By
Justin Clement
Many historians, artists, and reenactors have dismissed short British Light Infantry waistcoats as a product of the 1780’s fashion trend.1 A review of period documentation and pictorial sources show that this is likely not the case.
On 4th March 1771, a recommendation was made by a Committee of the Board of General Officers regarding the clothing and accoutrements best adapted for the use of the Light Company belonging to each of the Marching Regiments of Foot on the British Establishment.2 It was shortly approved by the King and made into regulation.3 Following inspection returns and other pictorial evidence, it appears that the Regiments listed on the Irish Establishment likewise followed this same regulation.
The report made by the Committee stated “That the cloathing of coat & waistcoat be of the pattern of Maj-Gen Rufane, but the waistcoat to be red and laced”.4 No further detail is offered. The Judge Advocate General wrote a letter to the Secretary at War concerning this report. He stated: “Having … summoned the Board of General Officers … that they should consider what kind of cloathing and accoutrements may be best adapted for the use of the Light Company belonging to each of the marching Regiments of Foot on the British Establishment, I report, … that the Board, after viewing men dressed in different patterns, have selected one suit of cloathing and accoutrements, which appear to them most adapted for the use of the said Light Infantry…” 5 From this statement, it appears that the clothing of the Light Infantry was different from the regular companies. It also implies that their clothing was chosen for functionality. The price for a new waistcoat was set at 11 shillings.6
In 1772, Thomas Simes describes the uniform made into regulation, providing further clarification. He states: “… I am informed, [the Light Companies] have the following appointments: Jackets; black leather caps, with 3 chains round them, and a piece of plate upon the center of the crown; in the front, G.R. a crown, and the number of the Regiment…” 7 The cap he describes is the pattern offered by Major General Keppel, but in this case provides more detail than the written report. The term “jacket” indicates a coat of a shorter length. In a later publication, Simes states: “...the bottom of every man's coat to be six inches, except the men of the light infantry, which is to be nine inches from the ground when kneeling upon both knees, and hang of an equal length quite round...” 8
The earliest example of a shortened waistcoat comes from a ca. 1761-62 painting of two Light Infantrymen of the Princess’s Own 119th Light Armed Foot.9 The soldiers are wearing dragoon-style helmets, short waistcoats, and hi-lo boots. The early date places it well beyond the influence of the later civilian fashion trend.
In 1778, Phillip de Loutherburg sketched several soldiers in preparation for his painting “The Mock Battle” at Warley Camp. Some of his source artwork has survived, including sketches of the 6th and 69th Light Infantry.10 The soldier of the 6th Light Infantry appears to be wearing the regulation uniform laid out by the 1771 warrant. The helmet conforms to the description laid out in the report as the pattern given by Major General Keppel and the description given by Simes, with the addition of a simple flap. The coat is the appropriate length. The soldier is also wearing short gaiters. Overall, this appears to be a good example of the 1771 regulation uniform for the British Light Infantry. The waistcoat in the picture is partially obscured from the belly box and ball bag he wears around his waist. However, it does not appear to have tails. The picture of the 69th Light is much the same. The soldier’s waistcoat appears to end at the waist. His uniform conforms to the 1771 regulation, with the exception of a felt cap of a different style.
In 1779, William Richardson published an engraving of two Light Infantrymen.11 The Lights are not wearing a belly box or belt around the waist, so the waistcoats on both figures in the picture are not obscured. In this instance, the waistcoat is clearly pictured as ending at the waist.
Officers of the Light Companies were expected to wear uniforms similar to those of the men. On 16th June 1772, the following inspection return was reported for the 40th Regiment: “The Officers of the Light Companies have their pockets of the same form as the men, and likewise their waistcoats of same form and colour, but without lace.” 12 A similar inspection return was reported for the 54th Regiment on the same date, differing in that both the pockets and waistcoats were “looped with silver lace.” 13
In some instances, the officers’ waistcoats differed in color from those of the rank and file, as shown by an Inspection Return of the 19th Regiment on 30th May 1775: “Clothing according to regulation except Officers of Light Infantry who had white instead of red waistcoats.” 14 This closely follows a ca. 1771-1775 painting of Lt. Col. Maddison and his family.15 He was an officer of the King’s Own 4th Regiment, and is pictured wearing a light infantry uniform. The waistcoat is clearly cut at the waist, but is white in color, rather than red.
In the document known as Feinstone 111, a brief description of the construct of sleeved waistcoats for Light Infantry is given for service in the West Indies, just following service in America: “Sleeves of the Jacket sewed to the waistcoat. Shell laid aside. One or two pockets in the waistcoat below the breast.” 16 Presuming the waistcoat had no tails, this jacket would match those painted in the Xavier della Gatta paintings of the Battles of Paoli and Germantown, picturing Light Infantry soldiers.17
The abundance of evidence presents a strong case in favor of short waistcoats being the regulation pattern chosen by the Committee of the Board of General Officers in 1771, as best adapted for the use of the Light Company. The prestige of the light companies and their officers during the American Revolution may, in turn, have influenced the civilian fashion of the day, which could explain the later fashion trend of the 1780’s.
Special thanks are due to Chris Woolf and the members of the recreated King’s Own 4th Regiment, Company of Light Infantry, and Tom Callens of the CSM. Credit is also due to Jim Kochan and Henry Cooke whose influence has doubtless played an indirect role in forming my perspective. This article would not be written without their contributions and insight.
1) The recreated King’s Own 4th Light Infantry company is among the few wearing the waistcoat described in this article. For photos, visit: http://www.kingsown.net/uniforms.htm.
2) WO 71/10 f 297/9. Public Records Office, Kew.
3) WO 7/27 p. 33. Letter Book of the Board of General Officers on Clothing. Secretary-at-War to Thomas Fauquier Esqre. 22nd March 1771. Public Records Office, Kew.
4) WO 71/10 f 297/9. Public Records Office, Kew. Major General Rufane was with the 6th Regiment at this time.
5) WO 26/28, pp. 377-378. Miscellany Book. Judge Advocate General to Secretary-at-War. 6th March 1771. Public Records Office, Kew.
6) (WO 71/10 f 297/9) Public Records Office, Kew. This cost includes both the materials and labor for a completely new garment. However, the common practice was to make a waistcoat from the old coat, which is significantly cheaper. Before the 1768 clothing warrant, the Battalion companies wore red, laced waistcoats. The cost for making a waistcoat would be comparable. Bennet Cuthbertson sets the price at 9 shillings for “Making a Waistcoat from his old Coat, laced” in the 1776 edition of A System for the Interior Management and Śconomy of a Battalion. Since the waistcoats are made from the old Regimental coats, they would be made of the same wool, lace, and lining. The fronts and backs would be made from the same red madder wool as the coat body, and the lining would be the same woolen baize or serge used in the coat lining.
7) Simes, Thomas. The Military Guide for Young Officers. London: 1772.
8) Simes, Thomas. A Military Course for the Government and Con¬duct of a Battalion of Infantry. London: 1777.
9) Artist unknown. Collection of Windsor Castle. In Lawson, Cecil C.P.. A History of the Uniforms of the British Army, Vol. III. London: 1961. pp. 68-70
10) de Loutherburg, Phillip. Ann S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library.
11) Engraving by I.P. No title. W. Richardson: 1779. Scottish United Services Museum, Scotland.
12) Inspection Return of the 40th Regiment of Foot, 16th June 1772. In Strachan, Hew. British Military Uniforms, 1768-1796. London: 1975. p. 230.
13) Inspection Return of the 54th Regiment of Foot, 16th June 1772. In Strachan. p. 240.
14) Inspection Return of the 19th Regiment of Foot, 30th May 1775. In Strachan. p. 213.
15) Lt. Col. Maddison is pictured with his family. The child in the picture is either his son, John Thomas (as a child), or his sister Charlotte. The painting could be dated more precisely, depending on the case. In one estimate, the date was placed as early as “1763 or later”.
16) Feinstone 111. Sol Feinstone Collection. David Library of the American Revolution.
17) Stephen R. Gilbert. “An analysis of the Xavier della Gatta Paintings of the Battles of Paoli and Germantown, 1777: Part I.” Military Collector and Historian, no. 3 (Fall 1994). p. 98-108.
Back to the RESEARCH PAGE