Page 57
Page 57
31
your Majesty's possessions abroad. We have of course contemplated a state of war, but our recommendations may, perhaps, be entitled to more con- sideration from the fact that we have had the advantage of being able to deal with the whole subject in a time of peace.
(Signed)
22nd July, 1882.
(Signed)
CARNARVON. CAMPERDOWN. H. T. HOLLAND. ALEX. MILNE.* J. L. A. SIMMONS. HENRY BARKLY.† SAM. WHITBREAD, R. G. C. HAMILTON.
HERBERT JEKYLL, Secretary.
✰
* I have signed the above Report subject to the following remarks :-
Ceylon.
I am unable to concur in the recommendations of the Royal Commission respecting the harbours of Trincomalee and Colombo
I quite admit that the splendid harbour of Trincomalee has not been much used of late years; but it must be recollected these were years of peace. The small squadron of ships, eleven in all, on the station are employed, some in the Persian Gulf, most of them at Zanzibar for the suppression of Slave Trade, and the others in general duties of the exten- sive East India command. The Commission, however, had to consider this question for a period of war, when Trincomalee would be the only harbour near the south-east coast of India adapted for a coaling and refitting station for ships employed in the Bay of Bengal and for the protection of a trade of some 20 millions passing from 20 to 80 miles from Trincomalee Harbour.
Why should Trincomalee be abandoned and the harbour of Colombo substituted ? The Commission state that they "cannot recommend two defended stations in Ceylon," and that Colombo, being the mercantile port, must of necessity be defended. I can see no ground whatever for saying that we cannot afford to uphold, as heretofore, a great naval harbour and its establishment absolutely necessary in case of war, the expense being the pay of about 250 infantry and a battery of artillery.
It is stated that 224,2601. will be necessary to renew the defences, and 1,100 men required for a garrison for Trincomalee. I would entirely object to any
such outlay, when the Commission have a Report from the Colonial Defence Committee of 1878 and a Committee which met at Ceylon in 1880-81 stating that enemy's cruizers may be denied the harbour at a small expense and only requiring to be held by a small garrison. It is also stated that a large outlay would be required for the naval wants of the dockyard, estimated by guess at some 275,0007. No such sum is, in my opinion, necessary, unless the Government should construct a dock, and no better or more central position could be found than in the safe and commodious harbour of Trincomalee for so valuable a purpose in the interest of the naval service. But some such sum, or even more, will be required to be expended at Colombo, if the harbour of Trincomalee is abandoned.
I am aware that the Commission do not contemplate the transfer of the naval establishment until the naval requirements are satisfied at Colombo; but I am unable to assent to the recommendation that Trincomalee should be at any time abandoned, and its defences blown up.
The question arises, when Colombo is fully established as a mercantile port, can it also become a naval station as a substitute for Trincomalee? From the evidence before the Commission it would appear that it will not be a satisfactory anchorage until the northern arm is constructed, at a cost
Page 57
31
Page 57
Page 57