| Men. | ||||
| Killed in the trenches | 37 | |||
| Died of wounds | 18 | |||
| Wounded severely, who survived Wounded slightly | 61 42 | } | 103 | |
| Perished by drowning | 6 | |||
| Frozen to death | 1 | |||
| Died from frostbite | 4 | |||
| Found dead | 2 | |||
| Missing, supposed to have perished | 3 | |||
| Died from cholera, diarrhœa, &c. | 152 | |||
| Total | 223 | |||
Those invalided amounted to 119 non-commissioned officers and men, of whom 4 died in this country and many were discharged, one of whom, private A. McConnell, had lost his feet from frost-bite. Out of a force of 935 of all ranks there were therefore 445 casualties.
None of the corps were killed or wounded at the Alma, Balaklava, or Inkermann. With the exception of a proportion of those who died from cholera, all the rest of the casualties occurred in the Crimea. Nearly all the men that were wounded were struck, strangely enough, on the right side. The men drowned were wrecked in the Black Sea during the storm of the 14th November, 1854. Private James Deacon was frozen to death; corporal Thomas Leonard, lance-corporal Joseph Gordon, and privates Jonas Cole and John Porter died from frost-bite; those found dead were privates A. Anderson[[198]] and John C. Guy; and those missing were privates Thomas Callaghan, John G. Williams and James Thomas. The two former were lost after the battle of the Alma. Suffering from cholera and unable to march—one on the banks of that stream and the other on the Katcha—they were left behind to embark for Scutari, and most probably perished in some miserable nook on the Kalamitean shore. Thomas was sent an invalid from the camp to Balaklava on the 2nd November, 1854, and is supposed to have been nipped by the frost, and died away from the track of men from cold and exhaustion. A strict but fruitless search was set afoot to ascertain their unhappy fate.
Four privates of the corps deserted from its ranks in the Crimea, but none of them entered the service of the enemy. Intrusted as the sappers were with important duties, and its privates even invested with authority in the trenches, it may occasion surprise that the self-respect arising from these circumstances did not check them from the commission of gross delinquencies. Like their brothers in arms, too many of them fell by similar temptations, and the inordinate use of strong drinks—an habitual and disgusting practice with several—subjected a large catalogue of offenders to that description of disgrace which the enlightened humanity of the country had, after years of agitation, reduced to a few stripes. It was found one of the chief difficulties of command to arrest the pitch to which the vice had risen, and Colonel Gordon tried the effect of a monthly exposé. After showing that for three months ending 30th November out of an average force of 687 non-commissioned officers and men no less than 11 in every 100 per month had been awarded punishments of various kinds, he thus wrote in his orders of the 3rd December, 1855:—“Such a record would bring shame on any corps on home service. In the field it brings positive disgrace on the royal sappers and miners. Till the flood of drunkenness has abated,” continued the Colonel, “and there remains no longer a necessity of recording our disgrace as a means of helping to remove it, a similar return to the above will be published monthly.” And what was the result? The habit of intoxication still went on; and in March, 1856, when the last account was published, the number of instances of drunkenness out of a strength of 766 of all ranks had swelled to 16 in every 100 men per month, or 4 daily, on the whole strength. A public charge like this it would have been unjust to suppress; and though the light it affords is rather a lurid one, it may still serve as a beacon to avoid, in future, the shoals of excess, and lead to the improvement which the stern confessions of history are intended to effect. Though the truth is stated, there is no ground for supposing that the corps was more addicted to intemperance than other troops. Its offences had been recorded with almost conscientious scrupulousness; and if in other regiments the same strictness has been followed, a comparison, could such be instituted, would not yield a result unfavourable to the sappers.
As a rider to these frailties, let it be repeated how heroic was the general demeanour of the men in the batteries and trenches. In the order alluded to occur these sentiments:—“Colonel Gordon has great satisfaction in knowing there are plenty of men who have nobly done their duty in the field, and who have conducted themselves well amidst the prevailing drunkenness.... Great is their merit. Their good example is more than ever required, and Colonel Gordon thanks them; and he begs them to persevere in upholding the reputation of the corps.” These pages testify to many individual cases. Not a few were rewarded with pecuniary grants; many received promotion, and a chosen number received medals and honours for their gallant services before Sebastopol.
Those upon whom were bestowed medals for “distinguished service in the field,” accompanied by gratuities, were:—
| Colour-sergeant Henry McDonald | annuity of | 20l. | a-year. |
| ” Alexander M. McLeod | gratuity of | 15l. | |
| Corporal Samuel Cole[[199]] | ” | 10l. | |
| 2nd corporal John Paul | ” | 10l. | |
| ” William Trimble | ” | 10l. | |
| Lance-corporal Joseph T. Collins | ” | 5l. | |
| ” William Jenkins | ” | 5l. | |
| ” Charles Rinhy | ” | 5l. | |
| Private William Harvey | ” | 5l. | |
| ” William Orr | ” | 5l. | |
| ” William Bruce | ” | 5l. | |
| ” Alexander McCaughey | ” | 5l. | |
| ” James Moncur | ” | 5l. | |
| ” Neil McInnes | ” | 5l. | |
| ” Andrew Fairservice | ” | 5l. |
Those who obtained the French military war medal “for valour and discipline,” were:—
Colour-sergeant Kester Knight.
Sergeant John McMurphy.