484 
FLOATING DEFENCE. 
authority afloat and are susceptible of frequent and unexpected changes 
over wide areas of sea. The functions of fixed defences are essentially 
tactical, and are rigidly restricted to action over a known and pre¬ 
determined area. Keeping this definition and this distinction clearly 
in view, the subject can be approached, and the questions which present 
themselves are: — 
1. Under what local conditions are floating defences calculated to 
bring effective aid to the protection of a British port ? 
2. What class of vessel can be usefully employed and what 
functions can be profitably assigned to each ? 
So long as fighting on the seas was carried on in small craft, floating 
defence proper can hardly be said to have existed; but when deep 
draught sailing ships became the staple of navies, the small vessels 
were still retained for action in shallow or confined waters. Blockaded 
at Khodes in 1480, the Knights of St. John sought by small fire-ships 
to injure the Turkish fleet. This rudimentary application of floating 
defence failed; though the siege was raised for other reasons. The 
Russian siege of Azof in 1695 failed, because the Turks were able by 
light draught vessels to keep up communications between the beleagured 
town and the fleet. Peter the Great, having with characteristic vigour 
accomplished the construction of an armed flotilla on the Don, the 
Turkish communications were severed, and in 1696 the place fell. The 
floating defence of Azof proved inadequate to repel PeteFs flotilla. 
Where mortar-boats were employed for bombarding purposes, it was 
sometimes considered necessary to support them against the action of 
small craft. Thus, before Cadiz in 1797, Nelson, who had placed 
“ the Thunderer bomb ” within “ 2500 yards of the walls,” writes: 1 2 
“ The Spaniards having sent out a great number of mortar gun¬ 
boats and armed launches, I directed a vigorous attack to be made on 
them.I have the pleasure to inform you that two mortar- 
boats and an armed launch remained in our possession.” Floating 
defence appears to have been singularly ineffective on this occasion. 
The naval situation in 1779-1782, which enabled the siege of Gibraltar 
to be undertaken, naturally conduced to the employment of floating 
defence. To the mortar-boats, rowing gun-boats and other light craft 
which the Spaniard could employ, were opposed twelve gun-boats built 
on the spot, brigs “ cut down and converted into prames,” together with 
frigates left by the fleet and used as floating batteries. At Copenhagen 
in 1801, there were, apart from the dismantled battle-ships, “ten pon¬ 
toons or floating batteries, one bomb-ship rigged, and two or three 
smaller craft.” 3 This formidable if immobile floating defence proved 
unavailing. 
At the beginning of 1812, when the navy of France was practically 
reduced to privateering operations, and attack across the sea was im¬ 
possible, Great Britain, with that curious inability to realise her own 
strength which seems characteristic, maintained costly and absolutely 
useless defensive flotillas at Messina and Zante. The following extracts 
1 To Sir J. Jervois, 4th July. 
2 Report by Colonel Stewart. 
