I've just finished reading The Making of a Rifles Officer. The Life and Letters of Colonel George Miller CB FRS (1786-1843) by Elizabeth Laidlaw (Burngrange Press, 2019). Although there is relatively little on the Peninsular and other campaigns this is full of interest with much revealing material about the life of an ambitious intelligent officer in an elite regiment. I'm not going to review it - Bob Burnham has an excellent review which can be read here
https://www.napoleon-series.org/reviews/memoirs/GeorgeMiller95thRifles.pdf
(or just google it if the link doesn't work). But I thought that I'd post one passage that I enjoyed, and which shows that handling volunteers from the militia was not always straightforward. It is 1805, and Miller has been in the army about eight months when he was detached on recruiting duty and then charged with escorting a body of recruits, even though they were destined for another regiment. He told his brother:
‘They behaved in a most rascally manner all last night, dancing, drumming, fifing and singing the whole night. They get three guineas of their bounty at the receiving station, wh[ich] will make it a pretty business for the officers having charge of them to march them to quarters. A soldier should never have more than sixpence at once. If he has a shilling, he has a great deal more than he can manage.’ (2ndLt George Miller to his brother John, Dereham, 23 April 1805, Making of a Rifles Officerp 112)
Miller was charged with escorting a large body volunteers from the Shropshire Militia to the 82ndRegiment – for which he received no extra pay and which he thought a bit much as they weren’t going to his regiment.
‘I believe that I have already mentioned to you what rascally, drunken animals these Shropshire men are. Their money is now gone, however, so that they are now tolerably sober. It is a favourite amusement among them to kick each other’s shins till the blood co[mes] through their stockings. I have at present forty-four men particularly under my charge, for whom I act as paymaster and commissary. I had also to provide meat and bread for the whole of them but, now that ninety-three of them are gone, my trouble is much lessened.’ (2ndLt George Miller to his brother John, Dereham, 3 May 1805, Making of a Rifles Officerp 113)
This was not the worst of it, for the recruits subsequently mutinied:
‘In my last letter l believe that l proceeded as far Dereham, where we remained with the men until the 6thinst in the most uncomfortable situation you can well suppose. I then sent my party home by Norwich, only retaining a sergeant to assist us. As Colonel Tufnell and myself could not get away before eleven o’clock, we marched the men off at six in the morning under the command of an officer of the 5th, quite a young lad, with orders to march to Thetford which is twenty-two miles from Dereham. At eleven o’clock we followed them in the Colonel’s gig and arrived at Watton, a small village ten miles from Dereham, about twelve, where we found the men and the officer, who to our great surprise informed us that they refused to march farther. The Colonel immediately fell them in, and did everything in his power to induce them to march, but all to no purpose. Every man of them refused to go except one. I need not observe that during all this time they behaved in the most rascally manner, one of them had the goodness to call the Colonel a liar to his face and say that he would be d….d if he marched for him or any man ilk. The Colonel then went off to Thetford, twelve miles distant, in order to raise the Volunteers and march every one of them prisoners. When he arrived there, the gentlemen volunteers were perfectly surprised, and asked him five or six times if there was any danger. At length they found that they could not go before next morning. He therefore bid them goodnight, saying “Gentlemen, you need not have been the least afraid. They have not even got a bayonet with them.”
‘During the time of his absence you may well suppose that I was in a very uneasy situation. However, with the assistance of a brace of pistols and a good whacking sword, I was determined to be abused by none of them. They collected round the room where I was, and even had the impudence to come in, four or five of them at once, without rapping at the door or using any ceremony whatever. At last Lord [p 116] Bradford, their old Colonel, accidentally came up and by means of drink, flattery and otherwise at length got them to march. At this very place I am told that, on their way to Norwich, one of them knocked down an officer. Their officers, it is said, are ever afraid of them. We were not to be frightened in this manner, however. Next day I marched them from Thetford to Bury St Edmunds where Colonel Tufnell, having gone before, had a party under arms to receive them. We then picked those we thought the worst of them out of the ranks and held a court martial next morning but, as they ought to have been flogged from the one end to the other, we punished none of them but the one of them who gave the Colonel the lie. I was a member of this court martial and was sworn for the first time according to the present regulations. Thus ended my transactions with these gentry.’ (1stLt George Miller to his brother John, Woodbridge, 11 May 1805, Making of a Rifles Officerp 115-16) (Fortuitously Miller was promoted to 1stLieutenant by seniority on 8 May, just as he was undertaking this task).
Thanks for sharing this Rory - very interesting and also quite amusing. Everyone always mentions the Irish recruits behaving abominably, but this perhaps will cause people to think again. I wonder if any were tried for mutinous conduct. Unfortunately this is before the period of my database, but I may be able to dig out the relevant General Court Martial photos.
Miller says that in the end they only tried one of the soldiers - the one who accused Colonel Tufnell of lying and that Miller served on the court martial (a nicely objective judge!) and that he was sworn according to the present regulations. This was in May 1805 so it might be possible to trace it further, either through court martial records of reports in the press.
AHH, that as probably a Regimental Court Martial then, if an officer of the same unit as the accused served as a judge. The registers and transcripts for RCMs pre 1811 are almost impossible to find. Interesting that he wasn't called as a witness though...
I was always taught the old adage "The British soldier spends most of his money on strong liquor, cheap tat and women of easy virtue. The rest he wastes."
The case of the Irish militia is always interesting - Graham, McAnally and Blackstock are all great at showing the conficting aspects - especially between the officers (typically protestant) and the rank and file (RC). A huge number of them volunteered for service in Britain or wherever may be of most service (for better or for worse!)
Technically, of course, the officers had to be Protestant.
did they *have* to be? was it enshrined? if you know of a reference, please send on thanks
The Test Act of 1673 prevented anyone from taking any office, civil or military, without taking an oath denying transubstantiation and to receive sacrament within the Church of England within 3 months of appointment.
It was repealed in two stages, the need to take sacrament was removed by The Sacramental Test Act 1828 and the oath by The Catholic Emancipation Act 1829.
In our period therefore whilst it was possible to serve in the Army as a Catholic soldier or NCO but it was technically impossible to hold a commission. Of course, just because that is what the law said doesn't mean the tests were universally applied. Or that Catholics wouldn't take the oath anyway (presumably seeking absolution directly afterwards).
Most Catholics would have believed such a requirement, and the oath itself, to be invalid and non-binding, so those who wanted advancement could swear in fairly good conscience and then confess it afterwards.
I have often wondered at the extreme hatred the English/Brits have had for Catholics since sickly Edward VII, fanned by Elizabeth I and virtually every monarch until the ate 19th century. Has any other civilized nation required some of its citizens to denounce an integral part of their religious beliefs in order to fully participate in civil or military life, or attend university? Either way, I spent 23 years illuminating my students that the Church of England originated from male ego and lust.
Most large scale religions eventually have schisms leading to sectarianism. Protestantism was already on the rise since Martin Luther. Henry VIII's need for a male heir (as well as his wandering eye), played into their hands. The was never a monopoly on hatred and cruelty, on the other side 'Bloody Mary' wasn't called bloody for nothing. Avoiding another Catholic monarch led to a bloodless coup (or Glorious Revolution, depending on your viewpoint) and was the reason why Britain shared a dynasty with Hanover.
By our period though, the cause of Catholic emancipation was gaining traction. It was very nearly incorporated in The Act of Union in 1801. Anglo-Irish sensitivities came in to play however, further complicated by the King insisting it was incompatible with his coronation oath. Many prominant figures, not least Wellington, were openly in favour of emancipation. The technicalties were probably not applied as rigourously as the acts implied. Incidently, in the true speedy British tradition, the restriction on the monarch marrying a cotholic was only lifted in 2011. The Monarch themselves still cannot be a Catholic as allegiance to the Pope would threaten the independence of the Church of England. But then in line with Criminals and the insane, She can't vote either.
1688 and then accession of George I were part of a protestant trajectory which has led directly to the current Saxe-Coberg-Gotha incumbant. I have even seen it argued that the '45 was less about Scottish desire for independence but more about the Catholic highlanders, French and Irish versus the Protestant lowlanders and government forces, competing for the English rather than the Scottish throne.
In recent years we have seen that sectarianism and nationalism when mixed together can be a heady brew. I think it is to Wellington's credit that he was in favour of emancipation and contributed to the religious tolerance we enjoy today.