The Board of Ordnance was appealed to, and most warmly protested against such an interference with its prerogative,—declaring that none of the appointments made by the Admiral would be recognized by the present or any succeeding Master-General. Doubtless, the Board was right; and Admiral Boscawen, being anxious to retain the favour of all under his command, let the matter drop. With a seniority corps, essentially detached when on service, it was absolutely necessary that promotion should be general, not local. At the same time, the restraint of the Board was irksome—not the less so because just; and the feeling could never be agreeable to a commander, that serving under him were those who owed a special allegiance to another. As time went on, and the military department of the Ordnance increased, this irritation would become more general, and the points of difference between Generals and the Board would multiply.
The wisdom of the change which put Generals and the Ordnance Corps under one head might have been proved by à priori, as it has been by à posteriori reasoning; and this trifling episode between Admiral Boscawen and the Board is interesting, as showing that, thirty years after the Regiment had been called into existence, the Dual Government of the Artillery was already producing natural consequences. But it is also interesting, as manifesting the affection which the Board already evinced for the child they had begotten—an interest sometimes too paternal, but never unlovely.
An excellent letter from the principal officers of the Ordnance is extant, urging the claims to Army Rank of the officers of the Artillery, which had been again questioned by some belonging to the other arms of the service. The difficulty was, in a very few years, settled by the King, in place of the Master-General, signing the commissions of Artillery officers; but this letter from the Board is interesting, as pleading, on grounds of justice and in language far warmer than could have been expected, the claims of the corps which they had created. The letter bears date 24th February, 1744, and, after quoting the decision in favour of Artillery officers arrived at by the King in 1724, and confirmed in 1735, and mentioning two Courts-martial held in 1737 and 1742, at which officers of Artillery sat with those of the other arms, according to date of Commission, goes on to say that, notwithstanding these facts, there are not wanting those who deny any military status to Artillery officers in the field. The writers then state a case, to show the absurdity of the view objected to:—"If a Captain of Artillery, with a number of guns and Artillery people, should happen to be escorted by a Lieutenant of a Regiment on Foot, with a number of men belonging thereto, the Captain (according to the sentiments of those with whom we differ) must take his orders from the Lieutenant, which he would, with reason, think a great hardship; for the Lieutenant would not obey one whom he deems to be no more than a titular Captain, and who, he is taught to believe, has no rank in the Army. And if the said Lieutenant should be killed, and the command devolve to the eldest sergeant, according to the notion before mentioned, the Captain of Artillery must take his orders from the said Sergeant of Foot,—the consequence of which is so obvious, that we need not enlarge upon it."
"But further, my Lord, should this opinion prevail, it would be a total discouragement to the officers of Artillery, as well as highly prejudicial to His Majesty's Service."
"The ordinary duty and discipline of the officers and private men of the Artillery is, in every respect, the same with that of every other Regiment of the Army. The qualifications of Artillery officers are not acquired by practice only, but are the result of long study and application. They must be proficients in several sciences, and Masters of several arts, which is not required from other officers. They are subjected to the Articles of War, and all the penalties of the Act for Mutiny and Desertion, and are equally a part of His Majesty's Forces with any other Regiment of the Army. The service of the Artillery is generally understood to be more dangerous and severe than any other; and although they are an essential part of one and the same Army, yet if they bear no rank in it, but at Courts-martial only, they are in a worse situation and under greater difficulties and discouragements than any part of the Army; for, let their service have been ever so long,—their conduct and bravery ever so conspicuous and meritorious,—they can only rise gradually and slowly in their own little corps, if they have no rank in the Army, and can never be promoted in any other, which is the usual and almost only reward of distinguished merit in other officers."
While sympathizing with the spirit which animated the writers of the above, one may differ as to the nature of the reward they sought for meritorious officers of Artillery, in promotion into the other arms. For more than forty years after this letter was written this reward was one which was coveted by the senior officers of the corps for the younger members. Doubtless, the intention was to obtain a promotion for them which could not be found in the stagnation of a seniority corps. But, to the modern Artilleryman, the promotion which involved separation from the Regiment for whose duties he had been specially trained would be but a doubtful reward.
[11]. Cust.
[12]. Macbean's MSS.