The Army and Navy Magazine (Volume 5)

This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1883. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... which from time to time, through a series of years, have undergone various numerical alterations. This being admitted, seniority, it will also be allowed, would have the strongest claim to consideration in case of a return to the old system. Between the year 1633 and 1685 the Boyal Scots, the Queen's, the Buffs, the King's Own, the Northumberland Fusiliers, were raised. Others soon followed, and in 1689 the Cameronians came upon the scene. Since, and after then, these and many other of the older regiments have preserved an unbroken existence. Numbers, however, are of modern date, and were not in regular use until after 1751. Prior to that period regiments were named generally after their colonels. In conclusion, the question to be determined is not so much whether the abolition of the numeric system caused a sentimental grievance (as it has been called) or not, but whether a return to it in some form may not be beneficial. Simply, the whole subject resolves itself into this: --Is it a matter of absolute necessity, for purposes of simplification or otherwise, that numbers should be reverted to again? If it be unavoidable to restore them in some shape, the first twenty-five regiments with two battalions, and ten others of one battalion between that number and the 35th, would most probably appear again as of old, unless such an utter jumble as a general ballot took place, which may make the 109th the 1st or 2nd Regiment. This, indeed, would be making "confusion worse confounded." If any arrangement could be devised by which all invidiousness may be avoided it would be well, but in this case such a state of things can never be accomplished. Some, therefore, necessarily must suffer, and it is so in all great changes; but if that suffering or injury can be avo...