A COURT OF ENQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF Col. L’ESTRANGE

From the 24^th August to 12^th September 1801, a court of enquiry was held at Limerick to consider five charges brought against Col. Henry Peisley L’Estrange II.  The court consisted of a Colonel and a Major of the Clare Malitia and a Lieut. Colonel of the 21^st Light Dragoons.  The charges were prepared and prefered by three officers of the King’s County Malitia of which L’Estrange was the Commanding officer, viz. Major Rolleston, Capt. Palmer, and Lieut. Berry.  The form which the proceedings took was that of a court martial, save that the members of the court were not required to pronounce verdicts on the charges. The proceedings were to be submitted to General James Duff who would decide whether L’Estrange was to be tried or not by court martial.

That such a court of enquiry should be held indicates the sorry state of affairs within the King’s County Malitia.  According to the officer who opened the proceedings the discontent and differences within the regiment had their origin in the events of the Battle of Newtownberry on the 1^st June, 1798.  A footnote to the proceedings quotes the following passage from Gordon’s ‘Irish Rebellion’ relating to the events of that day: -

In the meantime the insurgents having possession of the northern parts of the County of Wexford, except Ross and Duncannon, on the western boarder, began to turn their attention to the north.  On the morning of the 1^st June the beautiful little town of Bunclody (Newtownbarry) was attacked by a great body of rebels, detached from their post on Vinigar Hill.  The garrison, including Yeomen and Volunteers, consisted of about 500 men, of whom 300 were Militia under Col. L’Estrange of the King’s County Regiment. The rebel force amounting perhaps to 5000 in number conducted by several chiefs, among whom was Father Kearns, a man of extraordinary stature, strength, and ferocity, advanced to attack on both sides of the river Slaney. First besieging the western bank of which the town is built, and commenced to fire from a brass six pounder, a howitzer and some swivel guns.  The Colonel, according to the too - practised mode of the King’s Officers, ordered the troops to abandon the town, contrary to the earnest remontrances of the Yeoman officers and Volunteers, but after a retreat of about a mile he yielded to the solicitations of Lt.Col. Westonra and suffered the troops to be led back to the succour of a few determined loyalists who had remained in the town and continued to fire on the enemy from some houses. This accidental manoeuvre had all the advantage of a pre-concerted stratagem. The rebels, who had rushed into the street in a confused multitude, intent on plunder and devastation, and totally inapprehensive of the return of the troops, were unprepared to withstand the onset of the soldiery preceded by the fire of two pieces of canon. With the loss of only two men on the side of the loyalists, that of the rebels may have amounted to near 200.  The victory was of no small importance, as their conquest of Buncody would have opened the way for the Wexford rebels intoCountyCarlow. The rising of whole inhabitants, to co-operate with thoe of Wicklow and Kildare (already in arms) must in the state of the country have given great embarrassment to the administration.

A further footnote added to the above makes the criticism of Col. L’Estrange far more explicit. It is as follows: -

The reader should know, first, that were he to converse with the gallant Yeomen of Newtownbarry he would learn more particulars in addition to the above extract.  Those Yeomen loudly reprobated the flight and in words that cannot be repeated here demanded to be led back. And when at the last solicitations, entreaty and sound argument prevailed the rebels did not for one moment oppose resistance, but fled in a promiscuous mob. Is it from such an enemy that disciplined soldiers are to fly? The soldiers were ready to fight, and from the ranks were heard murmurs of discontent. Does not the hasty and cowardly flight of the rebels prove that the garrison should not have deserted its post?  To change from its original position was prudent, as Newtownbarry was a bad post, but never without firing a shot to desert the post, the women and children and the loyalists who remained behind, preferring death to dishonour, to fall back on Carlow, fourteen miles to the rear!

Secondly, that in the official report made to Government by Col. L’Estrange of his transaction, he never mentioned the name of his second in command (which is usual except when he misconduct’s himself). The same person was his own Lieut. Colonel (Col. Westonra), the man by whose exertions and solicitations it is now well known the post was recovered.  He never mentioned any of his own officers, and the conduct of some of then was conspicuous.  He did however, an act of justice in mentioning Major Marly, an active and spirited Volunteer on this occasion, but he took to himself the credit of an action to which he was not entitled.

This footnote continues by saying that many of the officers of the King’s County Malitia demanded a court of enquiry into their and the Colonel’s conduct in this action. (In consequence of reports having been circulated through the army, in Wexford and the King’s County, of the cowardice of Col. L’Estrange and the cowardice of the whole of the detachment of the King’s County Regiment under his command on the 1^st June).  This demand he refused. This footnote concludes with the words ‘were not the circumstances sufficient to create disgust and discontent in the breasts of brave men?’

The author of these and other footnotes which appear in the record of the proceedings is anonymous.  All the footnotes are hostile to the Colonel so that they should be treated with caution. Nor are they part of the evidence.  It should be born in mind that the Colonel’s conduct at Newtownbarry, if it was open to censure, did not form the subject of any charge at the Court of Enquiry.  The author of the footnotes quoted above as well as some witnesses referred to the events at Newtownbarry as being the cause of a general distrust and lack of confidence in the Colonel thereafter. It was apparently thought that the Statute of Limitations prevented reference to events which occured more than three years before the Court of Enquiry. This view, which must surely be wrong in law, was accepted by the Court and strongly relied on by the Colonel. The statute became known in Limerick as ‘the L’Estrange statute’.

In these circumstances one has no material on which to judge the battle of Newtownbarry.  Certainly the town was not a suitable site for a conventional battle, for it offered no sufficient space in which to deploy troops. Militarily the sensible step to take was to retreat up a suitable hill and then to attack the rebels from there.  Perhaps the inhabitants of the town should not have been left to their fate, but Newtownbarry ended in a total defeat of the enemy.  If L’Estrange and his regiment had remained in the town and fought the battle there the result might not have been the same.

Following the battle of Newtownbarry the King’s CountyMilitia moved to Wicklow.  Much evidence was given at the enquiry as to one incident which took place there.  The evidence suggests that the Colonel was agitated before and during a battle and that he did not succeed in concealing his agitation.  When the regiment was in Wicklow a report was received that a rebel leader with about 200 men was coming into the town to burn it.  Lieut. Berry gave evidence that the Colonel ran through the town in a great hurry appearing much agitated.  He asked Berry whether he had the spikes for the guns.  Berry understood from this that the Colonel intended to abandon the town and replied, ‘By the Lord I’ll die under them before I will spike them’.   Berry had a number of complaints against the Colonel and was one of the three prosecutors at the Court of Enquiry, but this incident was corroborated by the evidence of Lieut. Palmer.  Again this incident was not the subject of a specific charge, but was relied on to explain the lack of confidence felt in the Colonel by his regiment. According to Berry on the night of the incident just referred to 24 men deserted the Regiment, these not being recruits but for the most part old soldiers.  The prosecution ascribed this to lack of confidence in the Colonel, but later evidence given by Lieut. Ridgeway showed that on the day preceding the night when the desertions took place two men were hanged for disaffection and that the desertions were generally attributed to the dread of the deserters that they might suffer a similar fate.  For some reason numerous desertions took place at the same period of time from the Antrim and other regiments.  The second explanation appears to be the more probable one.

As stated above, Major Rolleston, Capt. Palmer and Lieut. Berry prepared charges at the Court of Enquiry.  Each of them had a grudge against the Colonel, usually, but not exclusively, the result of being passed over for promotion.  The establishment of the Regiment provided for one Colonel, two Lieut. Colonels, Captains, and Lieutenants.  Major Rolleston had every reason to expect promotion to be one of the Lieut. - Colonels since he had been in the Regiment for eight years and owned extensive property in the County.  But he was passed over in favour of the Colonel’s brother - in- law, Herbert Rawson Stepney.  In fact the second of the charges brought against him alleged that the Colonel had promised the officers that promotions should be from within the Regiment and not from outside, and that he was in breach of this promise thus weakening confidence and creating discontent.

The first charge was that the Colonel was negligent in his duty, seldom attended parades, omitted to drill the men and retained an officer as adjutant who was utterly incapable of doing his duty.  This officer was Captain Anthony L’Estrange, a distant relative of the Colonel’s.  In support of this charge Major Rolleston gave evidence that the Colonel had always been an inattentive and negligent officer. Even worse came from Captain J.W.Armstrong (‘ the witness Armstrong’ referred to in chapter four) who in evidence stated: - ‘ I thought Colonel L’Estrange the most ignorant, negligent, incapable and careless officer I ever saw, unless I was to except his adjutant.’ He added that instead of attending parades the Colonel spent most of his time playing billiards with the surgeon’s mate.     Armstrong, too, wanted command of a company, and the Colonel would not give him one.  Unfortunately a witness, Lord Rossmore, who, as Lieut. Col.Westonra, had been the Regiment’s second Lieut.Colonel, gave supporting evidence. He said that dissentions and lack of co-operation existed in the Regiment, and that Colonel L’Estrange was never attentive or diligent in the discharge of his duty and did not give the officers the support they required. The adjutant was ignorant in the field, no regimental mess existed, and the desertions at Wicklow could not have taken place if the officers had discharged their duty with diligence.

The third charge alleged that the Colonel vilified Lieut. Berry behind his back and attempted to form a conspiracy of officers against Berry so as to exclude him from their society and send him to Coventry.  The evidence in this charge is summarised by Lieut. Berry as follows: -

Question.
Did Colonel L’Estrange attempt to form a party against you in the Regiment, and how did you know about it?

Answer.
He did, by not speaking to me, his brother Major L’Estrange not speaking to me, his cousin, Captain Anthony L’Estrange not speaking to me, Lieut. L’Estrange, his relation, not speaking to me, Ensign L’Estrange, his cousin, not speaking to me; all the L’Estrange’s not speaking to me, and some more of his party in the Regiment not speaking to me.

The Colonel deliberately undermined Berry’s authority.  Berry put two men on charges for, in the case of one, being asleep at his post when on sentry duty and losing his firelock and, in the case of the other, simply leaving his post when sentry.  Both men were sentenced to punishment by Court Martial, but the Colonel did not have the punishments promulgated and immediately released the men. One of these two men was later impertinent to Berry, when Berry rebuked him on parade for not having any ammunition, but Berry realised it was useless to put him on a charge.  Berry applied for a Court of Enquiry in the hope of clearing his name, but the Colonel refused this.  It is not very clear what Berry had done wrong.  The complaint against him seems to have centred on an allegation that he had stolen a watch.  The evidence however shoed that Berry had taken a watch from a soldier named Brown, a man of bad character, and had displayed it in the guard room in order to find the true owner.  When this was made clear the Colonel lamely explained that he had nt suspected Berry of stealing the watch but had blamed him for not demanding a Court Martial to clear his name.

The fourth charge alleged that the Colonel made a false return, in that he recorded certain soldiers as being on detachment engaged on recruiting when they were in fact employed by the Colonel as craftsmen and labourers at his house at Moystown. The work they were doing consisted of stone and brick laying, sawing and boat building. The defence to this charge was that these men did work on the Moystown estate, but this was to encourage other workers on the estate to enlist. These men did succeed in enlisting men from near by places such as Banagher and Birr. In any event the Colonel through his master mason and steward paid these men, so that the Colonel gained no financial advantage from the employment, unless these men were particularly skilled and that was not suggested.  But one can at least say that the Colonel was very unwise to allow such a situation to arise.

The fifth charge was a minor one; it alleged that the Colonel told General Sir James Duff that Major Rolleston would not permit the Adjutant to drill the Regiment and imputed the ignorance of the Adjutant to be the cause.  The evidence showed that Major Rolleston had certainly given orders on one occasion that the Adjutant should not drill the Regiment because he wished to do it himself. Here there was ample room for misunderstanding as to whether the order related to that one occasion or whether it had a general application; we need not waste time on this minor matter.

The Colonel called a number of witnesses in his defence. From the end of 1799 until May 1800 the King’s County Malitia were in Guernsey.  Colonel Sir Vere Hunt and Lt.Col Westrop were officers in the Limerick Fencibles who occupied the same quarters as the King’s County Militia.  The effect of their evidence was that they never saw a corps of officers more attentive to their Colonel or more united among themselves.  Colonel L’Estrange attended parades and drilled the Regiment to the satisfaction of the General Officer Commanding, Sir Hew Dalrymple.  The local inhabitants of Guernsey spoke highly of the Regiment.  Capt. Hunt of the Limerick Fencibles said that he had seen a bill which had been endorsed by Colonel L’Estrange for the accommodation of one of his officers.  This in effect was the Colonel’s personal guarantee that the bill would be met.

Capt. James Ridgeway had been 34 years in H.M.’s service and was Adjutant of the King’s County Malitia when the Regiment was at Wicklow, following the events at Newtownbarry.  Colonel L’Estrange never intimated to Ridgeway as his adjutant that he intended to abandon Wicklow.  Nor did the Colonel appear to Ridgeway as agitated by any alarm at Wicklow and Ridgeway said he was present at the Colonel’s house when the alarm at the approach of the band of rebels was given.

Captain L’Estrange, the adjutant after Ridgeway gave evidence that he had been in H.M.Service for 25 years, and had served in America and on the continent.   For twelve months he had been adjutant of the 3^rd Shropshire Malitia.

The evidence put before the Court of Enquiry covered 132 pages of print and was given by 48 witnesses.  General Sir James Duff having read the evidence and consulted the Judge Advocate General decided that no Court Martial of the Colonel should be held.  He added that the Colonel, so long as he commanded a Militia Regiment, should pursue a more equitable mode of promotion, and that he should by no means provide for individuals allied to him by blood or connected by family interest.

The picture that emerges is of a regiment torn by factions and jelousies for which the Colonel was to blame.  There is no escape from the evidence of Lt.Col. Westonra, cited above who was the second Lt.Col.  One can see from the proceedings, that the events of Newtownbarry hung like a dark cloud above the reputations of the officers and men. Because there was no charge in respect of this matter, no fair judgement can be expressed upon it, but one feels that it was lucky for the Colonel that Lt.Col Westonra was not asked any questions about it.   It is hardly surprising that, as stated by George Burdett L’Estrange (see chapter four) his father did not in later life say much about the battle.  Nevertheless the Colonel was still in command of the Regiment in 1812 when the volunteers for service in the Peninsula sailed for England.  One can but regret the pain that must have been caused to the Colonel by the publication in Dublin in 1802 of the proceedings of the Court of Enquiry.