[69]. If a particular acquaintance with the Duke’s plan of defence, &c., be desired, it can be obtained by referring to a work entitled ‘Observations on the Duke of Richmond’s Extensive Plans of Fortification,’ published first in 1785, and again in 1794. This work, which was brought before the public in an anonymous form, is known to have been written by Lieutenant James Glenie, of the engineers, who, after serving in the corps a few years, was compelled, as he says, p. 241, to leave it, “to avoid being ruined by the expense of continually moving from one station to another.” The attack made by this gentleman appears to have been conducted with much force and talent, displaying an intimate acquaintance with the principles of his profession. It made a great impression on the public mind, and augmented to a considerable extent the popular ferment against the new fortifications. Several of the engineers joined in opinion against them, among whom was Colonel Debbieg, who, for some expressions that he ventured, reflecting upon the Duke’s plans, was tried by a General Court-martial in 1789. In the concluding paragraph of the later edition of Mr. Glenie’s essay, the author promised to take an early opportunity of delivering his sentiments at full length respecting the corps of royal military artificers and horse artillery, which, he stated, were unquestionably great impositions on the public; but the promised exposé I have not succeeded in procuring. If it never appeared, the gallant officer, very probably, prudently relinquished the idea, or suppressed the MS., from a conviction that it was as unnecessary as unmerited. It is certainly curious that Mr. Glenie and Colonel Debbieg, who were the most violent and persevering of the Duke’s opponents, should have differed in opinion about the usefulness and importance of the corps of artificers. By the only evidence as yet discovered, it is obvious that Mr. Glenie would willingly have disbanded it; Colonel Debbieg, on the other hand, only a few years before aspired to the honour of originating it.
[70]. Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register,’ 1788. Second edit., 1790, p. 96.
[71]. Dodsley’s ‘Annual Register.’ Second edit., 1790, pp. 121-123.
[72]. Clause Lxxv. Public Acts, 28 Geo. III., vol. i., p. 369. This was not a specific clause to meet the case of the artificers, but the same which had existed, with possibly slight variations, since its first insertion in the Act It merely included the corps by name, and made other necessary alterations to embrace classes of persons heretofore inadvertently omitted. Why it should have caused so much discussion, more especially with reference to the formation of the corps, is almost marvellous, since a more fitting opportunity was afforded for that purpose, when the Ordnance estimates were presented and passed in December of the previous year. What were Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Courtenay, and the other opponents of the Duke of Richmond’s schemes about, to allow this measure to steal a successful march upon them?
[73]. In the protracted debates which occurred in 1788, on the Regency, Mr. Sheridan took occasion, when opposing the measure for reserving the patronage of the royal household, to attack the Minister—Mr. Pitt, and to wing from his bow another caustic shaft at the royal military artificers. Mr. Pitt, at some previous time, had charged a right honourable friend of Sheridan’s, on quitting office, “with having left a fortress behind him.” Sheridan admitted that the accusation was true; “but then,” continued he, in a vein of sparkling raillery, “like a coarse, clumsy workman, his right honourable friend had built his plan in open day, and retired with his friends, who served without pay. * * * Not so the right honourable gentleman over the way. Like a more crafty mason he had collected his materials with greater caution, and worked them up with abundantly more art. Perhaps he had taken the advice of the noble Duke—famous for fortification—and, with the aid of that able engineer, had provided a corps of royal military artificers, and thrown up impregnable ramparts to secure himself and his garrison. Upon this occasion the King’s arms doubtless might be seen flying as a banner on the top of his fortress, and powerful indeed must prove the effect of the right honourable gentleman’s thundering eloquence from without, and the support of the royal artificers from within, against his political adversaries.”—Sheridan’s Dramatic Works. See Life, p. 138. Bohn’s edit., 1848.
The last reference to the military artificers in Parliament was made by Mr. Courtenay on the 21st April, 1790, when, moving for a committee to inquire into the expenditure of the public money by the Duke of Richmond from the 1st January, 1784, he stated, among a variety of matter, that the corps of which his Grace was the founder, “were neither soldiers nor artificers.”—‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ part 2, 1790, vol. 60, p. 720. This was followed, in 1794, by Mr. Glenie, who, in a second edition of his ‘Observations,’ declared that the corps was unquestionably a great imposition on the public. With this announcement the party crusade against the royal military artificers terminated.
[74]. Thus the higher branches of promotion were reserved to the three first classes of tradesmen, and none but men of the latter trades were promoted to the rank of corporals. This rule, though enforced as much as practicable, was necessarily deviated from in the lapse of a few years for the benefit of the service.
[75]. The authority for this was not embodied in the warrant for raising the corps, but conveyed in a letter to the Duke of Richmond, dated 10th October, 1787. With regard to the officers falling in with their companies, it was necessary to issue a special order, as, by a previous warrant of the 25th April, 1787, the royal engineers were to take rank with the royal artillery, and to be posted on the right or left of that regiment, according to the dates of their commissions. At Gibraltar, it was the custom of the companies with their officers, to take the right of the artillery; and they were always inserted first in the Governor’s states and returns. This was a local arrangement occasioned, probably, on account of the companies being stationary at the fortress.
[76]. The companies at Gibraltar, although similarly constituted, paid, and officered, remained a distinct and separate body until their incorporation with the corps in the year 1797.
[77]. From this arrangement, it sometimes occurred that even a Major-General was captain of a company.