THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
93 
REMARKS 
ON 
PERMANENT FORTS AND MOVEABLE FLOATING BATTERIES AS MEANS OF 
DEFENCE AGAINST THE BOMBARDMENT OF OUR ARSENALS AND DOCK¬ 
YARDS BY AN ENEMY’S SHIPS. 
By Lieut.-Col. E. M. BOXEB, B.A., E.E.S. 
SUPERINTENDENT ROYAL LABORATORIES, ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH. 
The new mode of protecting ships of war from artillery fire by means of 
wrought-iron plates, will, in my opinion, materially affect the relative values 
of permanent forts and moveable floating batteries in preventing the bom¬ 
bardment of our arsenals and dockyards ; and, in certain cases, I believe that 
fixed batteries will be found useless; and, unless we are amply provided with 
powerful and well-protected moveable floating batteries, some of our dock¬ 
yards will be at the mercy of an enterprising enemy who may desire their 
destruction. 
In discussing this matter, which is one of vital importance at the present 
time, it will be better to take a particular example rather than to deal in 
generalities; and a better case cannot be chosen to illustrate the subject, 
than the one which has lately been brought so prominently before the public, 
namely, the harbour defences of Portsmouth. The first question is, then— 
Will the combined action of these Portsmouth land batteries, afford any 
effectual protection to the dockyard and government storehouses, against 
bombardment by an enemy furnished with properly constructed iron-clad 
mortar vessels and gun boats ? 
By a reference to the plan which accompanied the Beport of the Boyal 
Commissioners appointed to consider the defences of the United Kingdom 
it will be seen that the enemy's ships need not come, at any time, nearer to 
either of the forts than 1000 yds.; that at this, the shortest range, they 
would only be exposed to the fire of the two Spithead forts for a very short 
time; and, further, that after steaming rapidly between these forts, they will 
then be at liberty to take up positions about 4000 yds. from the dockyard, and 
about 2000 yds. from any of the existing or contemplated fixed batteries. 
Under these circumstances, is it probable that an enemy would be incon¬ 
venienced to any serious extent by the fire from the batteries, during the time 
they are working destruction in the dockyard and storehouses ? 
In considering this point, it must be recollected, that the mortar vessels 
and gun boats would, without doubt, be constructed so as to present but 
a comparatively small object to fire at; and that they would be in constant 
motion during the time they are exposed to our artillery fire. 
Eirst, as to the probability of hitting the enemy's ships. 
Upon this point, no doubt, great difference of opinion will exist, my own 
belief is—and I entertain very decided views on the subject—that, under all 
those comparatively unfavourable circumstances which it may be fairly assumed 
would attend the service of the guns, &c.,—even supposing no opposition is 
offered to the fire of the forts, and that it is in the daytime when the 
