[Guzzman]

Please excuse my resurrecting an old topic but, like everyone else, I've got a lot of time on my hands to conduct research (well, it's something to do while we're all stuck at home).

I have been giving further thought to the button depicting a cannon either side of a foul anchor (see image below).

I still firmly believe this to be the button of a naval Master Gunner and my research has made me even more convinced of this.

The Gunner was one of any rated warship's three "standing" warrant officers - along with the Boatswain and Carpenter. That is to say one of the officers who theoretically remained with a ship throughout it's life. Like the Boatswain and the Carpenter he belonged to neither the Wardroom or the lower deck, but made his own messing arrangements and had his own cabin. The Gunner was , in fact, the senior of the "standing" warrant officers.

However, unlike the Carpenter and Boatswain, the Gunner was examined, appointed by and responsible to the Board of Ordnance rather than the Navy Board or Admiralty.

The Office of Ordnance, created by Henry VIII in 1544, became the Board of Ordnance in 1597. At the time of its founding there was no standing army, and its principal duties were to supply guns, ammunition, stores and equipment to the King's Navy. The Great Master of Ordnance ranked immediately below the Lord High Admiral. In 1863 the Board became a Civil Department of State. The Gunner's responsibilities were considerable. All gunnery stores and supplies had to be minutely accounted for to the Board of Ordnance as opposed to the Navy Board.

In 1807 other warrant officers were granted official buttons. The buttons of Masters had the arms of the Navy Board, a large anchor between two small ones and Pursers those of the Victualling Board, two anchors crossed in saltire. Officers of the transport service wore buttons bearing the insignia of the Transport Office - a crossed anchor and cannon barrel. I believe that it was at this time that Gunners received their distinctive buttons - something they were worthy of as as the senior standing warrant officer and because of their importance to a warship's fighting ability.

The seal of the Board of Ordnance comprised of three vertical cannon below three cannon balls - and this may have posed a problem as not being nautical enough. Especially as it was a design that featured on most of the Army's artillery units buttons at the time. And I don't think that the Admiralty would have looked very kindly upon their Gunners wearing Army buttons! Any selected design would have had to combine both the naval side of the Gunners role and the link to the Board of Ordnance. A foul anchor had been used on naval buttons for many years, so that could represent the Navy. The inclusion of the anchor would not have left space for the Board of Ordnance's seal with it's three vertical guns. So what better compromise than a gun mounted either side of the anchor and resting on ship's timbers?

There are many variations of this button. Many have the guns mounted on naval gun carriages but others have them mounted on land carriages, as featured on the ensign of vessels belonging to the Board of Ordnance. Some omit the ship's timbers completely.

I know that much of this is supposition but I believe it to be very close to what may have happened. As I have said before details of these buttons may be buried amongst the many thousands of naval documents issued by the Admiralty at the time but as yet unrecorded or they may have been simply lost or destroyed. But another possible source of information may lie amongst the documents of the Board of Ordnance, even if they may consist of little more than letters between the Admiralty and the Board of Ordnance arguing over the design or who was responsible for issuing them! It is certainly an area of investigation which I intend to pursue - once we're allowed out of the house again!

I hope that everyone is keeping well and taking care of themselves.

Pete