Page 140
Page 140
155
When the proposal of a fleet of armed cruizers for the protection of these coasts first came before the Committee, they replied, on the 18th May, that the question was in their opinion one for the Admiralty to decide. They had, however, in the course of their enquiry, ascertained the views of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to be, that looking to the extent of the coasts of Great Britain as well as of the British Colonies, and the wide dispersion of the latter over all parts of the world, it would be quite impossible to provide by naval means for the defence of every port, as in time of war the ships of Her Majesty's fleet would be fully engaged-in addition to their other duties—in protecting commerce at sea; and it would be impracticable on an emergency to fit out special cruizers to a sufficient or nearly sufficient extent to protect every point of importance along these coasts.
It is, therefore, clear that the ports of the Dominion, like those of other colonies, must trust to their own resources to secure themselves from the attack of hostile cruizers, deriving from Her Majesty's fleet the great advantage of immunity from attack on a large scale, and such general protection as it is able to afford to all parts of the Empire, but dependent upon their own means for purely local defence.
The Committee, in making their recommendations have continually kept these considerations in view, and have in all cases limited their proposals to the least which, in their opinion, would adequately meet the attack to which the several ports might in ordinary probability be exposed.
With regard to ordnance, the armament recommended by the Committee consisted of 7-ton and 64-pounder rifled guns.
The 7-inch 7-ton gun, though a less powerful weapon than would ordinarily be used for coast defence, is still a formidable gun. It will pierce with its 112 lb. shell iron plates exceeding eight inches in thickness at 1,000 yards, or six inches at 2,000 yards. It seems scarcely probable that cruizers protected with heavier armour than this would be likely under present circumstances to visit distant coasts.
The 64-pounder wrought-iron gun of 64 cwt., firing a battering shell of 90 lbs. weight, is also a powerful and accurate auxiliary gun, and though not regarded as an armour-piercing gun, is capable of penetrating iron plates exceeding five inches in thickness at 1,000 yards, while against unarmoured ships its fire would be very effective, as well as against the unprotected parts of armoured vessels.
But the converted 9-pounder of 58 cwt., which it is proposed to substitute for both these guns, is an entirely different and in all respects inferior weapon. The calibre is the same as that of the wrought-iron 64-pounder, but owing to the comparative weakness of construction, it cannot fire the 90 lb. battering shell with the heavy charges which are used in the other, and is consequently unable to compete with it in range, penetration, or accuracy of fire. Its shell will not penetrate the thinnest armour afloat at the shortest range, and is therefore useless except against unarmoured ships. It is undoubtedly cheap, and owes its introduction to the economy effected by turning to some account the other. wise useless smooth-bored guns.
At the present time the 4-pounder, with carriage and 100 rounds of ammunition complete, costs approximately 4001., against 600l., the cost of the wrought-iron 64-pounder complete. The prices quoted by Sir E. Selby Smyth are those of the gun alone, without carriage or ammunition.
The Committee have in all their estimates invariably included both.
The Committee see no objection to the employment of a certain number of these converted guns as auxiliaries for use against boats or small craft, but they desire to point out that they cannot be regarded as substitutes for the wrought-iron guns of the same calibre, much less for the armour-piercing 7-ton guns; and they desire to express a decided opinion that coast defences unprovided with ordnance of greater power would be not merely less efficient, but altogether illusory, and practically of little value.
The Committee are unable to concur in the opinion quoted in the Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, that the guns they have recommended would "require to have small parties of artillery permanently stationed at every battery to keep them in order, thus entailing a considerable annual charge on the public revenue." They see no reason why ordinary care-takers should not suffice for the charge of the heavier guns, nor do they apprehend greater risk of damage than would be the case with a different arma- ment, a risk against which, in either case, there should be no difficulty in guarding. There would be no appreciable difference in the cost of maintaining the batteries, whichever description of ordnance were mounted.
The real difference of expense may be said to lie exclusively in the first cost of the armament, and so far from its being an economy to substitute the cheaper ordnance, it would, in the opinion of the Committee, be little better than a wasteful
Page 140
Page 140
Page 140Page 141