1 Why Feeroz-
2 pore was not
3 attacked.
4 80 HISTORY OF THE SIKHS.
5 upon the flanks, but did not like to try their hand
6 with European soldiers, ready at least to receive
7 them on the point of the bayonet. A party of
8 them did rob a cart with some commissariat and
9 private property near Moodkee; the bullocks were
10 unable to keep up with the column; and the con-
11 tents of the cart fell an easy prey into their hands,
12 though a guard of native soldiers was over them.
13 But from the time of leaving Kulka, until the regi-
14 ments reached Moodkee, not a single Sikh horse-
15 man was seen, and no theft or robbery committed,
16 with the exception of the solitary case alluded to.
17 It can hardly be accounted for why the Sikh
18 troops did not attack Feerozpore ; for, notwith-
19 standing the place was defended by a considerable
20 number of troops, and in an entrenched camp, Sir
21 John Littler could hardly have held it against a
22 siege with large guns and shells, backed by an over-
23 whelming army of infantry and cavalry. The only
24 Turopeans he possessed were the 62nd Queen’s,
25 and two troops and some ‘companies of foot artil-
26 lery. What the nature of the attack would have
27 been, may be easily imagined from the desperate
28 struggle at Moodkee and Feerozshuhur, and in the
29 latter engagement, the Feerozpore force under their
30 gallant and distinguished leader, found the enemy
31 opposed to them such as they had not probably
32 anticipated when they expected them at Feerozpore.
33 The Sikh troops are said to have pressed Lal
34 Singh to lead them against Feerozpore repeatedly,
35 but he refused; and at length sent them to Mood-