John Adcock, 38th Regiment of Foot, gets a break from prison

The army got John Adcock out of prison. It wasn't a dramatic rescue, but a bit of administrative good fortune.  Adcock had been convicted of "riot", a crime more or less equivalent to disturbing the peace, and was sentenced to six months in prison in Warwick, England. The fact that Adcock was a private soldier in the 38th Regiment of Foot did not exempt him from being convicted and having to serve his time.

As long as the regiment was on service in Great Britain, that is. In early 1774, while Adcock was in prison in Warwick, the regiment was ordered to America, part of a military force that was expected to quell the rebellious spirit that had taken over Massachusetts. The 38th was currently in Ireland; how Adcock came to be in prison in Warwick is not known - he may have been on recruiting service, or on furlough. When word came that his regiment was to embark for America, his sentence was remitted, and on 31 March 1774 he left Warwick to join his regiment.

The 38th arrived in Boston that summer and encamped with several other regiments on Boston Common, a strong military presence intended to restore order through intimidation. There seem to have been no repercussions for Adcock's having been in a civilian prison. He was, in fact, a good enough soldier that he was appointed corporal on 17 September, but his time in that capacity was short; on 15 October he was reduced again to the ranks. Such short-term appointments were not unusual, and did not always denote poor discipline. Sometimes men were appointed to temporarily replace corporals who were indisposed, and sometimes men who were appointed didn't care for the roll and requested to be reduced.

Whatever the reason for his reduction, it didn't prevent him from being put into the regiment's grenadier company on 15 April 1775, a move probably made to bring the company up to strength for the impending expedition to seize rebel stores in Concord. There's no indication that he was wounded in that action, or in the assault on Bunker Hill in June. The next detailed information we have about John Adcock is from June 1779.

The 38th Regiment's grenadier company, as part of the 1st Battalion of Grenadiers, had spent the winter quartered on Long Island, part of the British garrison centered in New York City. With the opening of the campaign season, the battalion was part of a force sent up the Hudson River to secure British points at Stony Point and Verplanck Point. The grenadier battalion was among the troops that established an encampment on the east side of the river, fortifying Verplanck Point while awaiting their next move.

Something was amiss with discipline in the battalion, however, which led to a spate of desertions. It may have been simply the relative freedom of being out of quarters, or the opportunities for marauding afforded by close proximity to the front lines, or issues internal to the battalion itself. Several grenadiers were caught and brought to trial, but about two dozen got away, including John Adcock.

The 38th Regiment served out the war in America and was among the last to leave New York in November 1784. They returned to Great Britain, and there soldiers who were no longer fit for service were discharged. But amid all of the discharges, a man was added to the rolls: John Adcock, "joined from desertion" on 23 April 1784. We've found nothing about his whereabouts for the intervening years, including how he managed to get back to Great Britain. Quite possibly he had joined an American privateer crew, been captured at sea and sent to a British prison. He may have enlisted in a Loyalist regiment that was disbanded at the end of the war and received passage to Great Britain from the army. There are many possibilities. No matter; his soldiering days were over. Just a month after rejoining his regiment, John Adcock was discharged, and there's no evidence that he returned to the service.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

William McDonald, 38th Regiment: The War's First Escapee?

From the first day of hostilities, prisoners of war began to accumulate on both sides. British soldiers on the 19 April 1775 expedition to Concord, Massachusetts, were many miles from their quarters in Boston when the countryside suddenly turned hostile. Not having anticipated this violent turn of events, no provision had been made to transport wounded soldiers back to Boston. Most of those who were not ambulatory were left behind. For the most part, they were well cared for by inhabitants of the communities around Boston. Although it was not at all clear how things would develop during the coming months, the convalescent soldiers were held as prisoners, prisoners of a war that was not yet fully instantiated in the minds of all participants.

Among the wounded British soldiers was a thirty-year-old Scotsman, William McDonald, a grenadier in the 38th Regiment of Foot. A laborer from the town of Abernethy in Morayshire, Scotland, he had joined the army ten years before. At some point during the fighting on 19 April he received a shot through his foot, leaving him immobile and in the care of his captors. Soon after being taken, he was brought, together with four other prisoners, to a home in the town of Lincoln near Concord. There, representatives from the Massachusetts Provincial Congress sought depositions from participants in the fighting that had broken out in Lexington, attempting to prove that British soldiers had fired first. McDonald gave no deposition; being in a grenadier company, he probably didn't witness the initial shots in Lexington which had involved several British light infantry companies. A light infantry soldier of the 52nd Regiment, John Bateman, did write a deposition on 23 April stating that the British had been ordered to fire, and a visitor to the home said that McDonald and three other captives had watched Bateman write his deposition. They corroborated that Bateman had sworn on oath to the truth of it, but they did not themselves give testimonies or even indicate agreement with Bateman.

McDonald and other prisoners were then confined for some time in the jail in Concord. While there, another British soldier was brought in, Robert Gaul, who had deserted from the 43rd Regiment of Foot in July 1774; Gaul had refused to serve in the Massachusetts militia and attempted to return to Boston but was caught as a deserter and was taken to the jail with hands tied. Gaul stayed only one night before being taken to Cambridge for trial. Some days later, Gaul showed up again, having escaped. A British serjeant, also captive in Concord, gave Gaul a pass with an American general's signature and sent him on his way to try to return to British service.

McDonald was still in Concord's jail on 6 December, when a list of the prisoners was made that indicated that his wife was still in Boston. This gave him strong incentive to get away. Sometime in the next two months, his wound healed, he took to his heels, finding a way to escape from his captors and make his way back into besieged Boston. We've found no details of how he accomplished the feat. Getting away from his captors may have been relatively easy, as prisoners were often allowed to take jobs in the region of their captivity and many used this relative freedom as an opportunity to abscond. Getting in to the besieged city, on the other hand, was no easy task, faced with perils by both land and sea. Whatever the means, McDonald was back in Boston by 20 February 1776, when a British officer of the 40th Regiment wrote,

A grenadier of the 38th regiment, who was wounded and taken prisoner on the 19th of April (the affair at Lexington) has found means to make his escape. He says, there are many friends to Government who would be happy to get under the protection of our troops, but are apprehensive of failing in the attempt.

Although he'd managed to return to service, McDonald's wound caused him trouble. He was removed from the grenadier company in May when the army was preparing for a new campaign in which the grenadiers would take a particularly active role, expected to march for long distances at high speeds. In February 1777, a year after he's returned to the British army, McDonald was discharged. Because of his disability, and no doubt in consideration of his exertions, he was recommended for a pension.

He had to wait for a ship to take him to home to Great Britain, and before he did he was able to come to the aid of a fellow soldier. Robert Gaul, the man he'd met in Concord jail who had escaped from Ameircan militia service, had been captured in May 1777 with a party of rebels in a house in New Jersey. He was brought to New York and put on trial for deserting and bearing arms in the rebel service. Gaul pleaded that he had been seduced to desert by inhabitants of Boston in 1774, but had refused to serve in their army and spent much time in prison because of it. Only recently had he agreed to enlist, to escape the deprivation of captivity, but when his corps was engaged by the British, he hid in a swamp until he could surrender.

Gaul called upon two British soldiers he'd met while in captivity to testify that he'd repeatedly expressed a desire to return to service. McDonald was one of the witnesses, who related the information about meeting Gaul in Concord jail and concluded his testimony by telling the court that Gaul "always shewed great contrition for having deserted His Majesty’s Service, and seemed very desirous of returning to the Regiment." Gaul was found guilty of desertion, but was spared capital punishment on the basis of McDonald's and another soldier's testimonies.

William McDonald returned to Great Britain, appeared before the pension board in Chelsea, and received his reward in October 1777. At only 32 years of age, however, he still had some fight left in him. In the 1790s, a rapid expansion of the British military in response to conflicts in Europe led to the raising of many new corps for local defense. McDonald enlisted in the Strathspey Fencibles, a regiment raised in his native region of Scotland for service only within the confines of that country. He served until the corps was disbanded in 1799, when he returned once again to the pension rolls.

Learn more about British soldiers in America

Richard Brunton, 38th Regiment, Engraver

At a glance, the military career of Richard Brunton looks ordinary enough. Born in 1749, he learned the trade of an engraver in his native Birmingham, a city well known for metal crafting trades. Some time in the early 1770s he left his profession and enlisted the 38th Regiment of Foot. He may have been seeking adventure like so many young men who enlisted, but we can only guess at his motivations. The regiment was in Ireland at the time, but like most regiments it sent recruiting officers to cities like Birmingham where willing young men might be found.

At 6 feet 1 inch tall, Brunton was a good candidate for the regiment's grenadier company, and by the time the regiment embarked for America in 1774 he was in that company. This indicates that he had more than just good stature; grenadiers were chosen for their good discipline and capability as well as for their physique. The army, it seems, was a good career choice for him.

As a soldier in the 38th Regiment's grenadier company, Brunton probably marched out on 19 April 1775 and witnessed the outbreak of hostilities in the American Revolution. He was also likely present at the savage battle of Bunker Hill where many of his comrades fell dead and wounded. His company, formed into a composite battalion with other grenadier companies, were at the forefront of the campaigns of General Howe's army in 1776, 1777 and 1778, including the battles of Brooklyn, Brandywine, Monmouth and many others. There is no evidence that he was on any detached duty, so he must have become a hardened campaigner accustomed to long marches in heat and cold, nights in makeshift shelters or no shelter at all, steadiness in the rapid and irregular warfare that typified these campaigns, and making due for extended periods with minimal food, clothing and comforts.

The spring of 1779 found the British grenadier battalions on Long Island, preparing for another campaign season after wintering in relative comfort. On 30 May they sailed up the Hudson River, part of a large force under General Sir Henry Clinton; on 1 June, while other troops landed at Stony Point on the western bank, the grenadiers and others landed at Verplanks Point on the eastern shore. There they built a camp composed of wigwams made from brush since their tents and other baggage had not yet been sent up the river; they'd used this method of encampment many times in the previous years. They proceeded to secure their position.

Perhaps it was restlessness after a long winter, or the irresistible temptation to explore and exploit the surrounding countryside, or even the need to forage for supplemental provisions, that caused the spate of desertions over the next two weeks. Sixteen men absconded from the 1st Battalion of Grenadiers between 3 and 16 June, and presumably others deserted from other corps on Verplanks Point. It was not until the last two men, comrades of Richard Brunton belonging to the 38th Regiment's grenadier company, were caught, tried and sentenced death that the desertions ended. One of the men was pardoned but the other was hanged as an example for the rest. Another deserter who was taken up by American sentries deposed that men were leaving because of harsh treatment by the battalion's commander, but that treatment could've been in response to the first desertions and other irregularities rather than the cause of them. Regardless, Brunton was not there to see the spectacle of his fellow soldier being executed; he had deserted with seven other men on 6 June.

It may be that Brunton simply wandered off during an opportunistic foraging and plundering adventure, but he may have been acting on long-held intentions to leave the service. Whether or not he had a plan when he deserted, he certainly formulated one quickly. He made his way to Boston and set up shop as an engraver, working with others who he may have met when he was part of the city's garrison in 1774, 1775 and 1776. He married in October 1779, to a woman he may have met during the winter of 1777-1778 in Philadelphia.

Richard Brunton's career in the army seemed unremarkable until he deserted, and his reasons for doing so are not known. His subsequent life was characterized by business failures, displacement, criminal activity and other troubles that may have marred his military life as well. In spite of his difficulties, he made a number of singular contributions to American folk art, significant enough that his life and work has been chronicled in a new book. Soldier, Engraver, Forger-Richard Brunton’s Life on the Fringe in America’s New Republic by Deborah M. Child tells the story of this engraver-turned-soldier who established a place for himself in art history even though he never enjoyed success in his life. It includes illustrations of many of Brunton's engravings, paintings and other works which testify to the man's skill as a craftsman. Had he not deserted from the British army, he probably never would have had cause to pursue his trade and create the works that form his legacy.

Learn more about British soldiers in America

John Edwards, 38th Regiment, has the knee buckles

Muster rolls, ideally prepared every six months for British regiments, provide a lot of information about each soldier's career. Looking at one roll after another, we can see when a man joined a regiment, which companies he served in, and when he left. For some changes, a specific reason is given; for example, when a man left a regiment the rolls usually included an annotation of "discharged," "died," "drafted," "deserted" or what have you. But these are reasons only in a high-level administrative sense; that is, they tell us that a man was discharged (for example), but not whether it was due to long service, infirmity, reduction of forces, or some other reason.

As we've seen in other cases, it is risky to make assumptions about reasons behind changes. A frequent occurrence was for private soldiers to be appointed as corporals, and later being "reduced" back to private soldiers. For some men this happened several times. When I mention this to people, they often wryly respond that the soldier must have run afoul of military discipline, but there are many other plausible explanations. The man might have been incapacitated by injury or illness, and reduced temporarily so that an able man could fill his place; or he himself may have been a temporary replacement. He may have proven unsuited to the job - there are even examples of soldiers requesting to resign from non-commissioned roles. An overall force reduction could change the number of corporalcies available. The man have had a trade that was valuable to the army, and given up his corporalcy to fill some other role.

But, were cases where disciplinary action was, in fact, the cause. Because very few regimental orderly books or regimental court martial records survive, we seldom know the reason behind a reduction in rank. But occasionally information surfaces in other places that provide answers. Such is the case with John Edwards of the 38th Regiment of Foot.

The 38th Regiment arrived in Boston from Ireland in the summer of 1774 with the 27-year-old Edwards in its ranks as a private soldier in the light infantry company. He may have been wounded either during the expedition to Concord on 19 April 1775, or at Bunker Hill on 17 June; muster rolls seldom indicate wounded men, but Edwards was transferred out of the light infantry on 15 September, usually an indication that he was no longer capable of the rigorous service of the light infantry.

The regiment left Boston with the rest of the army in March 1776, and after a sojourn in Halifax, Nova Scotia, landed on Staten Island in June. It was here that Edwards, after ten years in the army, was appointed corporal on 4 August. The 38th was active in the campaigns around New York and in New Jersey in 1776 and 1777, and on the campaign to Philadelphia in 1777. After Philadelphia was evacuated in 1778, the 38th Regiment was sent to reinforce the British garrison in Rhode Island, arriving just before the place was besieged for three weeks in August.

After the siege was lifted, life in the Rhode Island garrison calmed down a bit, but within months a cold winter set in and both provisions and firewood were in short supply. Rations were cut severely in the struggle to apportion limited supplies of food and fuel to the military and civilian inhabitants of the island.

The harsh conditions led to some desperate behavior. Depredations by soldiers against inhabitants were a persistent problem any time an army encamped - no matter what army it was - but times of deprivation generally made things worse. On 22 February 1779, a prominent Newport merchant and distiller made an entry in his memorandum book. Cooke had already suffered a great deal of losses to the war as soldiers helped themselves to produce, livestock, fowls and fence rails from his farm - soldiers from both sides, as the rural parts of the island changed hands during the 1778 siege. Now, though, for the first time, his own home in Newport was robbed. He wrote:

Feb. 22, 1779 at ye Neight of ye above day I had my house Robed, I suppose by ye 38 Ridgement, of vize - 1 Silver Tankard Marked ScR; 1 Silver Cann Marked only with ye Makers Name on ye Bottom, S. Casey; 1 Silver Porrager ScR; 1 Silver Pepper Box Marked R. W. or ScR; 1 Silver Tabel Spoon; 1 Silver Tea Spoon; 1 pr Silver Sugar Tongues; 1 pr Silver Shooe Buckels; 1 pr Silver Neay Buckels; 1 Blew Cloke; 1 Surtute; 2 Beaver Hatts; 1 Tea Chist with 10 or 12 Dollars in it; Several Hanchifers, aprons, Stockings &c.

N. B. their was a Coart Marshel held to Enquire Concerning this Theft - my Neay Buckels was found upon one Jack Edwards of ye 38. I have all the Reason in ye World to Suspect very foul play in ye affaire.

The "Jack Edwards" who had Cooke's knee buckles was none other than corporal John Edwards of the 38th Regiment. Cooke's statements are borne out by the fact that Edwards was reduced to private soldier on 11 March 1779, a typical result of a non-commissioned officer being found guilty of a crime. We have no record of the charges brought against Edwards or the trial itself. He may not have participated in the robbery, but the Articles of War forbade soldiers from taking or purchasing items from other soldiers; a non-commissioned officer in particular was expected to recognize the possibility that goods were stolen. Whether other soldiers in the regiment were implicated is not known.

This disciplinary action did not, however, derail Edwards' career. On 19 August 1780 he was appointed serjeant, clear acknowledgement that he was in general a good soldier and had not been a ringleader in the previous year's crime. Soon after he was appointed to the grenadier company, where he spent the remainder of the war in the New York area. Early in 1783, before the peace was finalized and an overall force reduction occurred, he was discharged and returned to Great Britain. On 8 March 1783 he appeared before the pension board in Chelsea outside of London, where he was granted a pension because he had been wounded during the war; the action in which he was wounded, however, is not stated in the pension records.

Learn more about British soldiers!

Richard Cotton, 38th Regiment, is drafted twice

Some books and articles suggest that British soldiers were fiercely loyal to their regiments. If this was true during the 1770s and 1780s, there's no direct evidence of it. None of the handful of narratives by British soldiers make any particular mention of pride in their regiment, and many soldiers changed regiments for one reason or another at least once during their careers. Even officers changed regiments for the sake of career advancement, giving promotion or security priority over loyality to a specific corps.

One way that soldiers changed regiments was by being drafted. Unlike the modern parlance that uses the word to refer to civilians obliged to join the military, during the era of the American Revolution the British army used the term to refer to men drawn from one regiment to serve in another. There are a few highly-publicised cases where soldiers objected to this and even mutinied because of it, but the objection was generally to serving in a different location than promised, rather than in a different regiment. writers who focus on these incidents fail to consider the thousands of soldiers who were drafted, some more than once, during their careers. Drafting orders often directed that volunteers be taken first before ordering men into other regiments. The usual cause for a draft was to keep regiments on overseas deployments up to strength. In some cases men were drafted from regiments in Great Britain to serve in regiments bound for, or already on, overseas service; in other cases, regiments being sent home to Great Britain drafted their able-bodied men into other regiments remaining overseas.

Among the former was Richard Cotton. As war loomed in America, he was serving in the 3rd Regiment of Foot in Ireland. On 23 February 1775 a regimental court martial found him guilty of “stealing a silver table spoon from an inhabitant," for which he receive 250 lashes. Just two weeks later he was drafted to serve in the 59th Regiment of Foot, a regiment already in Boston. We could assume that the 3rd Regiment was trying to get rid of him, but it's more likely that he jumped at the opportunity to leave the officers who had just punished him. Drafting orders required that only men in good physical condition be sent to as drafts, with the receiving regiment allowed to reject any that did not measure up. How a man who'd just been subjected to 250 lashes could be considered fit for overseas service is a mystery.

Cotton, along with other drafts and recruits, arrived in Boston in May to learn that war had broken out. He joined his regiment and served until the end of the year. Then he was drafted again. The 59th Regiment had already been overseas for several years and was due to go home, but their able-bodied men were drafted; Richard Cotton joined the 38th Regiment of Foot. In March 1776 he was put into the regiment's light infantry company, meaning that he was a particularly active and capable soldier; his discipline must have been reasonably good. There's no evidence that these two changes of regiment in rapid succession were in any way objectionable to him, or to the hundreds of others who went through similar transfers.

The light infantry company of the 38th Regiment saw many years of hard service on the front lines of the war's famous campaigns. The battle of Long Island in August 1776, the rapid movements around New York and into New Jersey later that year and into 1777, the campaign that took Philadelphia in late 1777 and the abandonment of that city that culminated in the battle of Monmouth in 1778 - during all of these campaigns the 38th's light company was part of the 1st Battalion of Light Infantry, always on the forefront of the action. Immediately after returning to New York from Philadelphia, the company rejoined the 38th Regiment and sailed to Rhode Island where they reinforced the garrison and spent three weeks under siege, then fought in the battle of Rhode Island on 29 August. They remained in Rhode Island through August 1779 when that place was evactuated by British forces.

The 38th's light company rejoined the 1st Battalion of Light Infantry. They spent the beginning of 1780 on the expedition that laid siege to Charleston, South Carolina. After that city capitulated, they returned to the New York garrison. The summer of 1780 found them on the front lines again, this time in coastal Westchester County, New York on the border of Connecticut. This was a region characterized by raids, skirmishes and incursions as scouting parties clashed between fluid front lines. For reasons that aren't clear, discipline suffered in the British battalions, and there was a spate of desertions from these normally-reliable ranks. 

Early on Monday morning, 17 July 1780, two Loyalist refugees - soldiers who may not have been uniformed - were following a road from the area of Horse Neck, Connecticut towards the British encampment at Rye, New York. They saw someone coming towards them and climbed over a wall to let the man pass. As he went by, the refugees discerned him to be an unarmed British soldier, so they decided to question him. They called out to the man, who stopped, and asked him where he'd come from. The man, Richard Cotton, responded that he'd just left a British command of some 4000 soldiers. The two refugees suspected that he was a deserter and offered to take him to an American post; Cotton went with them. By odd mischance, they soon encountered an American flag of truce - an officer or a small party of American soldiers with official permission to visit British lines on some sort of official business, usually to discuss matters relating to prisoners of war. Richard Cotton begged the refugees to let him go with the flag, but they refused. Cotton tried to make a run for it, but they grabbed him and conveyed him back to the British camp. There, his welcome was not a warm one.

Having been caught on a Monday morning, Richard Cotton was put on trial for desertion on Thursday (for some reason the trial transcript calls him Benjamin rather than Richard, but muster rolls leave no doubt that it's him). The men who captured him testified, as well as a man from the 38th Regiment who gave some simple facts of Cotton's term of service in the regiment. Put on his defense, Cotton claimed he'd gotten drunk and "perplex’d in his mind" on Sunday afternoon, having not enough shirts, shoes and stockings and also believing he was going to be sent from the Light Infantry, where he'd served for so long, back to the regiment. He wandered away from camp, and claimed not to have known where he was until he met the two refugees. He asserted that when the refugees had asked where he belonged, he told them the British company he was from; he also denied mentioning the strength of the British force or having attempted to go with the flag of truce. But when he asked one of the refugees, "Did not you ask me that if I had my Choice whether I would go to the Continental Army or back to the British Troops and what Answer did I make?", he said Cotton's reply was "the Prisoner answer’d him, it does not signify your giving me the choice now as I know very well what you are going to do with me."

Cotton probably did know full well what would be done with him. There had been several desertions from the light infantry battalion already, so a clear message needed to be sent. Cotton was found guilty and sentenced to the maximum penalty for desertion. Regardless of whether he intended to desert, his dissatisfaction was not related to having been drafted twice some years before, but with the prospect of being transferred out of his regiment's light infantry company. Had he not strayed from camp, whatever his motive, this veteran of three regiments would've had the opportunity to see out the war with the 38th Regiment and return to Great Britain. Because of his transgression, on Sunday 23 July 1780, "that man of the 38th Light Infantry who was tried at East Chester for desertion was executed today after the troops came to their ground, hung on a tree at the road side."

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

John Drury, 38th Regiment of Foot

One draw to enlisting in the British army is that it offered steady employment in an era when many jobs were itinerant and uncertain. A man who joined the army in his early twenties and served well stood a reasonable chance of receiving a pension after twenty years; although the pension income was modest, it assured subsistence in old age. But the wartime need for manpower led the government to offer another inducement: land. Private ownership of land was almost impossible for a working class citizen in Great Britain, but in 1775 the British government proclaimed that men who joined the army after 16 December would have the option of taking a land grant in America at the close of hostilities if they had served for at least three years. It wasn't until 1783 that a formal peace treaty was signed and the army reduced in size, allowing men who enlisted under these terms to claim their land if they so chose.

One man who did so was John Drury. He enlisted in the 38th Regiment of Foot, which was already in America when the war began; he joined his new corps in America in November 1775. Apparently a capable and active soldier, after 18 months he was transferred into the regiment's light infantry company, just in time to serve in the siege of Rhode Island in 1778. He remained in the light company for the rest of the war, and "always behaved himself a clean, good and obedient soldier." He also received three wounds during the war.

In the autumn of 1783 the 38th Regiment was among those reduced in size before being sent back to Great Britain. John Drury took his discharge and went with several hundred other former soldiers to Port Roseway (now Shelburne), Nova Scotia. For reasons that are not known, he did not receive a land grant. Instead, he used his own money to purchase a small piece of land from Benjamin Marston, the chief surveyor for the land grants in the area. In spite of the disabling effects from his wounds, Drury quickly built a house and a slaughterhouse on the land (suggesting that he had been a butcher before joining the army). He was married and had a family, but whether he had married before joining the army, during his service in America, or after arriving in Nova Scotia is not known.

Fortune soon turned against this industrious man. The allocation of land grants was a challenging process that proceeded slowly, and there were many accusations of unfairness. Much of the land was poor, and of course not every lot was close to the town. House lots in town were in high demand and short supply, and tensions were exacerbated when white settlers complained that free blacks in town threatened jobs because they would work for lower wages. In late July rioting occurred, with white settlers pulling down the houses of their black counterparts. Marston, the land surveyor, got wind that he was soon to be targeted for his role in allocating the lands and fled to Halifax for his own safety. John Drury, trying to support his family on a subdivision of Marston's land, was driven off of the property he had bought and developed. He lost everything.

In 1786, Drury penned a well-written petition explaining his plight and asking for the lot he had purchased, with the house and slaughterhouse he had built, to be returned to him. Unfortunately we have not determined whether or not the petition was granted to this dutiful soldier and hard-working citizen.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Michael Tevin, 38th Regiment of Foot

It is easy and convenient to assume that British soldiers in general were uneducated and illiterate, but it is far from the truth. Various types of evidence illustrate that these men had, in varying degrees, the functional literacy necessary to manage their personal affairs, just as we'd expect from any working-class citizen in any era. Among the realms where this is evident is that of personal finance. Soldiering in the British army was a career choice defined by contractual obligation between the man and the army, whereby the soldier received compensation in return for service. As with any job, men knew what they were entitled to and protested if they did not receive it.

In general, officers in a regiment were responsible for managing the regiment's finances and seeing that each man received his due. Because very few records of individual soldier's finances survive, we lack information to prove how well the army met its obligations to the rank and file. But other sources suggest that men were meticulous in claiming their due even in highly extenuating circumstances.

Several thousand British soldiers spent some part of their time in America as prisoners of war. Many escaped and made their way back into British lines, often after great hardship. My own estimate, based on examination of muster rolls, is that at least one thousand men rejoined the army after making escapes, often joining different regiments than those in which they'd originally served. In 1782, a board of officers in New York heard claims from soldiers who had been unable to get their full pay, clothing and other entitlements because they'd left their incarcerated regiments - and the bookkeeping that recorded their accounts - and spent time as fugitives in the American countryside.

One such man was Michael Tevin. Called "Tiffin" in some documents, he was a 29-year-old soldier in the 47th Regiment of Foot when that regiment arrived in America in 1773; at 5 feet 5½  inches tall, he was a half-inch shorter the usual minimum height for a soldier. After service in New York and New Jersey, impending hostilities brought the 47th to Boston. When that city was evacuated in 1776, the 47th was transferred from General Howe's army to Canadian service, sailing from Halifax in Nova Scotia to Quebec. Tevin went with his regiment on Burgoyne's 1777 campaign that ended with the capitulation at Saratoga.

After a year in captivity, Tevin and four other men of Burgoyne's army escaped from the stockaded prison in Rutland northwest of worcester, Massachusetts. They managed to make a quick transit, leaving Rutland on 27 September 1778 and arriving on British-held Rhode Island on 9 October, successfully evading capture by lying in the woods during the day, traveling at night, and convincing those who stopped them that they were local countrymen. They were drafted into the 38th Regiment of Foot, then in Rhode Island' Tevin continued in that corps through the end of the war.

In 1782, Tevin made his claim for pay and clothing due to him. He explained that his accounts with the 47th Regiment had last been settled through 24 June 1778, at which time he had nearly 2 pounds due to him. Also due was three years of "Queen's bounty" (a term we have not yet defined) amounting to £1.4.4½, his pay from 24 June 1778 until he joined the 38th Regiment that October, subsistence money (that is, the portion of his pay allocated for food) for a period on Burgoyne's campaign when rations were resticted, and his regimental clothing for 1776 and 1777. He accounted to the day for every penny that he believed was owed to him.

The board of officers countered some of Tevin's claims, not due to inaccuracy of his figures but because they were offset by other compensation. When Tevin joined 38th Regiment he received clothing and cash with a total value exceeding that of the money he claimed; the 38th also gave him regimental clothing that was charged to the 47th Regiment for the year 1776. Tevin acknowledged that he'd received regimentals but had considered them to be for 1778; he also agreed that he'd received three shirts and some cash, the latter a reward for escaping. The accounts were reconciled and Tevin, in recognition of his escape and effort to get promptly within British lines, was granted his claims.

When the 38th Regiment returned to Great Britain in early 1784 Michael Tevin, originally from Crossdoney in County Cavan, Ireland, was discharged from the army at Basingstoke, England. He returned to his native land where in 1793 he joined the army again, this time in the Royal Irish Invalids. He was discharged and received an out-pension from Kilmainham Hospital in 1802 at the age of 58, having served a total of 31 years in the army. He died on 20 April 1816.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Phineas Baker and Henry Drennan, 38th Regiment

You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers. This guidance, familiar today, was also true in the 18th century; in fact, it may have been more true then than now. Period newspapers are outstanding sources of information filled with advertisements and notices that provide rich insight on the culture of a region, but the actual news that they contain is profoundly unreliable. Publishers relied heavily on accounts and hearsay brought to them by travelers and correspondents, and had no ability to verify (in a timely manner) much of what they published. During times of political unrest and war, exaggerated and fabricated information could be used to inflame the readership.

Captain Hugh Maginis of the 38th Regiment of Foot complained of this type of exaggerated reporting by American newspapers early in the war. In a letter to his brother in Ireland in December 1774, he wrote:

The people here and we are on bad terms, ready to cut on another’s throats. We often see here in the English papers accounts from America, not one of which contain a word of truth; they mention a great deal about the desertion from our troops, some are gone off, but not the tenth part of what they say, for our whole army, consisting of 105 companies, have not lost 120 men, although the people make use of every stratagem to make them desert, and supply them with horses and carriages to go off.

Maginis's complaint is proven legitimate by muster rolls. The ten companies in the 38th regiment had 20 desertions from the time of their arrival in Boston in June 1774 until the end of that year; they did not occur at a steady rate, but included 5 in July, 8 in September, and only one or two in each of the other months. Extrapolating to 105 companies yields a figure similar to Maginis's. Whether this was a high or low rate of desertion is a matter of perspective. It is notable that some men listed as having deserted before 19 April 1775 managed to rejoin the army later in the war and brought tales of having been coerced away or even kidnapped. It is difficult to determine whether these were factual reports or alibis designed to avoid punishment for desertion. After hostilities broke out in earnest on 19 April, desertion decreased significantly; the 38th regiment lost only 3 men to desertion from 19 April to the evacuation of Boston in March 1776. Whether the decrease was due to martial spirit or to the city being closed off from the countryside is debatable.

Continuing his thought about the local inhabitants' schemes to inveigle men away, Maginis described the exploits of two of his soldiers:

But I believe that will be a good deal stopped by the good behaviour of a young lad, a corporal in my company; he with another of the company went to a public-house, where they met some countrymen, who advised them to desert, and that they would supply them with disguises, that they might escape the easier, whereupon the corporal put on a disguise, stuffed his regimentals into one of the men’s saddle bags, and after settling their expedition, the countryman offered to take the corporal behind him, but he told him he could not ride without stirrups, so he got on the saddle, and took the countryman behind him, and set a galloping towards the nearest barrack, which, when the other observed, he leaped from behind him, and made his escape, swearing he would not wait to be shot, the corporal drove on to his own barrack with the whole prize, and no one dare to own the horse or cloaths; the corporal is thanked by the whole army, and the horse given up to him; there was no horse for the other, or he would have done the same. The corporal is one Baker, a Yorkshire-man; and the soldier’s name is Drenning a Heart of Steel from the county of Antrim.

There is one aspect of this account that casts doubt on it: the letter itself was published in a Dublin newspaper, the Hibernian Chronicle of 23 January 1775. Is this letter a piece of propaganda fabricated by the publisher or a legitimate record of an event in Boston?

It is plausible for a letter dated 14 December 1774 to have arrived in Dublin in time to have been fresh news for the 23 January 1775 newspaper, given that the journey from America to Britain was must faster than travel in the other direction. The veracity of the letter is further supported by the names that it provides, Corporal Baker and Private Drenning. The muster rolls of the 38th Regiment confirm that Phineas Baker was appointed corporal in Maginis's company on 20 August 1774, and that Henry Drennan was a private soldier in Maginis's company (variations of spelling are quite common among the names recorded on muster rolls and other documents).

The young and clever Corporal Phineas Baker whose exploit earned the praise of the army died on 17 July 1775 of wounds he received at the battle of Bunker Hill a month before. The steel-hearted Henry Drennan fared much better. The same battle that resulted in the death of his comrade created a vacancy that allowed Drennan to be appointed corporal (but not the same vacancy created by the death of Baker; Drennan was appointed only three days after the 17 June battle). Five months later he became a serjeant. When a cadre of officers and men was sent to Great Britain in December 1775 for recruiting, Serjeant Drennan was among them. He remained on this service for the entirety of the war, and took his discharge in August 1784.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Army Wives: The Remarriage Myth Dispelled

A favorite topic of mine is wives of British soldiers. Information on these women who formed an integral part of the British army in America is sparse. While the names of soldiers can be readily obtained from muster rolls and other sources provide details of their ages, backgrounds and other attributes, just learning which men were married and the names of their wives is challenging. I've been able to pull together significant information about their role in the army, but learning about the individuals remains difficult.

With this paucity of information, it is especially annoying when people propagate information that has no basis in actual research. One such 'nugget' is the notion that wives who became widows were required to remarry within days or they would be cast out of the army and left completely on their own where ever they happened to be. I've heard this repeated many times, but never seen it backed up by information from general orders, military texts, personal accounts, or any other first-hand information. Although it is true that women had to be married to soldiers in order to become part of the 'regimental community', it is contradictory to the spirit of community to suppose that widows would be cast out. Over time, direct information made the remarriage assertion less and less plausible - for example, orders directing that widows who wished to return to Great Britain would be provided passage on board transport ships - but the absence of supporting information does not directly prove that remarriage was a requirement or necessity.

It is pleasing, then, to have finally obtained specific information about several army wives whose husbands died and who then married other soldiers. Regimental muster rolls provide us with the dates that the men died. A collection of marriage licenses issued in New York City gives the date that the widows obtained license to remarry (presumably close to the date of the actual marriage). Just enough of these marriage licenses are specific about the regiments to which the men and women belonged to make it possible to associate the names of some of the women to men in the same regiments who had died. They are in Volume 46 of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record (1915), available on Google Books.

The first example we found, about a year ago, was Hester Foster of the 22nd Regiment of Foot. Her husband William died as a serjeant on 14 October 1780 in New York after a career of at least 14 years in the army. On 18 December 1780 she obtained a license to marry a 31-year-old serjeant in the regiment, Henry Vennel. A decade later he became a rare man who obtained an officer's commission after rising through the ranks from a private soldier.

This example of a woman who remarried just two months after losing her husband was weak proof that women were not required to remarry immediately. Although two months is much longer than the 24 to 72 hours generally purported as the required time limit (depending upon who told the story) it is nonetheless a fast turnaround. More information was required to get a better sense of typical practice. That information has finally come together.

Noted author Brendan Morrissey recently worked extensively with the muster rolls of the 23rd Regiment of Foot. These rolls record the death of Thomas Pearcy on 31 May 1776 when the army was in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Over two years later a marriage license was obtained by Elenor Percy, widow in the 23rd Regiment, to marry a soldier named William Rider. Variations in spelling of surnames is quite common in muster rolls and related documents, and no other soldier in the 23rd had a name close enough to reasonably have been the husband of Elenor Percy. Sadly, her new husband died in June of 1780 and we have no additional information about her.

My own recent trip to the National Archives afforded the opportunity to piece together three more examples:

Daniel Rogers, a grenadier in the 38th Regiment, died on 19 August 1775 of wounds received at the battle of Bunker Hill. Catherine Rogers, widow of the same regiment, obtained a license to marry Thomas Mason of the 38th on 2 May 1777. Mason was still in the regiment in 1783, but a gap in the muster rolls makes his ultimate fate unknown.

Richard Twine of the 54th Regiment died on 21 August 1776. His wife Ann obtained a license exactly one year later to marry a soldier in the 45th Regiment, James Wiggins. He was drafted into the 5th Regiment of Foot in 1778 when the 45th was sent back to Great Britain and the 5th to the West Indies. A gap in the rolls of the 5th from late 1778 to the beginning of 1781 leaves his fate (and hers) unknown.

Thomas Proffit of the 7th (Royal Fusiliers) Regiment died on 17 April 1777. His wife Ann obtained a license on 6 February 1779 to marry serjeant John Lomix (or Lomax) of the same regiment. He died on 28 July 1782, leaving Ann once again a widow.

Among the marriage licenses are several others that can be traced in this way when we have an opportunity to work with the muster rolls of more regiments. For now, we have these four examples of women who were widowed and then remarried a year or more later, where the marriage license information explicitly refers to them as widows belonging to their regiments. A fifth woman married within only two months. We have yet to find an example of a woman remarrying within days of losing her husband. This doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it certainly proves that it was not a requirement.

Besides putting to rest the remarriage myth, the marriage licenses open up a new mystery. Among the women named as affiliated with British regiments are four who are not called widows but 'spinsters.' My first supposition was that these women were daughters of soldiers in the regiment, but we have not been able to correlate their names with any men on the muster rolls. It may be necessary to track down the original marriage license information to fully understand this nomenclature and determine who these women actually were.

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Luke Murphy, William Gibbs, and Servants in the 38th Regiment

Each officer in a regiment was allowed to retain a soldier as his personal servant. A senior officer might retain a second soldier to care for his horse in a role called a bat-man (from the French term bat, a pack saddle). The servant performed tasks such as maintaining his officer’s clothing, shaving him and helping him dress, packing and unpacking baggage, setting up a tent while on campaign, caring for his horse (if the officer could not retain a bat-man), running all manner of errands from delivering messages to purchasing necessities, and any other chores required by a busy officer and gentleman. In return, the soldier typically received a shilling per week from the officer, a sum that not only increased his overall pay by about 35% but which was not subject to the withholdings imposed on his base pay. Bennett Cuthbertson, author of one of the most popular military texts of the era, A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Œconomy of a Battalion of Infantry, wrote several paragraphs on servants and bat-men:

It being an indulgence granted to the Infantry, for the officers to have Servants and Bat-men, from the Company they belong to, care should be taken, that they are always chose from the Centre-rank, as being employed for any time in that capacity, often hurts them as Soldiers, from the unavoidable indulgence by that means shewn them; it therefore must be an injury to the appearance of a Battalion, to hazard such a chance with Men, whose size and figure are an ornament to it.

The Wages given to Servants and Bat-men, should be the same, from the Colonel to the Subaltern, and never ought to exceed one shilling -per- Week, by which means, the discontent and insolence, that are often experienced in those, who perhaps may have smaller wages than others, might be in a great measure be restrained, and the Ensign be served with as great attention as the Field-officer.

It ought always to be a fixed rule, that when a Servant or Bat-man quits the Service of an Officer, for misbehaviour, no other Officer in the Regiment should ever take him; and least such and event, might in the course of years, be subject to oblivion, by changes and removals in a Corps, it should be particularly marked down, in a registry to be kept for that purpose, in the Regimental Book of casualties, by which method, the conduct of those Men must in general be more satisfactory, and a greater Number of good Servants be thereby found, than are usually so in most Regiments.

It is highly improper to take a Recruit for a Servant or Bat-man, until he has been long enough in the Regiment, to encourage an Officer to place so high a confidence in him; at ant rate, it should never be allowed, until he is perfectly informed of every part of his Duty as a Soldier, otherwise he will probably never be thoroughly confirmed in it.

It being impossible for Soldiers, who are Servants or Bat-men, to keep their Regimentals clean and in proper order, if obliged to do the work required from them, in that dress; and as their being dirtier in the Ranks, than other Soldiers can never be admitted, it should be expected, that every Officer provided some kind of frock for his Servant, to prevent so great an inconvenience.

That the Duty may be as little severe as possible, upon the other Soldiers, by having both Servants and Bat-men taken from the Companies, the former should always mount guard, and go on Commands, whenever their Masters do; but as to the others, it will be impossible to spare them, from the care of the Horses they attend, in which they will find sufficient employment, if they perform it as they ought.

Unless on some very particular occasions, the Officers Servants should never be excused from Exercise, or weekly reviews of Arms and neccessaries, that they may not entirely forget their Duty in the ranks, and to remind them of their being Soldiers; the remembrance of which will be found to contribute very much to their good behaviour as Servants, and prevent them from contracting many saucy habits, which might otherwise be the case.

Notice the explicit direction to provide “some kind of frock” so that the regimentals would not be worn out. References to British soldier-servants wearing non-regimental garb are scattered throughout the literature, including two cases pertaining to the 38th Regiment in Boston which mention similar clothing worn by two different servants.

At around midnight on the night of 1st and 2nd August 1774, a sentry belonging to the 43rd Regiment challenged a man who approached his post between the encampments of the 38th and 43rd regiments. The man, dressed in a light brown frock coat and cut round hat, answered that he was a friend but was unable to give the countersign. The sentry called the serjeant of the guard and they detained the man, who protested that he was on his way to his master, Captain Fox of the 38th, in town. The guards took their prisoner to the quarter guard of the 38th Regiment, where a serjeant identified him as Luke Murphy, a private soldier in Captain Norman’s company. The quarter guard serjeant noted Murphy’s non-uniform coat and hat, but discerned that he was wearing regimental breeches and also that he was quite drunk. Murphy was then taken to the officer of the guard, Lt. Sutherland of the 38th. Sutherland questioned Murphy about his intentions, and Murphy asserted that his actions were due solely to the effects of liquor and not any intention to desert. Sutherland nonetheless confined Murphy to the guard tent with a sentry posted over him.

When tried by a general court a few days later, Murphy offered a detailed and lucid response that strongly suggests a well-educated and reasonable man, in spite of prior drunkenness. Murphy testified that after being “dismissed from the Drill” he and a comrade went to visit a friend in the 5th Regiment where they “drank pretty freely.” When they returned to their own tent Murphy’s tent mate “ask'd me for Liquor for helping me to clean my Arms.” Murphy had no liquor and knew he would not be allowed out of camp to get some, but asked others who had more freedom of movement – first an officer’s servant, then a soldier’s wife, both of whom refused. He even asked the woman’s husband to implore her to go, but to no avail. Determined to have his liquor, Murphy made a plan. Murphy was a tailor, and Lt. Dutton’s servant had left him a brown coat to be mended. Murphy donned the coat, a hat that “was my own which I used to wear on board Ship,” and put his “Canteen Bottle” in the coat pocket. He then tried to pass the sentry.

Deponents in the trial noted interesting details. Murphy was not, nor had ever been a servant. He was wearing all of his regimentals except for the coat and hat. Although he characterized himself as a recruit, a serjeant testified that it was unusual for Murphy to wear “colour’d clothing” since he had received his regimentals – confirming that recruits did wear civilian clothing until they received regimental uniforms. A fellow soldier who “frequently assisted the Prisoner in Cleaning his Arms and Accoutrements” told the court that when the regiment was in Ireland prior to coming to America, Murphy had declared that he would never “follow the Example of his Countrymen” by deserting and that he fully understood his enlistment obligations and was determined to fulfill them. He also clearly understood that servants had more freedom of movement than other soldiers, and knew how to dress like a servant.

Cases like this left the court with a dilemma: there was no question that Murphy was drunk, disorderly and trying to leave camp without permission and in disguise. But he was on trial for desertion, which clearly was not his intention. They acquitted the young soldier of desertion but nonetheless sentenced him to receive 100 lashes for his conduct. Whether this punishment was carried out or not is unknown, but the sentencing seems to have had an effect on Murphy. He deserted on 4 January 1775, never to return.

After Murphy’s trial, but before his desertion, a advertisement appeared in the Boston Post Boy of 5 December 1774 for another deserter from the 38th Regiment:

Five Guineas Reward.

Run away from my Service, and robbed me of two Pieces of fine Linen, besides sundry Articles of wearing Apparel, Will Gibbs, about 5 Feet 7 Inches high, and of a fair Complexion; had on when he went away a brown Coat, turned up with blue, blue Waistcoat and Breeches, and a round Hat. Whoever secures said Runaway, shall receive the above Reward from me, Charles Norman, Capt. 38th Regt.

Though the ad does not make it obvious that Gibbs was a soldier, he appears on the muster rolls of the 38th as a private soldier who deserted on 24 November 1774. He was with the regiment at least from the time of their embarkation in Ireland for America. The wording of the ad suggests that he was a young man kept by an officer until he was old enough to serve in the ranks, but this is only speculation. The blue breeches and waistcoat could be holdovers from civilian dress or livery provided by the officer. There is no evidence that Gibbs ever returned to the 38th Regiment.

The fact that William Gibbs was dressed in a similar manner to Luke Murphy’s servant disguise suggests that the look was a common one. If every officer in a regiment of foot had one servant, and a few also had a bat-man, then three or four men in each company or nearly 10% of the regiment’s typical strength might be employed in this role at any given time. These soldiers in non-regimental clothing were surely a familiar sight.

Several years later, a new officer in the 38th Regiment recorded an amusing anecdote about his servant. Lieutenant George Augustus Wyvill arrived in America too late to participate in any major hostilities. He had only recently joined the regiment in New York when they went on service on the lines at King's Bridge north of the city at the beginning of 1782. Wyvill had a hut built for himself, but then spent the month of March doing guard duty on one of the prison ships in New York harbor. He wrote the following passage about his return from this duty:

On my return, as a great treat, I purchased a fine round of beef, which cost me three pounds. In the evening, returning to my hut, sooner, than expected, I surprised my Servant busily employed eating away, on my expensive beef; with all the luxuries of Mustard &c &c which I had provided for my own supper. I took the liberty, he being quite drunk, of tying him to a Gun. The fellow made me laugh, for, at intervals, he kept exclaiming, "‘Tis too bad, too bad, what, tyed to the Breech, when I never feared to face the Muzzle."

Learn more about British soldiers in America!

Flank companies, 38th Regiment, 19 April 1775

Most British regiments serving in America were composed of 10 companies. At the beginning of the war, the established strength of each company consisted of 38 private soldiers, two serjeants (using the period spelling), three corporals, one drummer and three commissioned officers. During the course of the war this establishment was increased twice, then reduced again in the closing years, but when hostilities broke out in earnest on 19 April 1775, this was the established or 'paper' strength of a British company.

Two companies of each regiment were composed of men selected for their experience and fitness. The grenadier company was supposed to contain men suited for vigorous assaults, retaining the traditional name from a bygone era when they hurled grenades over the walls of enemy fortifications; although grenades has long since been set aside, their uniforms retained some vestiges of this honorable service and tall men were preferred for this company. The light infantry company was new to the regimental establishment, having been warranted in 1771 to provide each regiment with a corps of skirmishers; as such, men selected for it tended to be fit and agile, and their uniforms were adapted to their specialized roll. When a regiment formed on parade these companies formed on the right and left flanks, for which reason they were collectively called flank companies.

Men were put into flank companies only after they had mastered the basic duties of a soldier, generally after at least a year of service with their regiment. The requirement for both fitness and experience meant that they consisted mostly of men in their late twenties to early forties. It also meant that men were frequently transferred out of these companies due to illness, wounds, or other conditions that limited their activity; replacements were selected from the regiment's eight battalion companies.

Operationally, the flank companies of British regiments were generally detached and put together into composite grenadier and light infantry battalions. These flank battalions, which varied in size and composition throughout the war depending upon which regiments were in which locations, formed the tactical spearhead on most British campaigns in America. Their first use was on 19 April 1775, when the grenadier and light infantry companies of regiments in Boston were sent to destroy military stores in Concord.

In this installment, we look at two of these companies, the grenadier company and the light infantry company of the 38th Regiment of Foot. The muster rolls of the 38th show us exactly which men were in these companies on 19 April, but it is not possible to determine whether every single man was on the expedition that day. It is also possible, using the muster rolls, to trace their subsequent service. The tables below list the men in the flank companies of the 38th, most of whom were witness to the opening shots of the war, and trace them to the ends of their careers. This information was compiled quickly and is not as complete as it could be - a few men seem to disappear from the rolls, and some transferred to other regiments after which we lose track of them. We were able to make only a limited search of pension records; probably a few more men eventually received pensions than are listed here. Regardless of these shortcomings, it is interesting to get a sense of what became of these selected soldiers who experienced the first battle of a long war.

Grenadier Company, 38th Regiment, 19 April 1775

Last Name	First Name	Rank (if not pvt)	Other information
Adcock	John	Corporal	From battalion and appointed corporal 15 Apr 1775; deserted 8 Jun 1779; joined from desertion 23 Apr 1783; discharged 27 May 1783
Barratt	John		Killed 17 June 1775
Broom	John		To battalion 24 Jan 1779; died 25 Feb 1779
Brunton	Richard		Deserted 6 Jun 1779 from Verplanck's point; born 1749, engraver in Birmingham before enlisting, became an engraver in America
Bruphy	Thomas		Discharged 5 Oct 1778; pension 27 Apr 1780 at age 32, 10 years service - wounded in the hand; born at Blessington co Wicklow, butcher
Bulkley	James		To Grenadiers 15 Apr 1775; died 16 Feb 1783
Burke	John		Died 27 Jul 1775
Cairns	Neil		To corporal, no date (first indicated on 6 Feb 1776 roll); to serjeant 17 Nov 1775; died 16 Jan 1780
Clarke	Robert		Pension from Guernsey Invalids 1791
Cole	Joseph		To corporal 24 Jun 1777; to battalion as corporal 16 Dec 1778; discharged 24 Jun 1782; pension
Collier	Robert		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; discharged 10 Jun 1785
Cook	John		Died of wounds 9 Jul 1775
Craddock	Corneleas		Discharged 9 Feb 1784; pension
Cross	Charles	Corporal	Appointed 11 Aug 1774; killed 17 Jun 1775
Dowling	Owen		Died 10 May 1775
Drake	Hugh		Joined from desertion 21 May 1775 (no indication of when he had deserted); killed 17 Jun 1775
Finney	William		Discharged 24 Jan 1785; pension
Gardiner	Charles	Fifer	To battalion and to drummer 17 Nov 1775; discharged 1787 age 38 after 28 years service; pension - born Limerick city, also served in 59th, 60th and 93rd regiments;
Gladhill	William		Disappears from rolls after transfer to battalion, 1780
Hammell	James		Died 14 Sep 1777
Hammond	John		Discharged 1 Mar 1778; pension 13 May 1778 at age 29, 14 years service - a white swelling in his knee; born at Worcester, labourer,
Hills	Thomas		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; pension 1789 age 43 after 25 years service - born Durham
Hopkinson	John		To corporal 17 Nov 1775; discharged 29 Apr 1786
Irwin	James		Deserted 28 Dec 1777
Johnston	John	Drummer	From battalion 15 Apr 1775; reduced to private 12 Apr 1777; died 28 Jan 1779
Leighton	John	Corporal	Killed 17 Jun 1775
Love	John		Discharged 9 Apr 1787; pension 1796 age 54 after 30 years service including 2 other regiments
Marsden	George		Died 3 Aug 1775
Mathews	Thomas		From battalion 5 Jun 1775; taken prisoner by the rebels 26 Oct 1776; deserted 3 Jun 1779
McDonald	William		Prisoner with the enemy (apparently taken on 19 April); to battalion 16 May 1776, no longer indicated as prisoner 12 Jul 1776 rolls; discharged 23 Feb 1777; pension 3 Oct 1777 at age 32, 12 years service - shot through the foot; born near Inverness, labourer
McGilvray	Andrew	Corporal	To Serjeant 4 Jul 1775; deserted 18 Nov 1783
McLean	Alexander	Fifer	To battalion 17 Nov 1775 as a drummer; discharged 8 Jul 1783; pension 1796 age 54 after 31 years service - born St. Mary's, Kilkenny; pensioned again 1804 after service in the Louth militia
McLeod	Angus		To corporal, no date (first indicated on 6 Feb 1776 roll); disappears after reduction from serjeant and transfer to battalion, 1780
Nealiss	George		Pension 1787 age 36 after 13 years service - born Arragale, county Tyrone, pensioned again 1791 after service in an invalid corps
Neill	John		Discharged 5 Dec 1775; Pension 6 Jun 1776 at age 44, 20 years service - wounded in the left arm; born at Durrow; laborer
Peell	William		Discharged 23 Feb 1783; pension
Rogers	Daniel		Died of wounds 19 Aug 1775
Ross	Francis		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; died of wounds 10 Jul 1775
Sutherland	Kenneth	Serjeant	Died 30 Jul 1775
Sutherland	William		Discharged 24 Oct 1783 to take land grant in Canada
Sutherwood	David		Discharged 24 Aug 1783
Talliss	William		Killed 19 Apr 1775
Vass	Jonathan		To battalion 9 Feb 1779; died 16 Mar 1782
Watkins	George		Discharged 3 Mar 1784
Whitehead	Thomas		To battalion 9 Jan 1779; discharged 24 Jun 1785
Whitehead	William		To corporal 17 Nov 1775; to serjeant 24 Jun 1777; to 7th Regiment 2 Aug 1779
Wilson	Patrick	Serjeant	Discharged 24 Jun 1777; pension 17 Jul 1777 at age 49, 27 years service - Worn out; born near Newry, labourer

Light Infantry Company, 38th Regiment, 19 April 1775

-->

Last Name	First Name	Rank (if not pvt)	Other information
Alsop	Thomas		Killed 19 Apr 1775
Armson	William		Discharged 1789, pension
Asher	John		From battalion 16 Jul 1774; killed 17 Jun 1775
Bates	Edward		To corporal 11 Sep 1775; reduced 30 Oct 1776; discharged 24 Jun 1785, pension
Beatson	Isaac		To corporal 12 Oct 1775; to serjeant 17 Nov 1775; discharged 12 Feb 1784, pension
Bell	Ralph		From battalion 31 Jul 1774; deserted 24 May 1780
Brookings	John		Killed 17 Jun 1775
Brown	Joseph		From battalion 8 Apr 1775; killed 7 Dec 1777
Cameron	Angus	Corporal	To serjeant 21 Jan 1775; reduced and to battalion 14 Jun 1775; to serjeant 17 Nov 1775; reduced 8 Jul 1776; to Light Infantry 24 Jul 1778; discharged 24 Oct 1783 to take land grant in Canada
Carter	Walter		Discharged 24 Apr 1777; pension 3 Oct 1777 at age 26, 8 years service - shot through the heel; born at ?cester, labourer; served in Plymouth Invalids for 8 years until 1791
Cox	Samuel		Died 31 Aug 1776
Dixon	Thomas		Discharged 24 Apr 1779
Edwards	John		To battalion 15 Sep 1775, sick; to corporal 4 Aug 1776; reduced 11 Mar 1779; pension 1795 age 42 after 24 years service including 6th regiment - born Tembury, Worcestershire
Fogg	Thomas		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; died of wounds 22 Aug 1775
Frazier	Alexander		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; died 14 Oct 1776
Gallagher	Patrick		To battalion 19 Jul 1778; to grenadiers 9 Dec 1779; died 16 Dec 1779
Golden	James		To battalion date unknown (before12 Jul 1776); to Light Infantry 24 Nov 1776; died 7 Jan 1779
Gunn	Aeneas	Serjeant	Killed 17 Jun 1775
Hendon	George		To battalion 12 Jun 1775; to Light Infantry 13 May 1776; to battalion 23 Dec 1778; deserted 25 Nov 1781
Jones	Thomas		From battalion 27 Jan 1775; killed 17 Jun 1775
Jurd	Lincy		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; to battalion 24 May 1776; to Light Infantry 28 Jul 1778; discharged 27 Jan 1786; served in 55th Foot, Middlesex Militia and Portsmouth Invalids; pension 1799
Long	William		From battalion 27 Jan 1775; discharged 24 Dec 1783, pension
Love	John		To battalion 26 Jul 1778;discharged 24 Aug 1783, pension
Marshall	William		Died 3 May 1776
Mason	John		To battalion 24 May 1776; discharged 24 Oct 1783 to take land grant in Canada
McDonald	John		To battalion 26 May 1775; discharged 30 Jan 1782
McInalty	James	Drummer	Deserted 15 May 1783
McKay	Hugh		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; pension 5 Dec 1780 at age 28, 8 years service - lost the use of both hands; born at Dornock Co. Sutherland, labourer
Pickup	Samuel	Corporal	Private on 12 Jul 1776 roll; discharged 24 Apr 1783
Powell	Thomas		From battalion 15 Apr 1775; discharged 23 Feb 1783; pension - 1789 age 59 after 23 years service including 35th Regiment
Powis	Thomas		Killed 17 Jun 1775
Pritchard	Paul		To battalion 14 Jun 1775; killed 17 Jun 1775
Roberts	William		Discharged 24 Aug 1782, pension
Roe	William		Killed 17 Jun 1775
Skinner	Henry		To battalion 8 Jun 1775; to corporal 17 Nov 1775; to serjeant 27 Feb 1779; discharged 12 Jun 1786, pension
Smith	William		Killed 17 Jun 1775
Sutherland	O'Sulivan	Corporal	To serjeant 8 Apr 1775; discharged 11 Nov 1780
Sutherland	Donald		To corporal 21 Jan 1775; died of wounds 5 Sep 1775
Terry	Joseph		To battalion 14 Jun 1775 sick; Died 20 Jan 1776
Tisdale	John		To battalion 31 May 1775; discharged and recommended for pension 18 Aug 1775
Tone	John		To battalion 31 May 1775; discharged 17 Mar 1784, pension
Tyrell	Charles		Killed 19 Apr 1775
Yeacott	William		Pension 1785 age 45 after 16 years service

Learn more about British Soldiers!