COAST DEFENCE. 
181 
Artillery, one for which I hope necessity may never arise. It is a use 
that does not constitute a reason for the existence of the coast gunner, 
but it may well be reckoned in estimating his worth. Should the 
fleet ever be short of men to man the guns afloat, would not the 
Garrison Artillery form a useful reserve of disciplined and drilled 
men from which to draw ? There will be no press-gang in the future. 
If the fleet is not properly manned, there is no use in keeping men in 
forts who might be of service afloat. As facts of the past help us to 
forecast the possibilities of the future, a few instances, taken at random, 
of the part that has been played by artillerymen afloat, will not be out 
of place. Before, and for some time after, the days of Queen Elizabeth 
the gunners afloat and ashore were under the control of the Master- 
General of the Ordnance, and were apparently borne on the same lists. 
There is extant a curious letter from Master-Gunner William Thomas, 
of- the Garrison of Flushing, written soon after the defeat of the 
Spanish Armada, which points to the fact that the principal man 
behind the gun was the same afloat and ashore. In this letter it is 
urged that if the petition of the gunners had been granted in former 
years, and if they were established on a firmer basis, as in the reign of 
Henry VIII., there would have been less “ blind exercise and unskilful 
teaching,” and the gunners would have shot straighter than they did 
at the Spanish ships. “ So much powder/’ he writes, “ and shot spent, 
and so long time in fight, and, in comparison thereof, so little harm.” 1 
It is not in human nature that Master-Gunner Thomas, a garrison 
gunner, would thus excuse the bad shooting of gunners afloat unless 
he and they were of the same corps. In latter days, and well into the 
beginning of the present century, Boyal Artillery served afloat in the 
bomb vessels. Admiral Boscawen, in the East Indies, thought so much 
of his Boyal Artillerymen that he wished to have the promotion of the 
officers in his own hands. 2 Lieut. Thomas Davies, of the artillery, 
in one of the vast inland seas of North America, actually commanded 
a naval force at the time of the conquest of Canada. 3 It is recorded 
that he took a French frigate of eighteen guns after a close action of 
nearly three hours. Sir Thomas Blomfield, of Copenhagen fame, as a 
Boyal Artillery officer served under Bodney at the bombardment of 
Havre in 1759. 3 His experience afloat served him in good stead 
afterwards in fitting out floating batteries on the Canadian lakes. 
Lieut. Bobertson, B.A., with some gunners, served under Nelson on 
board the Victory in 1805, but was not fortunate enough to be at 
Trafalgar. 2 Similar instances could be quoted without end. There is 
nothing new in the idea of Boyal Artillery serving afloat, and it is 
worthy of note that such service was popular with gunners. 
I have no real difference of opinion with Sir George Clarke on the 
subject of coast artillery ; it would indeed be presumptuous if I had. 
I only think that he does not give the coast gunner sufficient credit. 
Professional zeal prompts me, for reasons I have given, to consider that 
1 “ Defeat of the Spanish Armada,” Navy Records Society. 
2 Duncan, “ History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery.” 
3 Kane’s List, 
