'Remarks on the Organization of the Corps of Artillery in the British Service'
By Sir Augustus Simon FRAZER. 1818 (p.30)

'As opinions still vary as to the ordnance best adapted to Horse Artillery, it may be well to point out the reasons why every nature of Field Ordnance may be fairly said to be equally applicable to the service of the Horse Artillery as to that of Field Artillery in general. It is the more necessary that this point should be set at rest, since upon it depends the future organization of the arm, how far its use may be admitted to extend, and where its application may cease.'

'It appears to be, that Field Artillery when well served in action having been found very destructive, and essentially useful, there required only, that it should attain certainty and celerity of movement to render it an arm of high importance. Two ways of doing this seem to have presented themselves: one, by putting the Artillery men on carriages ; the other, by mounting them on horseback: and, notwithstanding the obvious advantage of the economy of the former mode, the utility of the latter has made it almost general among the military powers of Europe.'

'But in whatever way the men may be carried, in order that, after a rapid movement, they may, on getting into action, begin, unfatigued, the laborious duty of working the guns—it is clear, that. the effect of the fire is the same. Once unlimbered, it is the same how, or by what means, the guns were brought, or the men carried to the assigned point; nor can there be any difference whether the men, who work the guns, belong to one branch of the Artillery or to another.'

'1t was long thought, that the use of Horse Artillery was confined to the object of harrassing the flanks of an enemy, but that it could not be placed in position, and that it was, by frequent and almost continual change of situation, to avoid coming under heavy and destructive fire....
... although great advantages may be gained by the occasional fire of Artillery on the flanks of an enemy, the real application of the arm consists in bringing up considerable masses of guns, and pouring their fire, as much as possible, on one point.

In this view of the subject, it is of the greatest consequence, that guns, brought by whatever means they may to the particular point where they are required, should be powerful and efficient guns.

But whoever will reflect on the service of the late war will be sensible, that the guns, on whose certain arrival at indicated points the greatest dependence could be placed, were those of the Horse Artillery; whose powers of movement, though short of what they readily might be, were yet much superior to those of the rest of the Field Artillery. Now, as this must ever be the case to a certain degree, and as the guns of the Horse Artillery will always, on this very account, be more available on emergencies than any others; it seems peculiarly necessary, that, though some troops of Horse Artillery in reference to the duties of light cavalry may be armed with light ordnance, the majority of this valuable arm should be equipped with powerful and efficient calibres, such as may be applied in masses, and may do great and unequivocal execution.

If, then, the real use of Horse Artillery be to move guns with rapidity and certainty to the points where they are required; and if the men be solely on these accounts placed on horseback, there can be no doubt that all guns, of every calibre whatever, which the modern habits of war may bring into the field, are applicable to Horse Artillery; the men of which service, though mounted for the mere sake of expeditious movement, are neither more nor less than other Artillery men, the moment the guns are brought into action.'