THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
235 
times they would have been obliged to do; while at the same time it would 
encourage them to attack forts,, which they would formerly have left alone, 
rather than expend the ammunition which they would reserve for the later 
movements of their campaign. 
We said that round a harbour or dockyard these towers would be found 
highly advantageous. 
In the discussions between the advocates of fixed and floating harbour 
defences, the great argument used by those in favour of the latter was, that 
a vessel could speedily steam past a fortress, and offer a small mark for the 
fire of its artillery; and that, once past, it could with impunity shell, the 
town or dockyard, the entrance to which the fort was meant to defend. And 
yet, Colonel Boxer, an advocate for floating harbour defences, says and says 
truly in a paper written by him in the “ Proceedings " of the R. A. Institution,* 
that “ if in any particular case an enemy's ship cannot attain its object until 
it has silenced the fire of a fort, then, in such a case, a permanent fort should, 
no doubt, be resorted to, in preference to a floating battery, as a means of 
defence." Now, as a fort at the entrance of a harbour can be easily 
passed, either by taking advantage of the night, or by great speed, and as 
the surrounding of our harbours with long lines of fortification would be 
too expensive an idea to be entertained, a happy medium seems to exist in 
the employment of towers, surmounted by large rifled guns under cupolas, 
and placed at the entrance, and at intervals round the harbour. By this 
means, the impunity with which a ship, once past the forts at the entrance 
of the harbour, could shell both town and dockyard disappears, and it becomes 
exposed to a fire concentrated on it from all directions ; from heavy ordnance 
used at ranges which constant and accurate measurement and practice have 
rendered familiar to the gunners, while the task of silencing so scattered a 
series of forts, offering a small mark, and with a diverging fire, would be too 
hopeless for it to attempt. As, however, at the entrance of our harbours, 
and on the heights round our dockyards, the soil might frequently be too 
rocky to permit of the ditch and glacis, which would be used along a level 
coast; I would suggest that the face of each tower (whose height above the 
harbour did not remove it from the effect of the enemy's fire), which would 
be exposed to the fire of ships entering the harbour, should be covered with 
iron plates such as many propose to cover the scarps of our large works with, 
but which in the case of the scarps would be far too expensive, from their great 
length, I consider that such a defence as this, would employ fewer men, 
and be much more destructive from the concentration of its fire, than the 
most powerful forts at the entrance of a harbour; and, while infinitely less 
expensive, would be just as effective as lines of works surrounding the dock¬ 
yard ; and to this we add the already mentioned advantage of each fort being 
self-contained, and not weakening each other by their individual capture. 
At the present crisis in fortification, when men are wavering between the 
advantages of different systems and ending by distrusting all, it is possible 
that a system, like the one just proposed, possessed of the two great virtues, 
simplicity and cheapness, might recommend itself to those interested in the 
important question of harbour defences. And as the towers could be con¬ 
structed in a much less time than the usual style of works, it is presumed 
Vide p. 93. 
