties of the storekeeper are expressed by his title, and involved close and frequent personal inspection of stores, as well as great clerical labour.

The Clerk of the Deliveries had to draw all proportions for delivering any stores, and to keep copies of all orders or warrants for the proportions, and journals vouched by the persons who indented for them. He had to compare monthly the indents taken for all deliveries of stores with the Storekeeper's proportions; and had to attend, either in person or represented by one of his sworn clerks, at all deliveries of stores, and when taking remains of ships.

The Treasurer of the Ordnance, who had to find heavy personal securities, was one of the most important of the remaining officers attached to the Board.

So much for the individual duties of the principal officers of the Ordnance, duties which, it must be admitted, were generally well and conscientiously performed. Their acts, in their collective capacity, are more open to criticism. Although the Master-General could act independently of the Board, when he chose, and had full power of dismissing or suspending any of the officers, reporting the same to the Sovereign, he generally worked by means of the Board and, with his consent, their acts were perfectly legal and binding without his presence. His personal influence appeared chiefly in matters of patronage and promotion, and, after the foundation of the Royal Military Academy, it appeared in a very marked way in all matters connected with its government. But, with these exceptions, the actions of the Board which were most public, and call for most comment, are those which are to be traced to it in its collective capacity; and, as we shall see in the course of this History, their joint acts were often characterized by a pettiness, a weakness, and a blindness worthy of the most wooden-headed vestry of the nineteenth century. It is marvellous how frequently men who, when acting by themselves, display the utmost zeal and the strongest sense of responsibility, lose both when associated with others for joint action, where their individuality is concealed. The zeal seems instantly to evaporate: their sense of justice gets blunted by the traditions of the Board of which they have become members; and even the most radical – after a few useless kicks and plunges – soon settles into the collar, and assists the team to drag on the lumbering vehicle of obstruction and unreason. The power over a Board which is exercised by its permanent clerks is not the less tyranny because it is adroitly exercised, or because the tyrants are necessary evils. If an individual is put at the head of a department, self-esteem assists a sense of duty in making him master the details, and ensure the proper working of the machine. But when he finds himself merely one of several shifting and shadowy units whose individualities are lost, and whose faults are visited upon an empty abstraction instead of on themselves, he speedily in mere sympathy becomes like them; and, like them, he bows to the customs and precedents quoted by the permanent officials with an ill-disguised contempt for those to whom these precedents are unfamiliar. Then follows the unresisting signature of documents placed before the Board by clerks who have no idea of anything beyond their office walls – who imagine the world was created for them, not they for the world, and who believe and almost say, that the very members of the Board are there merely to be the channels of their offensive and dictatorial opinions. There has been in all ages in this country an officialism which cannot look beyond the letter of the law, whose representatives decline to enter into argument, to consider the circumstances of a case, or to make allowance for emergencies: – whose minds prefer sinning in a groove to doing right out of it: and whose conduct would often appear malicious, were not malice too active a feeling to enter into their cold and contracted bosoms.

This officialism was often rampant in the Ordnance; nor with the extinction of that Honourable Board can it be said to have vanished from England's administration.

As in the history of every corporation, there were at the Ordnance fits of economy and extravagance. The extravagance always began at the Tower, the centre of the Board's official centre and kingdom; the economy away at the circumference, among poor gunners at distant stations, among decaying barracks and fortifications crying out loudly for repair. It seems destined to be the motto of departments in every age, "Charity begins at home: economy abroad." After the peace of Utrecht, there was a determined resolution on the part of the Government to retrench, – a wise and praiseworthy resolution, if the method to be adopted were judicious. The Treasury communicated with the Ordnance: and the Tower having made plausible promises to Whitehall, the Honourable Board met to see what could be done. Starting with the official postulate, so characteristic of English departments, that their own salaries were to be untouched, the field of their labour was in proportion contracted. Ultimately they decided to economize in Scotland: they reduced all the stores there; voted no money for the repair of the fortifications or barracks; and, regardless of past services, they reduced the gunners in various garrisons.

From the far north a plaintive appeal meets the student's eye. It is from one John Murray, who had been Master-Gunner of Fort William for nineteen years, and who in this fit of economy had been ruthlessly struck off the establishment. Verily, ere many months be over, honest John shall have his revenge!

From Scotland, the Board turned to the Colonies, and reminded them that they must pay for their own engineers and gunners, if they wished to keep them. A committee sat to inquire how the American dependencies could be made to pay for themselves, – the beginning of that official irritation which culminated in the blaze in which we lost them altogether; and in the mean time demands for stores were neglected. One unhappy Governor wrote that he had under his command a company of troops which for fifteen years had received no fresh bedding: and "many of the soldiers were very ill, and in y^e winter ready to starve." A special messenger was sent to lay the matter before the Board; but, he having been recalled by domestic reasons before succeeding in his prayer, the Board adroitly pigeon-holed his petition for four years; and, in the language of a subsequent letter, "For want of bedding, many of y^e soldiers have since perished."

But ere long came the inevitable swing in the other direction. Queen Anne died; King George had not yet landed at Greenwich; there was agitation and conspiracy among the adherents of the Stuarts, and Scotland was simmering with rebellion. Then did the fearful Privy Council send letter after letter to the Ordnance urging them to find arms for 10,000 men for Scotland, or for 5000, or even for 4000; but from their diminished stores even this small body could with difficulty be armed. A train of artillery was ordered to march, and could not: everything was starved, and in chaos; and its commander, Albert Borgard, wrote, "Things are in such confusion as cannot be described." Orders were sent to man and defend Fort William, the now desolate scene of John Murray's nineteen years; and General Maitland, on reaching it, reported that "the parapets want repairing: there are no palisadoes; without an engineer to help me, I can but make the best of a bad bargain." He had to advance the money himself: "Who pays me," he wrote, "I know not." By next messenger he asked for a little gunpowder, a few spades, pickaxes, and wheelbarrows, all rather useful articles in a fortification, but which had vanished under the breath of economy. There were no gunners, he wrote, to work the guns; and he requested that the hand-grenades which were coming from Edinburgh might be filled and fitted with fuzes before they should be sent to him, "for we have none here that understand this matter well." Of a truth, John Murray had his revenge!

The principal gate of the fortress was so rotten and shattered that it could not be made use of, and was of no defence at all. There never had been any gate, the General wrote, to the port of the ravelin; and unless the platform could be renewed, it would be impossible to work the guns. "And," he adds in a well-rounded period, "the old timber houses in which the officers of the Garrison are lodged, and also the old timber chapell, are all in such a shattered pitifull condition, that neither the first can be lodged in one, nor the Garrison attend divine service in the other without being exposed to the inconvenience of all weathers."

Nor was General Maitland singular. From Dumbarton Castle Lord Glencairn wrote to the Board, "We not only want in a manner everything, but we have not so much as a boat. And, besides, the Garrison wants near four months' pay." From Carlisle the Governor wrote that there were only four barrels of powder in the garrison, a deficiency of every species of stores, and only four gunners, "three of which are superannuated." Most of the gun-carriages were unserviceable, and the platforms wanted repairing. There was haste and panic at Portsmouth, as empty stores and unarmed ships warned the Board what work there was before them. And from Chester, Mr. Asheton, the zealous governor just appointed, reported, "The guns are all here, but not the carriages, so that the stores, &c., would be of service – not prejudice – to an enemy." The only men there who were capable of doing any work were forty invalids; and he therefore begged for assistance in men and stores, "in order" he wrote, "that I may be capable of doing my country service by maintaining the rights of our gracious Sovereign King George against all Popish Pretenders whatsoever."

As the guns of the Tower blazed out their welcome to the King, the smoke must have clouded over such an accumulation of testimony in the Ordnance offices hard by, proving that there may be an economy which is no economy at all, as might almost have penetrated the intelligence of a Board. This period in the history of the Ordnance is unsurpassed, even by the many blundering times which, in the course of these volumes, we shall have to examine, down to that day in the year of grace 1855 when, "from the first Cabinet at which Lord Palmerston ever sat as Premier, the Secretary at War brought home half a sheet of paper, containing a memorandum that the Ordnance – one of the oldest Constitutional departments of the Monarchy … was to be abolished."1

In the early days of the Ordnance Board, its relations with the navy were more intimate than in later years. The gunners of the ships were under its control, and had to answer to it for the expenditure of their stores. In this particular, as in most details of checking and audit, the Board was stern to a degree, and not unfrequently unreasonable. In 1712, the captain of a man-of-war, sent to Newfoundland in charge of a convoy, found the English inhabitants of the Island in a state of great danger and uneasiness, and almost unprotected. At their urgent request, he left with them much of his ordnance and stores before he returned to England. With the promptitude which characterized the Board's action towards any one who dared to think for himself, it refused to pass the captain's or gunner's accounts, nor would it authorize them to draw their pay. Remonstrance was useless; explanations were unattended to: the lesson had to be taught to its subordinates, however harshly and idiotically, that freewill did not belong to them, and that to assume any responsibility was to commit a grievous sin. It actually required a petition to the Queen and the Treasury before the unhappy men could get a hearing, and, as a natural consequence, an approval and confirmation of their conduct.

The arming of all men-of-war belonged to the Ordnance; indeed, the office was created for the Navy, although, in course of time, Army details almost entirely monopolized it. Although obliged to act on the requisitions of the Lord High Admiral, their control in their own details, and over the gunners of the ship as regarded their stores, was unfettered. The repairing of the ships, and to a considerable extent their internal fittings, were part of the Board's duties; but it is to be hoped that the technical knowledge of some of their officials exceeded that possessed by the Masters-General. A letter is extant from one of these distinguished individuals, written on board the 'Katherine' yacht, in 1682, to his loving friends, the principal officers of the Ordnance. "I desire" he wrote, "you would give Mr. Young notice to proceed no further in making y^e hangings for y^e great bedstead in y^e lower room in y^e Katherine yacht, till ye have directions from me."

But the Naval branch of the Board's duties is beyond the province of the present work. Of the Military branch much will be better described in the chapters concerning the old Artillery trains, the Royal Military Academy, and in the general narrative of the Royal Artillery's existence as a regiment. A few words, however, may be said here with reference to their civil duties, once of vast importance, but, with the naval branch, swallowed up, like the fat kine of Pharaoh's dream, by the military demands which were constantly on the increase, and were fostered by the military predilections of the Masters and Lieutenants-General.

The civil duties have been well and clearly defined by Clode in his 'Military Forces of the Crown,' vol. ii. He divides into duties – 1. As to Stores; 2. As Landowners; 3. As to the Survey of the United Kingdom; 4. As to Defensive Works; 5. As to Contracts; and 6. As to Manufacturing Establishments.

Of the first of these it may be said that their system was excellent. Periodical remains were taken (the oldest extant being dated April, 1559), and a system of issues and receipts was in force which could hardly be improved upon.

In their capacity as Landowners, the members of the Board were good and cautious stewards; but as buyers of land, their characteristic crops up of thinking but little of other men's feelings or convenience. Perhaps their line of action in this respect can be best illustrated by an anecdote which comes down over many years in the shape of an indignant and yet pitiful remonstrance. It was in good Queen Anne's time, and the Board had formed a scheme for fortifying Portsmouth. They appointed Commissioners to arrange the situation of the various works, and to come to terms with the landowners. These gentlemen did their duty; and, among others, one James Dixon was warned that some land on which he had recently built a brewhouse would be required for the Board's purposes. A jury was empanelled, and assessed the value of the whole at 4000l. When James Dixon built his brewhouse, he had borrowed money on mortgage: the interest would, he believed, be easily paid, and the principal of the debt gradually reduced by the earnings of the brewery. But after the jury sat, not a drop of beer was brewed: no orders could be taken, with the fear hanging over him that he must turn out at any moment; nor could he introduce additional improvements or fixtures after the assessment had been made, as he would never receive a farthing for them over the first valuation. Little knowing the admirable system of official management in which an English department excels, he sat waiting for the purchase-money. One month passed after another: Christmas came, and yet another, and another, and the only knocks at James Dixon's door were from the angry creditor demanding his money. At last, after waiting four years, – the grey hairs thickening on the unhappy brewer's head, – the knock of a lawyer's writ came; and before the Master of the Rolls his miserable presence and story were alike demanded. The narrative ends abruptly with a petition from him for six months' grace. Even then hope was not dead in him; and he babbled in his prayer that "he was in hopes by this time "to have redeemed it out of the 4000l. agreed to be paid y^r Petitioner as aforesaid."

In the course of our story we shall find many such lives crushed beneath the wheels of an official Juggernaut. Alas! that Juggernaut is still a god!

'The Survey of the United Kingdom' will be the most honourable vehicle for transmitting to posterity the story of the Board's existence; for, although not yet completed, to the Board is due the credit of originating a work whose national value can hardly be over-estimated. The defensive works erected under the Ordnance already live almost in history, so rapidly has the science of fortification had to move to keep pace with the strength of attack. Their contracts showed but little favouritism, and, on the whole, were just: they included everything, from the building of forts to the manufacture of gunpowder and small arms; and, in peace and war, they reached nearly over the whole civilized world. With this extensive area came the necessity for representatives of the Board at the various stations, – who were first, and wisely, civilians, three in number; afterwards, most foolishly, owing to the increasing military element at the Board, two soldiers, the commanding officers of Artillery and Engineers, and one civilian. And as no man can serve two masters, it was soon apparent that the military members could not always serve their local General and their absent Board; discipline was not unfrequently strained; jealousy and ill-will supervened; and when the death of the Board sounded the knell of the Respective officers, as they were termed, there can be no doubt that it removed an anomaly which was also a danger. Under the new and existing system, the commanding officers of Artillery and Engineers occupy their proper places: they are now the advisers of their General, not his critics: and the door is opened for the entry of the officers of the scientific corps upon an arena where civilian traditions are unknown or powerless.

Of the manufacturing departments of the Ordnance, what has to be said will come better in its place in the course of the narrative.

In summing up, not so much the contents of this Chapter, which is necessarily brief, as the study of the Board's history, the following are the ideas presented to the student's mind: – The Board of Ordnance formed a standard of political excellence, – which it endeavoured to follow when circumstances permitted, – of financial and economical excellence, which it planted everywhere among its subordinates for worship, but which was not allowed the same adoration in its own offices in the Tower. It saved money to the country legitimately by an admirable system of check and audit – illegitimately too often by a false economy, which in the end proved no economy at all; it obstructed our Generals in war, and hampered them in peace: it was extravagant on its own members and immediate retainers to an extent which can only be realized by those who study the evidence given before the Parliamentary Commission of 1810-11. Jobbery existed, but rarely secret or underhand; and its extensive patronage was, on the whole, well and fairly exercised. And although every day shows more clearly the wisdom of removing from under the control of a Board that part of our army, the importance of which is made more apparent by every war which occurs, yet the Artilleryman must always remember with kindly interest that it was to this board and its great Master (Marlborough) that his Regiment owes its existence, that to it we owe a nurture which was sometimes too detailed and careful, but under which we earned a reputation in many wars; and that, after a long peace, it placed in the Crimea, for one of the greatest and most difficult sieges in history, – difficult for other reasons than mere military, – the finest siege-train of Artillery that the world has ever seen. In command of the English Army, during this war, the Board's last Master died; and in the list which preceded him, and with which this chapter closes, will be found names which would almost atone for the worst offences ever committed by the Board over which their owners presided.

List of the Masters-General of the Ordnance

The most recent list of these distinguished officials is that published in Kane's 'List of Officers of the Royal Artillery.' In it all the Masters before the reign of Henry VIII. are ignored, as being merely commanders of the Artillery on expeditions or in districts. But this seems somewhat stern ruling. Undoubtedly Henry VIII. reorganized the Ordnance Department, and defined the position of the Master, as never had been done before, and the sequence of the Masters from his reign is clear and intelligible. But before his time there were not merely Masters of the Ordnance on particular expeditions, but also for life; and there were certainly Offices of the Ordnance in the Tower. It has, therefore, been thought advisable in the following list to prefix a few names, which seem deserving of being included, although omitted in 'Kane's List.'

The earliest of whom there is any record is

Rauf Bigod, who was appointed on 2nd June, 1483, "for life." His life does not, however, seem to have been a very long one, for we find

Sir Richard Gyleford, who was appointed in 1485.

Sir Sampson Norton was undoubtedly Master of the Ordnance, appointed in 1513, as has been proved by extant MSS.

The next one about whom there is any certainty would appear to be the one who heads 'Kane's List' —

Sir Thomas Seymour, who was appointed about 1537. Other lists show Sir Christopher Morris as Master at this time; but there seems little doubt that he was merely Lieutenant of the Ordnance, although a distinguished soldier, and frequently in command of the Artillery on service.

If one may credit 'Dugdale's Baronage,' the next in order was

Sir Thomas Darcie (afterwards Baron Darcie), appointed in 1545: but if so, he merely held it for a short time, for we find him succeeded by

Sir Philip Hoby, who was appointed in 1548.

'Grose's List' and others interpolate Sir Francis Fleming, as having been appointed in 1547; but this is undoubtedly an error, and his name wisely rejected by the author of 'Kane's List,' where it is placed, as it should be, in the list of Lieutenants of the Ordnance. There is a folio of Ordnance accounts still in existence, extending over the period between 29th March, 1547, and the last day of June, 1553, signed by Sir Francis Fleming, as Lieutenant of the Ordnance.

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.