A n indispensible tool for research into the British Army during the Napoleonic period is the annual Army List, but in order to make the best use of it, whether to research the careers of individual officers, compare the turnover and length of service of officers in a particular regiment or group of regiments, or the actual composition of a regiment's officer corps, it is helpful to appreciate its idiosyncracies, defects and limitations. The initial problem can of course be tracking it down in the first place and with provincial libraries, this is pretty much a matter of luck. Failing a local collection (single volumes are of limited value) there are three readily accessible runs of the Army List;

(a) Scottish United Services Museum, Edinburgh Castle EHI 2NG Tel: 031 225 7534 Open Monday to Friday, closed [informally] for lunch. No reader's ticket required but visit by appointment only.

(b) National Army Museum, Royal Hospital Road, Chelsea SW3 4HT Tel: 071 730 0717 Open Tuesday to Saturday. Reader's ticket required

(c) Public Record Office, Kew, London Open Monday to Friday. Reader's ticket required

The latter, if convenient, is unquestionably the best location since the Army List can be consulted in conjunction with the Commander in Chief's Memoranda Papers, covering all promotions from 1793 (1), and the returns of officers' services compiled in 1810, 1827 and 1828 (2)

The layout of the Army List can at first be confusing and it is important to appreciate that it is split between serving officers on Full Pay and retired officers on Half Pay, and that each part has its own index. The one at the back of the volume relates only to the Half Pay officers, not to the List as a whole. The index to Full Pay officers is generally found about two-thirds to three quarters of the way through. Both indices are arranged rather basically; `U' and `V' are interchangable and no attempt is made to sort officers sharing the same surname alphabetically by christian name or initials. `Smith' will certainly come after `Small', but it is common to find `Smith, John' followed by `Smith, George', and, a few `Smiths' futher down the line, another `Smith, John'. So if at first you can't find the man you're looking for, check if you are using the correct index and also make sure you've checked all the entries for that surname, he's probably in there somewhere.

Arrangement of the Full Pay section is quite straightforward. General officers colonels and staff brevets come first followed by the cavalry, followed by the infantry followed by the artillery and even, oddly enough, the marines. Within their branches of service regiments appear in numerical order.

Officers belonging to each regiment are arranged by rank and seniority, but it is important to note that they are ranked in order of regimental seniority and that many are actually more senior either by brevet or by having exchanged from another unit. Two date columns appear beside the names; the first gives the date of the officer's commission in the regiment and the second, usually blank, gives his date of seniority in the Army, if different.

Thus a Lieutenant John Urquhart of the 71st Highlanders, appearing in the Army List from 1790 to 1795, is ranked amongst the other Lieutenants by the date of his regimental commission; 9th July 1789, but is also noted to have been a Lieutenant in the Army since 21st June 1783. In this case the latter date relates to his original commission [he had transferred from the East India Company's service after Cuddalore, but then spent some years on the Half Pay list] while the former records the date at which he rejoined the regiment on Full Pay. More commonly perhaps, an officer might obtain a captaincy in a particular regiment on say the 1 st of March 1800, but, for one reason or another find it expedient to exchange with a captain in another a year later. The Army List will then record him as a captain in his new regiment with seniority from 1st March 1801, but note that he also enjoys seniority as a captain in the army from 1st March 1800. In some cases an officer may even hold a higher rank by brevet. A captain for example may have a Major's brevet on the staff.

One point to beware is the seniority of former Captain-Lieutenants. These officers ranked as the senior Lieutenant in a regiment, but by virtue of their actually commanding the Colonel's company were considered Captains. On the 30th September 1785 Thomas Fraser became CaptainLieutenant in 1/Royals. Lacking the money to purchase his next step he was overtaken by a number of Lieutenants, but at the beginning of November 1792 he at last obtained promotion to full Captain. If an ordinary Lieutenant he would then have ranked as the junior Captain, but in fact he was actually entered in the Army List according to the date of his seniority as Captain-Lieutenant; 30th September 1785, and as such, far from being the most junior Captain, became, by one mighty bound the second most senior one.

Up to 1804 most regiments had only a single battalion. Those which had two prior to that date had a separate page in the Army List for each; thus the officers of 1/ Royals are recorded on one page and the officers of 2/Royals on the next. The raising of second battalions for most regiments, after the collapse of the Peace of Amiens, however, resulted in some confusion in the Army List since the principle was established that ALL the officers belonging to a regiment should be recorded in a single sequence. In theory the senior half of the officers at each grade would belong to the first battalion and the junior half to the second battalion, normally serving at home.

In practice this rarely worked. The idea of course was that a newly hatched ensign would go to the second battalion and remain with it until he moved up into the most senior half of the ensigns' list whereupon he would be posted to the first battalion. Complications arose of course when the second battalion was posted abroad; after Corunna the 1/42nd was at home while 2/42nd was in the Peninsula. This was perhaps unusual, but a commoner problem arose when a first battalion officer was promoted. In theory, as the junior officer in his new grade, he ought to have been transferred to the second battalion, exchanging with that battalion's senior officer in his grade. In practice such a transfer was often difficult to effect, especially if the first battalion was in Spain, let alone the East Indies. George Hennell's career illustrates this point quite well. Initially he went out to the Peninsula as a volunteer with the 94th but was soon given an ensign's commission in the 1/43rd.

At the beginning of November 1813 he was promoted Lieutenant, vice John O'Connell, killed at St. Sebastian, and, as the regiment's most junior Lieutenant was transferred on paper to the second battalion of the Regiment, although in actual fact his departure was delayed until the end of December. In the following November he transferred into the 39th. This, as it turned out, was a mistake since while enjoying seniority as a lieutenant in the army from November 1813, his new regimental seniority dated from his joining in 1814. He thus went into the second battalion and almost at once on to the Half Pay when it was disbanded. An officer's date of seniority, therefore is by no means a reliable indicator as to which of his regiment's battalions he was actually serving with at the time the Army List was compiled. (3)

It is also important to appreciate that the Army List for a given year provides only a snapshot of the situation in about February or early March, when it went to print. An officer's promotion, resignation or death in March or April will not be recorded until the following year and it is quite possible to miss the odd move. The Duke of Wellington's first commission, as the Hon. Arthur Wesley was an ensigncy in the 73rd Highlanders on 7th March 1787, too late for inclusion in that year's Army List, but on the 25th December he purchased a lieutenancy in the 76th Foot and appears for the very first time in that character in the Army List for 1788. After 1798 it is of course possible to keep better track of such movements through the Monthly Army List.

That part of the Army List dealing with Half Pay officers is rather more complicated. For a start the index refers to the column, not the page number, but it is important to understand the basic principles which governed the issue of Half Pay. In the 18th century a retiring officer was expected to provide for himself by selling his commission and Half Pay was, theoretically at least, only granted to officers belonging to disbanded regiments or companies for whom such an arrangement was obviously impractical. The Half Pay list is therefore primarily arranged by the year in which a unit was disbanded; usually at the conclusion of a European war, though there were frequent reductions from 1795 onwards.(4) Additionally a further distinction is made in the 18th century between the English and Irish Half Pay. (5)

By the end of the 18th century there were a growing number of officers who had been promoted without purchase and could therefore neither sell their commissions nor qualify for Half Pay. In order to secure a pension they had to exchange or purchase [at a suitable discount] into the Half Pay of a disbanded unit. The career of Captain John Urquhart (6) is a case in point. In January 1791 1/Royals were in the West Indies and he was therefore enabled to obtain an ensign's commission without purchase. Yellow fever brought him his lieutenancy in October 1792 and in November 1794 he received a promotion to Captain in the newly formed 106th Foot. When the regiment was drafted in the following year he was not entitled to Half Pay and in order to secure it he had to obtain a captaincy in the disbanded Royal Glasgow Regiment. (7) After 1814, however, the process became rather more straightforward since the disbandment of the second battalions raised in 1803/4 allowed retiring officers to purchase or exchange into the Half Pay of their own regiments.

Unfortunately the Army List is riddled with errors. In the 1795 edition at least three of the officers down as belonging to the 106th had in fact left the regiment by the previous December. Some mistakes are perhaps predictable; spellings can vary from edition to edition as do name forms such as Hugh and Hugo, and christian names are sometimes omitted. Until the 1815 edition dates of seniority were not given for Half Pay officers and the decision to add them probably arose from the fact that officers were now able to go on to the Half Pay of their own regiments.

Predictably, however, many of the dates added retrospectively are incorrect. Captain John Urquhart for example has the date 2 Sep 95 against his name [thus confusing him with a quite different Captain Urquhart who served in the 79th and died sometime before 1805] instead of 5 Nov 94, the date when he actually received his captaincy. Similarly in the course of time regimental titles can mysteriously alter; the Royal Glasgow Regiment had somehow become the Loyal Glasgow Regiment by 1810.

At the rear of each volume there is a small section noting alterations received while printing and noting casualties since the previous edition, including resignations and officers removed from the Half Pay in consequence of their not having drawn any for the previous seven years. Needless to say this, while useful, is more optimistic than accurate. The gallant Captain Urquhart for example is included in the Half Pay list until 1827 and then vanishes without explanation. In fact the Paymaster General's records (8) reveal that he had actually ceased to draw his Half Pay in 1819 when he retired [with a substantial pension] from the East India Company's service.

The moral of the story is of course that although an essential guide, the Army List needs to be treated with a great deal of caution and verification should always be obtained. Ultimately, while it can be useful on its own, it is best used as an index to the papers, returns and registers in the PRO, but they're another story.

Notes

(1) WO.31 - Papers relating to an officer's promotion are filed according to the date recorded in the Army List.
(2) WO.25 - The 1828 returns relate to Half Pay officers.
(3) Glover, M. `A Gentleman Volunteer' (London 1979)
(4) This is necessary to distinguish between successive units bearing the same number
(5) The Irish Half Pay was an accounting device and bears no relation to the geographical origin of a regiment.
(6) He was the eldest son of Lieutenant Urquhart of the 71st.
(7) The Agent for both regiments was Mr. Lawrie of the Adelphi so the transfer will have been easily arranged.
(8) PMG.4 series