[14]. Captain Luttrell, in some remarks in the House of Commons in 1788, relative to the expediency of raising a corps of military artificers, stated, “that at Gibraltar, where a similar body had been kept up during the siege, they had been of infinite service. When our troops had, in a sortie, possessed themselves of some of the enemy’s works, they could not destroy them until they had sent back to the garrison for the corps of artificers, who soon demolished them.”—Gent. Mag. 58, part 2, 1788.
[15]. London Gazette, 12,256. 25 to 29 December, 1781.
[16]. London Gazette, 12,256. 25 to 29 December, 1781.
[17]. To narrate the different services performed by the company during the siege, would not only be tedious, but necessarily incomplete, from no detailed record of them being preserved. A reference, however, to ‘Drinkwater’s History,’ though particularization is not even there attempted, will afford a tolerable idea of their labours.
[18]. Whether the sergeant-major obtained the thousand dollars as a douceur from the General is a question never likely to be satisfactorily answered. The probability is, that he did not receive the reward for his suggestion in this form, but some daily allowance commensurate with his skill and the importance of the duty. I was informed by the late Quarter-master-sergeant Britton Francis, who possessed a remarkable memory, and whose father was in the company before him, that Ince contracted for the work, and—such was the story current in his day—received for all the excavations, one guinea per running foot! Judging from an expression in a letter from the Duke of Richmond to Captain Evelegh, the Commanding Engineer at Gibraltar, dated 4th August, 1784, this tradition is an extravagant exaggeration. His Grace observes, “I am told that the excavation of the galleries is now constructed for, all expenses included, at one rial per foot cube;” and he adds, “I am very glad to find that a work which promises to add such effectual defences to the place, can be carried on at so cheap a rate; and I make no doubt, that great improvements will still be made by the Governor in this system of defences and lodgment for stores and troops under the rock.”
[19]. The Chief Engineer’s orders for the performance of this service were as follows:—“22nd May, 1782. A gallery 6 feet high, and 6 feet wide, through the rock, leading towards the notch nearly under the Royal Battery, to communicate with a proposed battery to be established at the said notch, is immediately to be undertaken and commenced upon by 12 miners, under the executive direction of sergeant-major Ince.” Again: “5th July, 1782. A gallery of communication, 6 feet 6 inches high, and 6 feet wide, through the intermediate rock, between the cave at the head of the King’s lines, and the cave near the west end of the Queen’s lines, is forthwith to be commenced upon by a body of miners and labourers expressly appointed for that service.”—See also ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, pp. 112 and 117.
[20]. ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 118.
[21]. Drinkwater observes, page 118, that “the original intention of this opening was to communicate air to the workmen, who, before, were almost suffocated with the smoke which remained after blowing the different mines; but on examining the aperture more closely, an idea was conceived of mounting a gun to bear on all the enemy’s batteries, excepting Fort Barbara.” To ascribe it to this accidental circumstance is natural enough, but there is reason to suppose, the statement excusably differs from the fact. The galleries were begun with the express object of arming them with ordnance to play on the enemy’s works; and the formation of the embrasure alluded to, was simply the earnest of a settled scheme; the first hostile step in its development.
[22]. ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, note, p. 118.
[23]. ‘Drinkwater’s Siege,’ Murray’s edit., 1846, p. 113.