CHAPTER XXII. CLOTHING, UNIFORM, AND EQUIPMENT DURING THE A.D. 1660-1700. Uniform.-Origin of Uniform-clothing.-The English national colour.-The Headdress.-Facial uniform.-The Cravat.-The Coat.-The Cloak.-The Legdress.-The Boot or Shoe.-The Glove.-The Knapsack.-The Haver-sack.The Water-bottle.-Badges.-Spurs.-Horse-equipment.-Hussars.-Signs of Battle.-Mode of Supply.—Abuses.—Prices. [For Illustrations, see Note on p. xiii.] "UNIFORM," or a dress peculiar to soldiers and of one pattern for a whole body of men, is not a modern distinction. The Romans clothed their legions in uniform, and the earlier Eastern potentates used to entertain bands of armed followers who were distinguished by their dress. The rudest form of military uniform is found in the war-paint of savage nations: our own ancestors stained their bodies with blue: and not only does each tribe have its proper paint, but the chiefs have distinguishing badges of rank as marked as those of a General of an European army: a few streaks more or less of paint, and a slight addition to the head-dress, serve to mark the leaders sufficiently clearly. The elaborate uniforms of the armies of civilised peoples are but a development of the war-paint and feathers of the naked savage. Sound sense dictated the use of the one and of the other, and the reasons that prompted the first initiation of military uniform tell with undiminished force in favour of its continuance. One tribe tattooes the face while another marks only the breast or limbs; one nation favours red coats, another white, and a third green; but all with the common object of discerning in the fight friend from foe, and of avoiding the disastrous consequences which would ensue to one party or both from an undistinguishable mingling of two opposing armies. Of the necessity for some distinction of dress we have a notable example in the battle of the Boyne. Many of the troops on either side were clothed alike; and to avoid confusion it was found necessary to extemporise some party-badge. The Irish soldiers wore a white band on the arm while the English stuck green boughs in their hats.770 Just as a savage Chief wears a tall feather in his hair or a circlet of metal on his brow, to enable his followers to distinguish him in the mêlée that they may be inspired or steadied by his example, so does the dancing plume or the gold and crimson sash of the modern General serve to warn his troops to whom to look for orders and around whom to rally. All the men of uncivilised tribes are warriors and therefore all wear these distinctive military marks and badges; with us, only a portion of the population are soldiers, and it is only soldiers that have need of some such emblems of their nationality or their personal military rank. The scarlet coat is not given to the soldier to distinguish him from the civilian, but to distinguish him from an enemy. It is true that it does set the soldier apart from the civilian, and it is equally true that it is desirable so to set him apart, but nevertheless that distinction is a mere incident and not a primary object of uniform. The lace, tags, crowns, stripes, and stars, which to the eyes of the uninitiated indicate nothing but a vain and unmeaning desire for ornament, have each their appropriate signification to the soldier. A stripe, a crown, or a star more or less marks the degrees of rank; the doubling of a row of lace converts a captain into a colonel: this pattern of lace or plume indicates a cavalry officer, that pattern a staff-officer, and so on.771 Although not properly within the scope of this history, it will not be altogether irrelevant to cast a cursory glance back at the century preceding the Restoration. Clothing worn as military uniform in this country probably originated in the assumption of badges 772 by feudal retainers; a 770 Story. James II, &c. 771 And I would remark that it might be well were the objects, origin, and history of badges and distinctions more constantly borne in mind by those who have the regulation of such matters. Esprit de Corps would be better fostered, and there would not exist that confusion of dress which of late years has become so common. Certain outward symbols are presumed to indicate certain grades or corps, and if similar emblems are employed to signify different things, their meaning is neutralised and the use of them at all void of sense. 772 Thus Warwick in Shakspeare's Henry VI : See also Rymer. "Now by my father's badge, old Nevil's crest, relic of this custom still survives in the badges worn by members of the civic companies of the City of London. Such badges being found insufficient to prevent confusion, coloured sashes, and then "livery" coats were adopted. The value of some such unmistakable distinction of uniform was well exemplified at the Battle of Edgehill (1642),773 when some of the Parliamentary troops deserting in a body to the side of the King were shortly afterwards killed by their new comrades, owing to their having neglected to throw aside the orangetawny scarfs worn by the soldiers of the Parliamentary Army as being the colours of their leader the Earl of Essex. The ROYAL LIVERY or uniform of England appears to have always been crimson or scarlet with blue trimmings or facings, and it was certainly so at the period of the Restoration. In the time of Henry the Eighth scarlet and blue were the colours of the Royal body-guard (the Yeomen of the Guard), the clothing being of scarlet cloth and the trimmings of blue velvet; but sometimes the Royal guard wore the same colours reversed, that is, blue coats 775 with red facings. White uniforms were also worn at that time.776 At that period also feudal badges were abolished in favour of a national or Royal badge," for in the Ordinances of War for 1544 it was ordered "that every man going in hosting or "battle, of what estate condition or nation he be, of the King's “party and host, except he be a bishop or officer of arms, bear "a cross of Saint George sufficient and large, &c., &c. . . . "And that no soldier bear no cognisance but the King's and his captain's upon pain of death." 773 Clarendon. 774 Holbein, &c.; Paintings of the Field of the cloth of gold; Henry VIII embarking from Dover; Meeting of Henry VIII and the Emperor Maximilian. By the Charter to the Guild of the Hon. Artillery Company of London (1537) the officers of the Company were permitted the use of any kind of colour except purple or scarlet (these being Royal colours). The troops raised in England for service in Holland in Queen Elizabeth's reign wore "red coats," or "red cassocks" (Stow; Hist. of the siege of Ostend, &c.). 775 Manuscript, “W. S.,” College of Arms; Orders of Duke of Norfolk, quoted by Grose :-A. D. 1545: Every man sowdyer to have a cote of blew clothe, after such fashion as all "footmen's cotes be made here at London, to serve His Majesty in this jorney, and "that the same be garded with red cloth, and the best sene to be trymmed after such "sort as shall please the captain to devise." 776 Shrewsbury Letters. College of Arms. Vol. D., Fol. 109. 66 In Queen Elizabeth's reign the infantry had overcoats or "cassocks of some motley or other sad green colour or russet," "79 much like those of the modern Spanish infantry, but the "doublet" worn under this cassock was often if not always red,778 especially as the cavalry at the same epoch kept up the national colour in their sleeveless red cloaks.779 It is curious to note that the "stripe of three fingers broad "of red upon the outside of the leg from the stock downward,” 780 now so much worn, dates from the time of Henry the Eighth, In the army of the Commonwealth dull colours were generally affected,781 and horse soldiers wore leathern jerkins and breeches. With the Restoration the scarlet reappeared. Hitherto the use of this colour would appear to have been almost confined to Royal corps or the body-guard. At the Restoration 789 the Life-Guards and Foot-Guards favoured the Royal colour, while the Horse Guards or Earl of Oxford's Blues wore blue. As other regiments were raised they also appropriated the national colour, for regiments were no longer feudal retainers nor raised only for a passing emergency: they were now permanent troops forming a part of the Royal standing army and as such having a right to the Royal livery. In 1669 the "Royal livery "783 was red turned up with light blue; and in 1698 a proclamation 784 was issued prohibiting the use for liveries of "any sort of scarlet or red cloth or stuff, "except such as are or shall be worn by His Majesty's Servants, “and Guards (i.e., troops), and those belonging to the Royal 'family or foreign ministers.” 778 Stow. Hist. of siege of Ostend. From these it appears that all troops recruited in England for service in the Netherlands were clothed in red: see Note 774. 779 A.D. 1584; Peck, Desiderata Curiosa. 780 Orders of Duke of Norfolk, 1545. 781 Contemporary paintings. 792 The Militia and Volunteers also appear to have asserted a right to the red coat from the first, for in 1662 the Governor of Exeter having raised a regiment of Foot (upon the alarm of an insurrection of the Millenarians), "clad them in red coats"; Mercurius Pub., 4 Decr., 1662. See also Chap. XXIV, under the headings of Militia and Volunteers. 783 Cosmo's travels. See also Ill. XVI. The Stuart Scotch royal livery was red faced with yellow. 784 Proclamation, 10 Mar., 1698/9; London Gazette. Orders, 20 Decr., 1698, and 13 Febry., 1698/9, by the Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshall to the same effect; Lond. Gaz., 23/27 Mar., 1698/9. It must not however be imagined that scarlet was altogether peculiar to this country. The French had some regiments clothed in red, and so had the Dutch. Julius Ferretus, a writer of the sixteenth century tells us (says Grose), that all soldiers commonly wore a red frock, this colour being selected with a view to lessen the effect of the sight of blood. The English nation is, however, the only one that has retained the colour as its national badge. There were several exceptions to the general use of scarlet by our troops both before, and subsequently to, the Restoration. Among these were the yellow coats of the old Marines (see Ill. CLXXXVIII), which then ranked as third of the Foot regiments, and the blue coats of the Tenth, Twenty-third (see Ills. LXII, XLIV), Twenty-fourth, and other regiments of Foot.785 It has been stated by some writers that the red coat was made our uniform colour by William the Third at the time of his accession: nothing can be more erroneous, for whereas there were but two blue-coated784 infantry regiments before the Revolution, in the regiments raised immediately after it blue prevailed over red. Not only the Twenty-Third and Twenty fourth but also Drogheda's, 785 Lisburne's, Ingoldsby's, and Bolton's all wore blue. Lord Castleton's regiment was dressed in grey with purple facings; 786 and this was not the only regiment with 784 Besides the 10th Foot; the D. of Buckingham's Foot (raised 1672) wore "blue cloth coats lined with red baize," W.O. Records 18 June, 1673, Misc. orders. 78% Letter, Chester, 5 Aug., 1689; Thorpe Tracts. Harl. MSS. 986. Symonds's notes of the Muster of the King's Army at Oxford 13 Feby., 1643, shows the Life Guards in red, but three regts. in white, blue, grey, coats. Letter, Chester, 2 Aug., 1689. News from Chester, Lond. 1689; Thorpe. 786 Grose, in giving a copy of a Contract in 1693 for grey coats and breeches for this regiment, draws the inference that all foot soldiers were clothed in grey; an error which has been propagated with less reservation by recent authors. But we know from other sources that at this period most of our infantry wore red (see the various illustrations of uniforms), and that grey clothing was, like the blue coats of the Tenth, an exception to the rule and peculiar to this and one or two other regiments. Otway's play of "The soldier's fortune" 1681, contains the following passages: "It was fortune made me a soldier, a rogue in red." "Every parish bawd that goes to conventicle twice a week shall roar out (to "the soldiers) fogh ye lousy red-coat rake-hells." Silvia (speaking of Courtine a soldier). Filthily dressed enough of all conscience with a thread-bare red coat." Courtine (a soldier) calls himself "A drunken red-coat." St. Helena Official Records 20 July, 1685, shews that the Militia in St. Helena wore red coats in 1683 and 1685. The regulars also had worn red for some time prior to 1692. Records, 29 Octr., 1692. |