The works at Bomarsund were taken by means of land-batteries, which breached the exposed walls of the towers and main works.  An auxiliary fire was opened upon the water front by the fleet, but it produced very little effect.  But after the work had been reduced, an experimental firing was made by the Edinburgh, armed with the largest and most powerful guns in the British navy.

In speaking of the effects of the siege batteries upon the walls of Bomarsund, and the experimental fire of the Edinburgh, Sir Howard Douglas remarks:—­

“This successful operation (of the land batteries) is very generally, but erroneously, stated to have been effected by the fire of the ships, and it is even strongly held up as a proof of what ships can do, and ought to attempt elsewhere.”

“But the results of the experimental firing at the remnant of the fort, which, unless the previous firing of the ships during the attack was absolutely harmless, must have been somewhat damaged, and moreover shaken by the blowing-up of the contiguous portions, do not warrant this conclusion, even should the attacking ships be permitted, like the Edinburgh, to take up, quietly and coolly, positions within 500 yards, and then deliberately commence and continue their firing, without being fired at!  The firing of the Edinburgh, at 1,060 yards, was unsatisfactory. 390 shot and shells were fired, from the largest and most powerful guns in the British navy (viz., from the Lancaster gun of 95 cwt., with an elongated shell of 100 lbs.;—­from 68-pounders of 95 cwt., and 32-pounders of 56 cwt., solid shot guns;—­from 10-inch shell guns of 84 cwt., with hollow shot of 84 lbs.;—­from 8-inch shell guns of 65 and 60 cwt., with hollow shot of 56 lbs.), and did but little injury to the work.  At 480 yards, 250 shot, shells, and hollow shot were fired.  A small breach was formed in the facing of the outer wall, of extremely bad masonry, and considerable damage done to the embrasures and other portions of the wall; but no decisive result was obtained—­no practicable breach formed, by which the work might be assaulted, taken, and effectually destroyed, although 640 shot and shells (40,000 lbs. of metal) were fired into the place, first at 1,060, and then at 480 yards.”

Surely, this “naval attack,” taken in connection with the true facts of the capture of Kinburn, the abortive attempt of the British fleet in the Pacific upon the Russian works of Petropauloski, is not calculated to affect the well established opinion of the ability of forts to resist maritime attacks.

Few are now disposed to dispute the general superiority of guns ashore over guns afloat; but some think that works of masonry are incapable of resisting the heavy and continuous fire which may now be brought against it by fleets and floating-batteries, and would therefore extend the area of the works and rely mainly upon earthen parapets, with guns in barbette.  This conclusion they form from the results of the maritime attack on Kinburn, and of the land-batteries on Bomarsund.