at least at that time, to understand the risks of naval warfare. But
though his precise and logical mind seems then to have been incapable
of fully realizing the conditions of war on the fickle, troublous, and
tide-swept Channel, his admirals urgently warned him against trusting
to shallow, flat-bottomed boats to beat the enemy out at sea; for
though these _praams_ in their coasting trips repelled the attacks of
British cruisers, which dared not come into shallow waters, it did not
follow that they would have the same success in mid-Channel, far away
from coast defences and amidst choppy waves that must render the guns
of keelless boats wellnigh useless.[320]

The present writer, after going through the reports of our admiral
stationed in the Downs, is convinced that our seamen felt a supreme
contempt for the flat-bottomed boats when at sea. After the capture of
one of them, by an English gun-brig, Admiral Montagu reported,
November 23rd, 1803:

"It is impossible to suppose for an instant that anything
effective can be produced by such miserable tools, equally
ill-calculated for the grand essentials in a maritime formation,
battle and speed: that floored as this wretched vessel is, she
cannot hug the wind, but must drift bodily to leeward, which
indeed was the cause of her capture; for, having got a little to
leeward of Boulogne Bay, it was impossible to get back and she was
necessitated to steer large for Calais. On the score of battle,
she has one long 18-pounder, without breeching or tackle,
traversing on a slide, which can only be fired stem on. The
8-pounder is mounted aft, but is a fixture: so that literally, if
one of our small boats was to lay alongside there would be nothing
but musketry to resist, and those [_sic_] placed in the hands of
poor wretches weakened by the effect of seasickness, exemplified
when this gun-boat was captured--the soldiers having retreated to
the hold, incapable of any energy or manly exertion.... In short,
Sir, these vessels in my mind are completely contemptible and
ridiculous, and I therefore conclude that the numbers collected at
Boulogne are to keep our attention on the _qui vive_, and to gloss
over the real attack meditated from other points."

The vessel which provoked the contempt of our admiral was not one of
the smallest class: she was 58-1/3 ft. long, 14-1/2 ft. wide, drew 3
ft. forward and 4 f