There were, besides the Life and Horse Guards, the seven Dragoon Guards Regiments, the light regiments up to the 8th Light Dragoons (of which the 7th, formed from troops of the “Greys” and Royal Dragoons, was disbanded in 1713, but restored in 1715), and up to the 39th Foot inclusive; and of these the 30th, 31st and 32nd, as Sanderson’s, Villiers’ and Fox’s Marines, had been raised for sea service before coming on the army’s strength. It cannot be too often pointed out that the regiments were formed and disbanded more or less after every war, and that consequently many rank their seniority from their first creation.
The arms had little changed. The cuirass for cavalry was abandoned in 1702 and restored temporarily in 1707. The socketed bayonet had been introduced, and Blenheim was the first great battle in which the pike had been replaced by the new weapon. Sergeants still carried the halberd, which was succeeded as time went on by the lighter pike or “spontoon,” which remained in the service until after the Peninsular war, and which was carried by the “covering sergeant,” who protected or “covered” his captain with the weapon while his superior directed the work of the company.
The colours, formerly three in number, had by this time been reduced to two, the one the Union “Jack,” the other the Regimental Colour, the ground of which was that of the regimental facings.
Doubtless the political feeling of expediency and the want of a larger revenue had still much to do with these continuous and expensive reductions, even more than the decaying dread of standing armies. They were expensive as involving greater expenditure when war broke out afresh, as it was likely to do. They cost the internal economy of the State much, from the difficulty of finding employment for the vast numbers of disbanded soldiery after a campaign. Politicians of the time were too narrow-minded to see that it costs less to be always prepared for war in peace rather than wait for the warlike necessity to arise. They were “penny wise and pound foolish” then, much as we are to-day. Taxpayers and Governments are proverbially slow to recognise this. The greater the national wealth, the more need for the national insurance. That means an army and a navy sufficient for that insurance.
CHAPTER VI
THE EMBERS OF THE CIVIL WAR—TO 1755
The method of raising the army from the early part of the eighteenth century until nearly its end had been by a curious system of contract. Recruiting at first was mainly voluntary; but paupers or prisoners for civil offences were given the option of serving in the ranks. Hence was it that the armies that “swore so horribly in Flanders” got the bad name that clung to the profession of arms in Great Britain until recent years. The class of recruits, the severity of punishment, and the degradation of the lash were the three main reasons why, in the opinion of many worthy country people, to become a soldier was to be lost!
“Sergeant Kite’s” statement in the Recruiting Officer[21] is, though coarse, a not much exaggerated picture of what was thought of the soldier, though it can never assuredly be applied to all who wore the uniform. He says: “I was born a gipsy, and bred among that crew till I was ten years of age; there I learned canting and lying. I was bought from my mother Cleopatra by a certain nobleman for three pistoles, who, liking my beauty, made me his page; there I learned impudence and pimping. I was turned off for wearing my lord’s linen and drinking my lady’s ratafia, and then became bailiff’s follower; there I learned bullying and swearing. I at last got into the army, and there I learned wenching and drinking, so that if your worship pleases to cast up the old sum, viz.—canting, lying, impudence, bullying, swearing, drinking, and a halberd, you will find the sum total amounting to a recruiting sergeant.”
This, then, is reputed to be the material; the following was the method of capturing it.[22] The crown contracted with gentlemen of position or known soldiers to raise a certain body of troops, and bounty money per head was granted for the purpose. Regiments, therefore, long bore the names of the colonels who had raised or those who had recruited them. Sometimes in lieu of money the contractor sold the commissions, which was called “raising men for rank”; and hence arose a further extension of the purchase system which seems to have originated with Charles II. For the maintenance of this force the colonel received an annual sum to defray the cost of clothing, pay, and recruiting; thus it is related that a British Fusilier Regiment had four years’ pay owing to officers and men, who, in spite of repeated memorials, could not obtain any portion of it. After the lapse of some time, it transpired that Lord Tyrawley, the colonel, had appropriated the arrears to his own use; an act which he attempted to justify by pleading the custom of the army, and by the fact of the king being cognisant of his proceedings.[23] Recruits were raised by “a beating order,” without which recruiting was illegal, and the regiment was kept up to full strength. Field officers, to increase their rate of pay, received, say, colonel as colonel, 12s. a day, and in addition, as captain of company 8s. a day.