In the middle-19th Century and before, was there any useful sea-to-land artillery?

In the early 19th century, most shipboard artillery was not particularly effective against land fortifications.

Coastal defense forts had thick, sloping walls which gave good protection against the solid shot from the main fleet armaments of this period. Ships were less well defended against the cannon of the coastal forts, especially as the forts often mounted larger cannon, and could also employ heated shot, to which wooden warships were particularly vulnerable.

Naval artillery could still be very effective against other land targets. For example, the sloop of war USS Louisiana made good use of her guns against the British Army in the Battle of New Orleans, contributing to the American victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Louisiana_(1812)

There was a specialist kind of seaborne artillery which was more effective against land fortifications in the early 19th century. This was the mortar, which shot exploding shells (or "bombs") at a high trajectory to land inside fortifications. These were mounted on specialist vessels called "bomb ketches". They were generally fired from bomb ketches held in a fixed position by multiple anchors, with spring lines allowing the direction of the shot to be altered by adjusting the direction of the ship. Mortars from bomb ketches were more effective against forts than general naval artillery, but not that effective. Bomb ketches were few, slow, vulnerable when anchored to fire their mortars, had a slow rate of fire. Still, they were more effective than broadside guns against coastal forts, but not necessarily very effective.

In 1814, the Royal Navy tried to defeat Fort McHenry, defending the approaches to Baltimore with 20 cannon, using 5 bomb ketches and also one ship deploying Congreve rockets. The bomb attack through the night failed, as commemorated in the American National Anthem. When Admiral Cockburn, thinking the fort was reduced, tried to push his fleet up towards Baltimore, Fort McHenry's guns opened up, forcing the British fleet to retreat.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095516465

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/warof1812/p/ftmchenry.htm

By the mid 19th century, however, bomb ketches had become obsolete, as most naval guns had become capable of firing exploding shot and firing at high angles. The combination of naval howitzers firing exploding shot and ironclad ships, altered the balance of power between naval bombardment and coastal fortifications.

In the US civil war, for example, most Confederate coastal forts could be reduced and taken by naval bombardment, or a combination of naval bombardment and amphibious assault.

Even so, it was not easy to capture a strong coastal fortification. A good example is Fort Fisher, guarding the approaches to Wilmington, North Carolina, the last good port left in the Confederacy for blockade runners to try to run the Union blockade.

Fort Fisher was the largest earthen fort in the Confederacy. It was a very strong fort mounting 47 heavy guns, protecting the Cape Fear River, 20 miles below the docks of Wilmington.

The Union attacked Fort Fisher with 64 warships and landed troops in late 1864, but failed to capture the fort. Less than one month later, they came again with 58 ships. 20,000 rounds of artillery were fired into the fort before infantry and marines were landed to storm the bastion. This time the Union prevailed and the Confederate garrison was forced to surrender after a fierce fight.

http://www.nccivilwar150.com/history/lifeline.htm

So, in the early 19th century, naval artillery was of limited use against coastal defenses, and the advantage was generally with the forts.

By the middle of the 19th century, exploding shell howitzers on ships, and ironclad amour on ships had begun to tilt the balance of power. As shown by the US Civil War, naval power could now generally defeat coastal fortifications, though it was still a tough fight and not easy.