THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
285 
was a two-wheeled ammunition carriage, resembling in a general way an Irish 
jaunting car; the gunners sitting in two rows, facing outwards, with the ammu¬ 
nition between them. 1 2 The existence of these cars in Trance was a short one ; 
for, in addition to the danger of bringing them under fire, they possessed not 
only all the evils belonging to two-wheeled military carriages, but the unpleasant 
quality of constantly upsetting on the slightest provocation. 3 Taken all in 
ail, however, they were an improvement, and their introduction was “ a clear 
admission that the guns had not yet attained efficiency of movement/'’ 3 The 
adoption of cars in England was due to an unusually severe “ invasion panic” 
which arose in 1803. In that year the Peace of Amiens was ruptured, and 
it was universally believed, and not without good reason, that Napoleon, in 
person, meditated an invasion of England. Confusion and terror reigned 
throughout the British Islands, and under these feelings the usual futile 
attempt was made to organise at a moment's warning what can only be 
organised after calm deliberation, free discussion, and extensive experiment— 
a field artillery that can move as well as fire. Cars were introduced; and 
so strong was the feeling in their favour, that they were supplied even to the 
horse artillery, although they were so heavy that “one box, of the three which 
the body of the wagon contained, was always ordered to remain empty/’ 4 
After a few years’ experience the cars were found wanting, and were discarded; 
but although they failed, they were nevertheless productive of two great 
benefits to the service—“their admission provoked discussion and trial, 
and the field artillery was for the first time fairly committed in England to 
the hands of the officers of artillery/’ 5 The immediate result of this move¬ 
ment was the construction of a lighter and better ammunition cart, on four 
wheels, and the adoption of the present wagon, or field battery system, in 
England and Prance. 6 
It is unnecessary to explain that the car system is, at bottom, identical with 
the wagon system—the only distinction being the difference of construction of 
the two carriages ; and it is equally unnecessary to add that the only advantage 
the wagon possessed over the car, was its four wheels and larger supplyof ammu¬ 
nition. The car was a carriage intended originally for the transport of the 
gunners, in which a certain supply of ammunition was stowed away; the wagon 
was a carriage intended originally for the transport of ammunition, on which 
the greater part of the detachment was mounted : but both involved the fatal 
necessity of bringing the ammunition carts under fire, when the guns advanced 
into action at a trot. 
The second sign of the operation of the forces I have described, was the 
abolition of battalion guns. As the cars were first adopted, so the battalion 
guns were first discarded, in Prance; the system having fallen into disuse 
1 Col. Timbrell, late Bengal Artillery, who has given' me much valuable information about the 
cars, compares them roughly to short two-wheeled fire-engines. 
2 C. von Decker, as quoted above ; Sir A. Frazer’s “ Remarks, &c.,” p. 55. Col. Timbrel], who, 
as a Woolwich cadet, was an eye-witness to the performance of the cars on parade, fully endorses 
the statements of these two writers. 
3 Sir A. Frazer’s “Remarks, &c.” p, 54. 
4 Ibid. 
5 Ibid. p. 56. 
6 Ibid. Fave’s “ Hist, et Tact, des Trois Armes,” p. 268. The wagon system had been “ partially 
practised in 1794 ” by the English artillery. See Frazer’s “ Remarks, &c.” p. 58. 
