The Barracks Department of
the British Army had an approved list of items that were to be supplied
to each barracks room in Great Britain. For British North American
garrisons the list of supplied items was substantially smaller.
North American barrack masters were required to supply only tables,
forms or benches, and iron pots for messing purposes. Provisioning
of other mess utensils, identified for barracks in Great Britain, was
left to the troops who were compensated by an annual mess allowance from
the Barracks Department. Because each corps acquired many of their
mess utensils, the number and pattern of them would have varied somewhat
from regiment to regiment.
Setting of the Table
Each table in the barracks had two benches, or forms, and was set for
dinner with a tablecloth, plates, drinking vessels, forks, knives and
spoons, serving dishes, a flesh fork and a ladle.
The size and number of tables in barracks varied from garrison to
garrison and from room to room. If possible the tables were placed
in the centre of each barracks room. Their most typical length was
six feet with width varying between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 feet. It is
likely the narrower table was used at Fort George, enabling eight
soldiers to sit comfortably. Each table was constructed from 3
inch square pine scantling and 2 inch pine planks. Each table had
two forms for the men to sit on. These were 6 feet in length, one
foot in width and constructed out of two inch thick pine planks.
For the 3 1/2 feet wide tables, three foot long forms were added
at the table ends. The tables and benches were washed twice a week
and well rubbed every day; carving or cutting on them was forbidden.
A clean, coarse
linen tablecloth, integral part of the mess necessaries, was spread on
the table "agreeable to orders" before dinner. While it
was typical for the tablecloth to be large enough to touch the floor, a
watercolour by Augustus Pugin and Thomas Rowlandson of the interior of
Chelsea Hospital in 1807 depicts pensioners dining on tablecloths with
about one foot of linen hanging past the table's surface. It is
probable that each cloth was marked with the company letter to
distinguish ownership, especially for washing purposes. When not
in use, the tablecloths were stored with the extras in the mess
chest. In 1811 an interesting incident occurred concerning
tablecloths which almost ended in the dismissal of the quartermaster of
the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles. The quartermaster was
courtmartialed for the price of tablecloths and round towels charged to
the men, along with other charges. While tablecloths of superior
quality and nearly the same size were being sold at 7s 10d each in the
8th Regiment and Canadian Fencibles, the Newfoundland Fencibles
Quartermaster was charging his men 14 shillings. The accused was
found guilty and was reprimanded by the court. The documentation
pertaining to this incident also reveals a slight difference in the
tablecloths supplied to each regiment: the 8th Regiment is specially
noted as having tablecloths made of diaper.
While the 1797 and 1807 Barracks Regulations for the Army called for
each soldier to be supplied with a plate by the Barracks Department,
regulations established for Canada made no mention of their issue.
Plates did not appear on any barracks utensil returns for the forts in
Upper Canada. Instead each the men were ordered to acquire their own
plates. The 1806 mess plan for the 6th Regiment shows the soldiers
to be in possession of tin plates. Whether all regiments possessed
plates made of dipped tin is uncertain. Each soldier possessed his
own fork, knife, and spoon. Historically, forks and knives were
purchased in pairs either from the regiment's quartermaster or a local
merchant. Archaeological findings suggests the pattern of cutlery
varied from person to person and that there was no single regimental
pattern. Fiddle pattern pewter soup spoons were most commonly
available to the soldier.
Though not mandatory, it is likely each soldier brought to the table
some type of privately-purchased drinking vessel. Archaeological
finds and period civilian examples show typical inexpensive cups or mugs
possibly owned by the soldiers to be glass or tin tumblers, tin or
earthenware mugs, and horn cups. With liquor forbidden in
barracks, water was drank by the soldiers at dinner: "Water is the
direct remedy...for quenching the thirst of man and beast...it is a
wholesome beverage; it is the most common, the most convenient,
consequently the best drink for soldiers." One army medical
official suggested: "If water be muddy, the addition of a small
quantity of alum makes it clear; if flat and mawkish, the addition of
vinegar rectifies the imperfection, rendering it pleasant to the taste
and wholesome to the habit." While many of the forts had a
well, Fort George had no water source within its walls so that "the
very great fatigue the want of water occasions its garrison particularly
during the hot weather."
Though barracks
regulations in England called for two meat dishes for every 12 men, no
meat dishes appear in the barracks schedule for British North
America. To compensate, the 49th Regiment ordered their messes to
be supplied with large dishes at a portion needed for a table of eight
men. It is possible these dishes were made of earthenware and used
for serving meals or as a salting tub for meat.
The 49th Regiment
required their messes to have flesh forks at a proportion of one for
every two large dishes. A typical 15 inch, two prong iron flesh
fork can be found in an 1801 manufacturer's sample book (Collection of
the Essex Institute). The 49th Regiment also required their messes
to have iron ladles in the same proportion as the flesh forks.
Other Messing Utensils
A meal for eight men was prepared in a four gallon (15.14 litre) iron
pot, complete with bail and handle. Also referred to as boilers,
such pots appear to have been of a "similar description" but
not from a fixed pattern, because the Barracks Department in Canada
acquired iron pots from military stores in England, merchants in Quebec,
and foundries in Canada. The latter proved to be the cheapest
source of supply. Given that the tables were covered with cloths,
it is likely that these pots, blackened by the fire, would not have
appeared on the table at dinner time. The pot's contents were
instead transferred to large dishes, and brought to the table.
According to Barracks Regulations one tin beer can was provided by the
Barracks Master for every 12 men. However, North American
regulations omitted this item along with a number of other mess
utensils. Shortcomings were expected to be made up by each
regiment as they saw fit. The cost was reimbursed by the
Department in the form of an annual allotment of utensil money along
with each soldier's mess contributions.
Initially the beer can was for the issue of beer to the soldiers as the
name implies. The size of the ration was measured by the
can. It was essential that the pattern established by the Barracks
Department was followed by the contactor or the soldiers' due ration
would be affected. Deviations from the established pattern did
occur, as in 1796, at the garrison in Colchester, England:
Through some strange accident or misapprehension of the quantity of beer
which every soldier is allowed, the tin cans contained less than the
allotted quantity. The garrison, consisting of several regiments,
was for some time supplied in this manner. A complaint was at last
made to the visiting captain of one of the regiments, and by him
inserted in his report. The consequence was that an investigation
took place, the utensils were measured, and the deficiency was
established.
In 1800, the
supply of beer to the troops was discontinued, and was replaced with
beer money. This did not result in the removal of the beer can as
it continued to be used as a tin kettle to carry soup or tea to the
barracks, guard, or men at work for the rest of the 19th century. It is
presumed that the size of the can would serve as a guide in measuring
the soldier's mess portion, similar to its earlier function with the
beer ration.
Each company would have been in possession of a mess chest for storing
utensils, plates, dishes, tablecloths and cooking frocks of each mess.
Considered a general charge and property of the company, the cost of the
chest was covered by each soldier's annual utensil allowance of 9 =BD
pence and the men's weekly mess contribution. The mess chests for the
Rifle Corps and 85th Regiment were divided into separate compartments
for each mess. The chest was most likely painted Ordnance blue, and
marked with the letter of the company, the captain's name, and the
regiment's number. It is also likely the chest was kept locked, with the
key left in the possession of the company pay sergeant.
The cooks in the company wore frocks when attending to their duties,
"the purchase and washing of which are to be a charge upon the
subsistence of the men." When not in use, the also stored in the
mess chest. The frock resembled a long, loose shirt made of linen, and
was worn over the cook's fatigue clothing. One style of British
frock had a neck opening that extended down the rear of the garment in
the same way it opened at the front. This allowed the shirt to be
rotated when one side became soiled, making it very practical for food
preparation duties. Based on illustrations and original examples,
however, frocks in North America seem to have been made with a front
opening only. It is possible a mixture of the two styles were
being used by the regiments in Canada. Since the frocks belonged
to the company, they were probably marked in ink with the company's
letter and possibly the number or letter of the mess to further identify
ownership.