Casualties at Buxar.
| Regiments. | Officers. | Men. | ||
| K. | W. | K. | W. | |
| R. Munster Fus. | - | 3 | 37 | 58 |
| Composite batt. | 1 | 1 | 2 | 13 |
| Royal Artillery | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Royal Dublin Fusiliers | - | - | 2 | 3 |
| British cavalry | - | 1 | 2 | 4 |
Broome, in his admirable "History of the Bengal Army," states that the two officers who figure in the list of casualties in the composite battalion both belonged to the 90th Light Infantry. This is an error. On comparing the names of the officers with the Army Lists, I am convinced that they belonged to the 96th Regiment, and that the error has arisen in the transcription by a clerk at the War or India Office. I have come across many such errors. Perhaps the most amusing is in the Gazette recording the capture of Havana in 1762, where the 42nd is referred to in the casualty rolls as the "42nd Royal Hunters"!
[CHAPTER VI]
INDIA, 1774-1799
Rohilcund, 1774—Carnatic—Guzerat, 1778-1782—Sholinghur, 1781—Mangalore, 1783—Mysore—Nundy Droog, 1791—Rohilcund, 1794—Seedaseer, 1799—Seringapatam, 1799.