96 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
under the most favourable circumstances as regards direction; surely no 
further argument is required to prove that the fortifications at Portsmouth, 
including the two Spithead forts in progress of construction, would entirely 
fail to prevent the bombardment of the dockyard and storehouses, under 
present conditions, as regards artillery; and that we have no reasonable 
grounds for assuming that they will ever be found to offer advantages in any 
degree commensurate with the cost of their construction, armament, and 
maintenance. 
It only remains, now, to be considered what advantage would be gained 
by substituting moveable floating batteries for the permanent forts. 
In the first place, it may be fairly assumed that a floating battery, con¬ 
structed specially for harbour defence, and intended, at all times, to be 
within the immediate vicinity of the base of operations, would possess 
advantages, both as regards offence and defence, over the enemy's vessels 
constructed for the object of bombardment, and which are necessarily 
required to act at a considerable distance from their base of operations, and 
that consequently in an engagement with these vessels we should have a 
decided superiority. 
As regards the armament of our floating batteries it is remarkable that, 
in the general discussion which has lately taken place on this subject, it has 
been asserted, that safe guns capable of penetrating the sides of iron-clad 
ships at a range of 2000 yds. can be made, and conveniently worked in land 
batteries—but that ordnance sufficiently powerful to act effectually against 
ships of war, constructed on the new principle, cannot be carried and 
properly served in a floating battery. 
It appears to me, however, that it will be found far easier to construct a 
floating battery to carry the gun, than to make a gun capable of producing 
an effect so much beyond what has yet been accomplished. 
However, no one, I think, will question the possibility of constructing 
vessels for harbour defence capable of carrying and working a 150-pr. smooth¬ 
bore gun, firing a spherical projectile with a charge sufficient to produce the 
desired results, as regards penetration, at ranges not exceeding 200 yds. 
It may be fairly assumed, therefore, that the floating batteries provided for 
the defence of Portsmouth against bombardment, will be armed with guns 
of this power. Under these conditions, then, in what respects will the 
floating batteries have an advantage over the permanent forts in resisting the 
operations of the attacking force. 
It has already been shewn that the existing forts as well as those in course 
of construction at Portsmouth, would, as a rule, fail to strike the enemy's 
mortar vessels and gun boats, owing to the unfavourable conditions as 
regards range and the constant movements of the objects fired at; and that 
even upon the assumption of the shot having sufficient striking velocity to 
penetrate, the destruction of the dockyard might be accomplished before the 
fire of the enemy could be silenced. Moreover, that the forts, if armed with 
the most powerful guns yet produced, would be unable, even at the shortest 
range at which the enemy would be exposed to their fire, to do any material 
damage, from the want of sufficient velocity in the shot to penetrate the ship's 
armour. 
We will now consider how the case stands with floating batteries, in 
respect to these particular points. 
