MatÉriel organization, and its successive changes—Guns and carriages first used—Royal pattern—Madras pattern—Ammunition-carriages—Tumbrils—Horse Artillery ammunition-carriage—Elevating-screws—Ordnance in use—Siege-carriages—Howitzer and Mortar combined carriage—Gribeauval’s pattern—French caisson—Hardwicke’s pattern—Horse Artillery guns—Mountain-train carriages—Siege-carriages and ordnance—Royal pattern (block trail)—Gun and Ammunition carriages introduced.

Having traced the personnel of the regiment up to this point, let us take a retrospective survey and endeavour to track out the matÉriel; this cannot be satisfactorily done in the early stage; the absence of records and drawings renders it almost impossible; little more than a general idea can be given, and in this even there must be some guesswork; occasionally restoring (as the geologists say) a carriage from a few points found scattered in the reports of committees, or incidentally alluded to in other documents.

During Clive’s early wars, 6–pounder guns seem to have been generally in use, mixed occasionally with howitzers and 3–pounders, and when battalion guns a few years later became the system, two 3–pounders were with most native battalions. In his organization of the army in 1765, this became the establishment, and with the European companies of artillery there were six 6–pounders and two (probably 5½ inch) howitzers: 12–pounders as field-guns were introduced later.

The carriages at this time were probably of a double-cheek pattern, and from the histories of the actions, we find they were weak and often breaking down. When Colonel Pearse came into the command of the regiment, it will be recollected that he found great fault with them: “They flew to pieces with common firing in a week;” and his sweeping condemnation was probably quite just.

About 1770, it is believed that Colonel Pearse succeeded in introducing the carriage then in use in England, adapting its limber to bullock-draught (Plate No. 1). It is clumsy and ugly certainly, and with its wooden axle^[31] not very strong; doubtless it was an improvement on the old one. This appears to have been the pattern till the beginning of this century; minor improvements and alterations were made from time to time as experience pointed out their necessity, but no radical change. An iron was probably substituted for the wooden axletree, during or at the close of the war with Hyder. Iron axles first appear on the ledgers of the arsenal of Fort William in 1782–3; the ledger of the preceding year is missing, and in the antecedent years they are not mentioned. At this time too the number is so small (2) as to lead to the supposition that the introduction was an experiment just being tried. The entry in the ledger is not sufficiently detailed to determine whether the axletrees in question are for siege or field-carriages; but as we find Colonel Deare alluding to four siege-carriages with iron axles sent round to Bangalore as having stood well, it is probable that about this time they became generally in use.

During the wars with Hyder, the Bengal artillery was brought into contact with that of the Madras Presidency, and comparisons were of course made as to the relative efficiency of the matÉriel of the two corps, which doubtless led to the adoption of some improvements by both.

The campaigns with Tippoo in 1790–1–2 again took a large portion of Bengal artillery into the field with the Madras regiment, and the general superiority of the Madras carriages for light field-pieces was admitted by our most experienced officers. A committee, composed of Majors Woodburne and Montague,^[32] Captains Horsford, Howell, and Glass, all officers who had served during these campaigns, was appointed in 1793, and continued sitting until 1796, to report on, and suggest improvements to, the ordnance carriages and equipments.

This committee declared that the Bengal 6–pounder carriages were much too heavy and unwieldy for field service, but that the weight and construction of the limber was by far the most objectionable part. The extension of the pintle behind the axletree lengthened the draught nearly three feet between the wheels; the height of the wheels threw the weight nearly all on the rear axletree, increasing the draught, and frequently rendering it impossible to turn the carriage without unlimbering the gun. The pintle being fixed, tore the trail-transom to pieces in travelling over rough ground; and the position of the elevating screw-boxes in the centre transom weakened it: these objections rendered it often impossible to keep up with infantry in cases of emergency when guns would have been of the greatest use; this happened frequently in the late war, when guns, mounted on the Madras pattern carriage did not meet the same difficulties.

The committee therefore without hesitation proposed the introduction of the Madras carriage, with exception to the wheels and elevating-screw, the Bengal wheels and the royal 3–pounder screw being considered better.

The Military Board, on the suggestion of the commandant of artillery (Colonel Deare), recommended that the Madras Government should be requested to send round musters of their 6–pounders, and 5½-inch howitzer-carriages, and Lord Cornwallis approved of the plan. Colonel Deare was also requested to correspond with Colonel Giels (who had commanded the Madras Artillery in the campaign) on the subject of any defects which he might consider to exist in the carriages in question. This correspondence has not fallen in our way, and it seems doubtful whether the Madras carriage was at this time introduced. Up to 1801 no pattern seems to have been permanently fixed on, or else the Madras pattern had intermediately fallen into disrepute, for, as will be hereafter noticed, some modification of the Bengal pattern was at this time preferred.

The Madras pattern alluded to is believed to have been a block trail—the trail divided in two pieces, with the cheeks on each cut out from the solid timber; the trail was very long and the limber had a projection with a limbering-hook at the end (Plate No. 2). The chief faults in this construction were the waste of timber in cutting out the trail and cheeks; the unnecessary length of the trail, which, although it rendered the recoil easier, yet made the draught heavier; and this was again increased by the projection in rear of the limber. Another, and a serious evil, arose from the lever with which the weight of the carriage acted on the cattle in draught, the axle of the limber being the fulcrum. This pattern, however, considerably modified, became the galloper or horse-artillery carriage in Bengal.

It is, however, worthy of notice, how nearly the principle of this carriage corresponds with that of the royal pattern introduced twenty years later, and now the standard of all India; had the fantail been cut off, and the limbering-hook attached to the axle-bed, there would have been little difference; and it is strange that this was not done, for the objection had been seen and noticed in the siege-carriages, and a remedy adopted, not indeed by giving the hook to the axle-bed, but by lowering the limber-wheels and fixing a moveable pintle on the bolster.

The matÉriel equipment was again submitted to the consideration of a committee early in 1801; Lieutenant-Colonel MacIntyre was the president, and Major Gordon, Captains Grace, Wittit, and Johnson, members. By this time a muster-carriage for the horse artillery had been made up on the general principle of the Madras pattern, by Major Glass, and in Colonel Greene’s letter of instructions to the committee, he says it is “well adapted for the purpose, and can be used with equal efficacy with a line of infantry;” its particular construction was recommended to the committee’s consideration, “but at the same time, as many field-carriages are wanted immediately, and cannot be delayed so long as required to complete carriages on that pattern,” he advised “the adoption of the 6–pounder as altered by Colonel Duff, in preference to the present field-carriage, for the service in the line of infantry, it being much lighter, and having been found on trial sufficiently strong.”

The committee gave the preference to the pattern then in use, that is, apparently, the old one with a few alterations, such as making the axletree equally thick all through, the cheek-bolts through the axle-bed, the elevating screw-box being removed from the centre transom and placed a little in front, and its shoulders working in gudgeons fitted to the cheeks; and their recommendation was adopted by the board, who ordered the 6–pounder carriages then wanted to be made of this construction.

An experiment was also made at this time with iron^[33] cheeks for a horse artillery gun-carriage; the wooden ones were, however, preferred, but unfortunately no record appears of the reasons on which the iron cheeks were disapproved; it would be interesting, now that the question of iron carriages has been agitated; it is one of the many instances which a research into the history of artillery shews perhaps more than any other science, “the thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.”

Another instance may be given. In 1840, Major Timbrell made a pair of flat twisted chain traces for pole-horses, and being found very convenient, the experiment was tried on a larger scale. Captain Brind’s troop was equipped with them, as also was another on the march to join the Army of Reserve in 1842, but they failed from the difficulty of insuring perfectly good workmanship. In December, 1800, “the commissary of stores is ordered to have a set of flat chains made up in the arsenal as soon as possible, for the traces of the (experimental horse artillery) harness.”

At this time then there were two patterns of light field-carriages in use,—one a beam-trail with the galloper-guns; the other a double-cheek with the foot artillery and battalion guns. In the accompanying sketches, Plate No. 3 represents the galloper-carriage, while the foot artillery retained a double-cheek pattern, modified from No. 1.

We must now follow the ammunition-carriages up to the same point, and in so doing less difficulty exists, as the changes which have taken place are more marked.

The earliest record we have shews us Clive carrying his ammunition on lascars’ heads, their fidelity and steadiness insured by a detachment of Europeans with their muskets in the rear, to shoot deserters. This plan, of course, could only be adopted when the distance intended to be gone over was very small.

Tumbrils are early mentioned, both in our armies and those of native powers, and there is reason to believe that they differed but slightly from those which are now found in magazines, and generally used in the transport of treasure; they were larger and more unwieldy, and required many bullocks to draw them.

The committee in 1793 condemned them as too high, too heavy, liable to overturn, and the ammunition in them, from the absence of partitions, was shaken and broken^[34] on rough ground; they were also unnecessarily large for the quantity of ammunition intended to be carried in them.

They recommended the introduction of one which was built under their orders, and which corresponds very nearly in measurement with that still existing (Plate No. 5), subdivided for the reception of the ammunition, and capable of containing 90 rounds of 12–pounder, or 150 of 6–pounder ammunition; the box was easily removable, and fitted with a seat in front for the driver and his bundle; to counterbalance his weight, the centre of gravity of the box was a little thrown back; and probably this very precaution has caused the chief fault which can be found with this carriage, a tendency to fall back in going up hills; it travels lightly and easily to the cattle, and is well adapted for bullock-draught.

During the last war with Tippoo, the heavy tumbril, drawn by many bullocks,—five to eight pair, was found very inconvenient with the galloper-guns, either keeping the guns in the rear, or leaving them without ammunition if they kept up with their corps. As a remedy, Colonel Blaquiere, of H.M.’s 25th dragoons, proposed a carriage “consisting of a sort of double limber, with four wheels of equal height, drawn by four horses, and driven by two men riding the near horses.” Its advantages were, “the means of carrying six additional men, the power of substituting the limber for that of the gun, if the latter was wounded, or to avoid the necessity of shifting the ammunition when the supply in the gun limber was expended.”

This ammunition-carriage was adopted for the Bengal horse artillery and galloper-guns, and is represented in the sketch (Plate No. 6). We must here again remark how nearly the present principle was approached, the gun and ammunition limbers similar, and the ammunition divided into several boxes; but still the fault already noticed in the gun-carriage, the unnecessarily long projection to which the limbering-hook was attached, was continued. This fault probably caused this pattern, both gun and ammunition-carriage, to be discarded, and it was not until twenty years had passed that the simple alterations necessary were introduced.

The light field-carriages then at this period (end of 1801), were the beam-trail gun and ammunition-carriage with limber for the gallopers, and the double-cheek carriage and ammunition-tumbril for the foot artillery.

As the elevating-screw is an important item in a carriage, a few lines to trace its progress will not be amiss. The earliest screw was fixed horizontally, and ran through a quoin, which, by its action, was forced in or out, depressing or elevating the gun; it was a cumbrous machine, and could scarcely have worked smoothly. This must have fallen into disuse between 1780 and 1790. At this latter date, a capstan-headed screw fixed in the centre transom had superseded it. A good deal of attention was given to the elevating-screw about this period, and many plans appear to have been proposed, among other officers, by Lieutenants Toppin and Taylor, as we learn from a minute by Colonel Deare; but what they were, it is not easy to say.

The action of the screw was found to injure the centre transoms, and it was therefore placed a little in advance, the trunnions of the plate in which the screw worked resting on gudgeons fixed in each cheek; this gave the screw a power of self-adjustment to the movement of the gun, and most probably contemporary with this was the introduction of screws fixed to the neck of the cascable of the gun.

Another pattern, and which probably followed, was one placing the screw under an elevating-board on which the gun rested.^[35]

In the sketch (Plate No. 6) the general character of the screws is shewn.

A cursory notice must now be taken of the ordnance in use with the regiment. In the early times, 6–pounders were chiefly used; they were afterwards mixed with 3–pounders with the native corps, and 6–pounders with the artillery companies; the former most probably of 3¾, and the latter of 4¾ cwt. A heavier 6–pounder (6½ cwt.) superseded this light gun, and was in general use to the end of the century. This gun Major Woodburne’s committee proposed replacing again by a lighter one.

During the wars with Hyder and Tippoo, brass 18–pounders constantly accompanied the armies, and were used in all the actions; and in the campaigns of 1791–2, iron 12–pounders were attached to the European regiments, and found very useful in keeping the hordes of cavalry at a respectful distance; brass 12–pounders had previously been attached to the artillery and to European regiments.

The relative merits of light and heavy guns has been a vexata quÆstio from the earliest date, nor is it entirely set at rest up to the present day, though general opinion has decided in favour of a via media, rejecting both extremes. Still some members of the profession maintain that, by a judicious disposition of metal, a light gun may be made as effective as a heavy, while others, on the contrary, run into the other extreme, and would introduce guns heavier even than those at present in use. Late experiments at Woolwich on a 9–pounder of 10 cwt., nearly similar to the Bengal pattern, strengthen the opinion that the two extremes should be avoided.

A curious experiment was tried at Dum-Dum in 1787, with a view to deciding the point at issue; and it furnishes some data which, combined with practical experience, would tend to prove that a medium gun will give a range so slightly below that of a heavier one, that the increase would be dearly purchased by the increased difficulty of draught. A 6–pounder was cast, weighing 10 cwt. and 24 lbs., and fired a certain number of rounds, after which a portion equal to a calibre in length was cut off, and the firing continued; this process was carried on, diminishing the gun, calibre by calibre, until it weighed only 3 cwt. 3 qrs. and 2 lbs., the elevation and charge of powder being in all cases the same. The result was, that of the first sixteen lengths, the seventh carried the furthest,—2,305 yards, the gun weighing 8 cwt. 2 qrs. 20 lbs.; at the fourteenth length the gun threw 2,098 yards, the gun weighing 6 cwt. 1 qr. 3 lbs.; and at the seventeenth length, 2,106 yards, the gun weighing 4 cwt. 3 qrs. 23 lbs.

It would have been more satisfactory had the first graze, as well as the extreme range, as has been the case, been given; however, it appears that 200 yards are gained by nearly doubling the weight of the gun, and the conclusion would be in favour of the very light gun, were it not that experience shews that a light gun shakes its carriage very much, and therefore that what is gained in metal is lost in strengthening the carriage to bear the shock; it is also found that a gun giving a long point-blank range does not give a proportional extreme range; and the result has been to make 6–pounders of the present day 6 cwt. in weight. The best test perhaps is a range of 800 yards, with the least elevation for a field-gun.

One other point now only remains to be noticed to bring up the matÉriel to the end of the last century,—the pattern of siege-carriages. From the faults found with it by the committee in 1793, we can make a tolerable guess at it; the lowness and narrowness of the wheels, the projection of the pintle behind, to make room for a large store-box, and the height of the limber-wheels are complained of; and it therefore must have been something similar to that represented in sketch No. 8; in all probability, up to this time little alteration had taken place in the pattern in use.

While preparing the siege-train for Seringapatam, at Bangalore, in 1792, Colonel Duff made considerable alterations in the siege-carriages; he cut off the projection from the limbers, and placed a pintle on a bolster on the axle-bed, carried the draught-chain back to the gun-carriage, and cut travelling trunnion-beds in the cheeks, to divide the weight better on the axles, and make the carriage travel easier; in fact, rendered the carriages very nearly what are now known as the “old pattern.” All the alterations were continued by the committee, and they directed that the carriage should be five, and the limber-wheels three feet high, to enable them to turn under the cheeks when limbered up. Minor improvements were added: the draught-chain was made in pieces, so as to allow of a portion of the cattle being taken off in sharp turnings, or on ground where all could not act; and a carriage was then built, which, with slight changes (reducing the gun-wheels two inches) in 1801 by Colonel MacIntyre’s committee, became the standard, and remained so till 1823.

A fancy existed to obtain the use of a mortar from an howitzer, by fitting its carriage with a sliding transom, on withdrawing which, the howitzer could be elevated to 45°, its cascable resting on an additional transom fixed underneath. Major Green constructed a carriage of this kind in 1796, which was experimented on at Dum-Dum, and spoken favourably of, but eventually not found to answer, and therefore discarded.

Whether the result of imitation, or of half-informed mechanical taste, we find Lena Sing Majeetiah, commandant of the Punjab artillery, indulging in a similar fantasy: a carriage adapted for the double purpose. It is scarcely possible that such a one could be useful; the shock acting vertically on the axle, would be too severe for any moderate dimensions to bear; this was found in Major Green’s carriage, and the proposed remedy was shortening the axle, which would, while strengthening, have rendered it very likely to overturn.

To preserve the connection of the subject, it may be as well here to notice the successive changes of ordnance and carriages up to about the present time, instead of referring to each as the record of the regiment reaches the date of its occurrence. The object is rather to give a general idea of the carriages and guns in use at different eras, and to mark the strong, rather than to note the more minute and trifling, changes which are always taking place. To do the latter would require more space than can be afforded, and after all the reader might rise from the perusal, his mind crowded with a heap of minutiÆ, leaving no other impression than that at different times a carriage had been shortened in one direction and lengthened in another, the wheels heightened or lowered—now all of the same height, and then those of the limber reduced—a hook added from the front or taken from the rear. This is not our object, we wish to shew the principal features of the subject, so as to point out the stages through which our present excellent matÉriel has been attained.

The galloper-gun and ammunition-carriages, as well as those in use with the foot artillery at the beginning of the century, were destined to be superseded by the Gribeauval pattern, about 1810, one carriage answering for horse and foot, with the exception of some difference in the limber. The carriage was a double-cheek one, limbered up on a moveable pintle on the bottom of a limber, with two low wheels; the foot artillery limber had an arched axle with the pintle on the top. [Plates Nos. 10 and 11.]

These carriages had a tendency to overturn, on any but the smoothest ground; the low wheels made the draught heavy, and were also difficult to keep in order; yet this pattern held its position as the standard until 1823, when a thorough reform in the ordnance department took place.

Early in the century, the French “caisson” was introduced as the ammunition-carriage, and continued with slight changes until superseded by the royal pattern. It was a long waggon with low wheels in front, on the axle of which a pintle was fixed, working in a socket in a compartment of the body of the carriage, and enabling the front wheels to turn. This formation caused many accidents; the powder getting shaken out of the cartridges, came in contact with the pintle, and an explosion ensued; the construction was therefore altered by fixing the pintle to the carriage and the socket on the axle-bed. [Plate No. 12.]

The faults of this carriage were the liability to overturn; the danger from explosion, the whole ammunition being in one large box; and the inconvenience, when embarking on board ship or crossing rivers, of having to unpack it all.

An attempt to remedy this was made in 1801 by the partial introduction of “Hardwicke’s pattern” ammunition-carriage, consisting of two tumbrils connected by a bent iron perch. It proved, however, a perfect failure, and never came into general use, so that the caisson continued as the standard until superseded by the royal pattern; the last, probably, which existed in use was in Captain Wood’s troop, 1st company 3rd battalion, at Meerut, us late as 1828.

In 1801, on its formation, the experimental horse artillery was armed with two 3–pounders and four 6–pounders; the 3–pounders in 1806 gave place to two 5½-inch howitzers, and two of the 6–pounders were at a later period (when the number of troops had been increased) withdrawn, and their place supplied by 12–pounders of a pattern proposed by General Horsford of 8¾ cwt. The lines of this gun were drawn at Woolwich, but, at the same time, it was said that a gun of such light metal must prove insufficient.

The armament of troops and field-batteries continued of these three calibres until the new arrangements, introducing the 9 and 6–pounder guns and 24 and 12–pounder howitzers, in 1828 and the following years.

The breaking out of hostilities with Nepal in 1814 called for a new species of carriages adapted to carry 3–pounders and 4?-inch howitzers in a hilly country. Lightness, strength, and a facility of being taken to pieces and put together were the points sought to be combined in the “mountain-train” carriages planned by Sir J. Horsford. They were not, however, much used during the war, for in general it was found that elephants could convey 6–pounders in the hills easier than men could the smaller pieces; and the former, being so much more effective, were, nearly in all cases, used. The mountain-train carriages were found too slight, and quite unequal to bear the rough usage artillery meets with even from the hands of its friends; they required a degree of petting which appears not always to have been shewn them. During a retreat in the Nepal country, several which had, for convenience and from the loss of their bearers, been limbered up to other carriages drawn by cattle, went to pieces in crossing the terrain at the foot of the hills. The fault was laid on the officers in charge, and not on the weakness of the carriages, by Sir John Horsford; but there will always be great difficulty in preventing these carriages experiencing the same treatment, if put together before entering the hills.

No. 14 is a sketch of the mountain-train pattern, which has remained unaltered up to the present day, excepting some changes introduced by Major Backhouse in the mountain-train of the late Shah Sujah, but which have not been made generally known. Some changes are now probable, as a mountain-train 12–pounder howitzer has been substituted for the old 4?-inch howitzer. This new piece weighs 3 cwt., and its lines are drawn on the principles of the 12–pounder howitzer; the charge is 12 oz. of powder (an increase of 4 oz.), which, with the increased length, makes it a much more effective piece.

The siege-carriages underwent little change during this time. From their solid nature they have been always less liable to injury than field-carriages; and, consequently, attention has been less forced to them by the repairs of daily accidents; less temptation has therefore offered to introduce improvements and alterations, and the pattern established in 1801 remained in use till 1823; indeed, at the present time there are many carriages of that kind in magazines.

In 1823 a new pattern siege-carriage (No. 15) was introduced; not, however, differing essentially from the old one; uniformity in axles, beds, limbers, &c., and improvements in minutiÆ, were the chief alterations.

A new kind of carriage was also introduced at this time for the iron howitzers, which superseded the brass 8–inch as a siege-piece; the trail was much shorter than that of siege-carriages, and furnished with small truck-wheels, to ease the recoil. [Plate No. 16.]

Iron mortars and mortar-beds also superseded the brass mortars of 8–inch and upwards, and their wooden beds. No alteration has been made in any of these articles.

In 1823, a general reform in the ordnance equipment in Bengal took place, and, with the changes above noted, the block trail pattern was introduced for the light field-carriages. The ammunition-carriage was made with a limber exactly similar to that of the gun, and the ammunition was divided into six boxes, two on the limber, and four on the body of the carriage, easily removable; the wheels, axles, and beds were made similar, and pains were taken to render all parts as uniform as possible, so that one set might answer for the repairs of all.

On their first introduction into Bengal, in the attempts to lighten the carriages as much as possible, some were made too weak, especially those for the 24–pounder howitzers, and slight alterations were made from time to time to obviate this defect.

At this time, the elevating-screws of the guns were fixed to the cascable neck, while those of the howitzers were capstan-headed. In 1834, Captain Timbrell suggested the adoption of the fixed screw with all, and several howitzer-carriages were altered accordingly; in doing this, however, it became necessary to pierce the beams to receive the screw further to the rear than before, filling up the former hole with a plug: this double piercing weakened the beam so much, that with the increased action from the fixed screw, many broke down, and the change was discontinued at that time; the subject, however, was agitated for many years, and many trials made, and the result has been the retention of the original method.

The advantages of the fixed screw consist in its uniting the gun and carriage, and thereby preventing its jumping, in travelling or firing; greater facility of mending it, and an increased power in limbering up; it is also more economical, as a less depth of beam is required, the fixed screw adjusting itself by means of trunnions, while the capstan-headed requires a horizontal hump on the beam to receive it. On the other hand, the capstan-headed screw is supposed to strain the carriage less; to us, however, the advantages seem to be on the side of the fixed screw, and from the result of the experiments tried, there appears no doubt but that when applied to a new, not an altered, beam, the howitzer-carriages are strong enough to bear it.

In these ordnance arrangements, the European horse and all the foot artillery batteries were armed with 9–pounder guns and 24–pounder howitzers, while the native horse had 6–pounders; and this continued until 1834, when, under instructions from the Court of Directors, the whole of the horse artillery were armed with 6–pounder guns and 12–pounder howitzers.

In 1836, at the recommendation of Sir Henry Fane, then Commander-in-Chief, a special board of artillery officers from the three presidencies was convened at Calcutta, for the purpose of assimilating the ordnance equipment and arrangements throughout India. They sat for about two years, and during that time musters of the carriages they recommended for general adoption were built. This carriage, the “Indian pattern,” was much like those in use with the Madras Artillery, and may be shortly described as having contracted cheek, narrow axles, and metal naves: the carriage was heavier than the Bengal pattern.

The proceedings of the board were transmitted to England and returned in 1841, with the orders of the Court of Directors (among other points), that if the pattern carriage had given satisfaction, it should be adopted throughout all India. In the interim, however, the Afghan war had taken place, and the carriages of the Bengal and Bombay presidencies been severely tried. The former stood the test of the service in that most difficult country, while the latter, constructed on a plan nearly similar to the Madras one, proved utterly worthless. These circumstances, and the failure of some 6–pounder carriages of the “Indian pattern,” with the Bombay horse artillery, during the short affair at Hykulzie, rendered the strength of the pattern doubtful, and after calling for reports from all who had been engaged in these campaigns, the Supreme Government in 1842 finally decided on adopting the Bengal block trail as the pattern for Indian light field-carriages.

This appears an appropriate place in which to detail the different means of draught adopted from time to time, and the arrangement will have the advantage of presenting the subject in one view, and saving the reader the trouble of searching for it through different periods.

To the end of the last century, bullocks were the only draught cattle in use for artillery purposes; they were attached to the carriage by yokes, most probably similar to those which may now be seen in every native hackery, and traces made of raw hide: these latter, during Lord Cornwallis’s campaigns, were superseded by draught-chains, the whole chain in one long piece, very cumbrous and inconvenient. This pattern was early modified, we believe, by making the lengths for siege ordnance for three or four pairs of bullocks; but it was not until about 1825 that a separate chain was allotted to each pair, facilitating the lengthening, or reducing the line of draught greatly. The yoke was attached by a swivel playing loosely on the pole, with a neck which passed through the upper part of the yoke, and was fastened with a nut. The yoke, at this period we think, consisted of two bars, and has remained up to the present day with little alteration. An attempt was made to supersede it by a single bar yoke with short stanchions, and chains to confine the bullocks in their places, by General Hardwicke, about 1781. This was supposed to be an improvement on the native yoke, and more economical than the pattern in use; but an important point having been overlooked, viz. the native yoke-bar being fixed immoveably to the pole, while the H. P. yoke was moveable on its swivel, the result was not satisfactory, as the bullocks were continually in danger of suffocation, from the bar twisting and tightening the chain round their necks. The double band yoke was therefore retained, and it was fitted on the pole with a clip-band, which, by embracing the upper bar, saved the necessity of piercing it for the reception of the swivel, and added much to its strength.

About 1801, horses were first used for the draught of guns in India. Experimental horse artillery was formed, and two galloper-guns were attached to each cavalry regiment. The original plan has been followed with little variation up to the present time; each horse of the team was ridden, and the guns were worked by the men who rode the horses. The chief advantages of this system are economy, greater exertion to be got out of the horses in a difficulty, and a smaller number of men and horses exposed to an enemy’s fire; its disadvantages are, the horses being overweighted, and a liability, from the paucity of numbers, of a gun being crippled in action by a few casualties. It may, however, after many years’ experience, be pronounced a system combining with economy a very considerable degree of efficiency.

The bullocks, much improved by the arrangements of 1809, which transferred them to the care of the artillery, continued the sole draught animal of the foot artillery until 1818, when an experimental 12–pounder battery was horsed with a limited number of an inferior description of cattle: yet, under these disadvantages, so superior did this battery prove, that others were soon afterwards similarly equipped, and their numbers gradually increased until 1827, when it was decided that all the light field-batteries should be horsed; so convinced had the local Government and the Court of Directors become of the utility of the measure. But scarcely were the orders issued, when one of those extraordinary changes, so often to be met with in Indian arrangements, consequent on the change in the head of the Government, took place, and in 1828 the horses were ordered to be sold, and their place to be supplied with bullocks. Against this arrangement, destructive of the efficiency of the regiment, the representations of the commandant of artillery were of no avail; and the remonstrances of a general officer, unwilling to be left with an inefficient field-artillery, were met by the reply that the change had been resolved on “not only from motives of economy, but from a conviction that the number and efficiency of the horse artillery rendered the maintenance of horse field-batteries unnecessary;” as if the duties and use of the two branches of the arm were not quite distinct and incompatible with one another!

The horse-batteries being thus extinguished, for many years there was not a foot field-battery that could be considered efficient for service; fortunately it was a period of profound peace, or the twelve troops of horse artillery would have proved but a “broken reed” to rest upon as the whole effective field-artillery of an army mustering, perhaps, 80,000 men, and scattered over a country twelve hundred miles in length, with hostile powers bordering on it in all directions.

In 1835, attempts were made to turn the enduring powers of the camel to gun-draught. Arguing on the fact that the animal had in former times been employed in draught, and that in the present day he is used in the plough in the Hurrianah and other sandy districts, Major Pew made many experiments, and at length succeeded so far, that Government authorized a battery to be fitted for this draught at Dehli, and it was placed under the command of Captain W. Anderson. Its first performances, when with the camp of the Commander-in-Chief, appeared to promise well—so well, indeed, that on the formation of the Army of the Indus, it was attached to it under the command of Captain A. Abbott. In the field, however, it did not keep up its character; while the ground was smooth and sandy, the camels worked well, but in moist or slippery soil they were continually liable to accidents, and in ground intersected by trenches they were peculiarly awkward; at all times they were found deficient in muscular exertion, weight constituting their sole power of traction; and when the work became hard, and food scarce, they knocked up completely and suddenly, without any warning; and on the army moving from Candahar towards Ghuznee, the camels were replaced by the horse and yaboo of the country. A second battery, which proceeded to Scinde in 1843, fared no better. A third, stationed at Nusseerabad, seems to answer for cantonment duties, but we believe has not been tried in any other way. The result of the experiments appears to be, that though the camel will answer as gun-draught in particular localities, he will not do for a battery which is liable to move in all directions.

The war in Afghanistan forced on the Government the necessity of improving their field-artillery, and as a commencement, a battery on the frontier was supplied with cast horses from the horse artillery and cavalry; but on the apparent termination of the war in 1840, with a view to economy, these horses were withdrawn and replaced, with much delay, with bullocks, leaving the frontier, on which our dubious friends the Sikhs could in a week have mustered 100,000 men and 200 pieces of artillery, with no other artillery than one or two 6–pounder troops of horse artillery, and this battery ill equipped with bullocks and drivers from the Commissariat; and such was its state when the Afghan reverses broke upon India like a clap of thunder.

In 1841, the orders of the Court of Directors were received, to supersede bullocks entirely by horses, camels, and elephants, which were supposed likely to form cheap and efficient field-batteries, horses were given to a few, and one was furnished with elephants. We believe no one expected that this latter would answer. The awkward line of traction, the great power of the animal, and the fear of his becoming unmanageable under fire, were the obvious objections; to which might be added the disadvantage of the whole power of draught being concentrated in one animal, in case of this one being wounded, and which his great bulk rendered extremely probable. After two years’ experience, the elephant was rejected from field-artillery; but it was proposed to use his strength more advantageously in the movement of siege-guns, where several of the objections would not apply, particularly that of being exposed to an enemy’s fire. During the recent campaign on the Sutlej, elephants were used in siege-guns, and also in a battery of iron 12–pounders; but although this battery was provided with spare limbers, with bullocks for carrying it into action, yet, by some mismanagement, the elephants were used at Sobraon, and, as had been anticipated, took fright at the first shot which passed over them, and ran off to the rear with the limbers, proving clearly the soundness of the opinion originally pronounced against their use for field-artillery.

We believe, too, that they are to be given up for siege-artillery, but not, we think, on such sound grounds; their adoption was an experiment; the harness intended for field-guns was transferred to siege, without alteration, and, as might have been expected, proved too weak: whether a stronger pattern, which was recommended, was used in the hurried march, by which the heavy guns were brought up from Dehli to the Sutlej, and how that answered; whether the animals proved themselves unequal to the work, or whether, as a means of instituting a fair comparison, a gun drawn by bullocks accompanied the elephants, and moved with greater ease or difficulty, we know not; but we think it is a pity that the animal has not been fairly tried, or if so, that the experiments have not been recorded and published for general information.