DECEMBER 217 



his argument by extracts from his correspondence with 

 regimental officers. One of these wrote ' If an 

 infantry soldier has to step over a drain two feet broad, 

 he has to put one hand to his cap to keep it on his 

 head, and his other to his pouch, and what becomes of 

 his musket?' And this, be it remembered, was the 

 fighting-kit ; for no general in those days ever dreamed 

 of taking troops into action except in full review order. 



James i. was not a warlike king, but he was a pretty 

 shrewd observer of men and matters. He was not far 

 wrong when he observed that plate armour was a fine 

 thing, for it not only protected the life of the wearer, 

 but hindered him from hurting anybody else ! Like 

 censure might have been applied with equal justice to 

 the clothing of British soldiers in the Crimean cam- 

 paign, except that it afforded no protection to the 

 wearer's life or limb. It required nearly one hundred 

 years to convince the War Office that it was cruel 

 stupidity to send men on active service in clothing so 

 tight as to fetter the limbs and compress the chest. 

 That was the legacy of George iv. to the British Army. 



Although to one looking back over the history of 

 what is now the United Kingdom, the most salient and 

 chronic features seem to be campaigns and battles, 

 invasion and counter-invasion, it was not until the Civil 

 War that any attempt was made towards a uniform 

 dress for any army. It is true that both the English 

 and Scottish Parliaments prescribed the offensive and 

 defensive armour with which every able-bodied subject 

 was to provide himself or be provided by his feudal 

 chief, and if that chief were a wealthy baron his con- 



