Page 620
Page 620
Page 620
590
Major-General T. L. J. Gall- wey, R.E.
30 Mar., 1882.
Major-General T. L. J. GALLWEY, R.E., Inspector-General of Fortifications, examined.
5667. Sir Alexander Milne.-You are good enough to attend here to give us some information about St. Helena?--Yes.
5668. Sir Lintorn Simmons.—If it were decided to establish a second class coal depôt at James' Bay, in St. Helena, what would be the minimum amount of defence necessary to protect it so that an enemy could not avail himself of the coals ?--If you are content to protect the coaling station, I should say that the main- tenance of Ladder Hill Fort might suffice; there are three 7-inch breech-loading guns mounted there, and they would secure the coals from being taken away. But it would not secure the place from bombardment, and to provide against the latter contingency it would be advisable to maintain a few guns on Munden Point, which is about 100 feet above the sea, compared with 600 feet, the height of Ladder Hill. This battery would, moreover, flank the beach. Munden Point is commanded by Ladder Hill, and Ladder Hill is com- manded by a position in its rear-High Knoll. But if, for the sake of economy, High Knoll be not occupied, the work upon it should be dismantled and destroyed, because if unoccupied an enemy might gain possession of it and turn the people out of Ladder Hill. It must be borne in mind, however, that High Knoll protects the only water supply.
5669. What garrison would be necessary to hol Ladder Hill by itself?-In round numbers, 200 men,
5670. Would Ladder Hill alone deny to an enemy the use of the coal? From Ladder Hill you could prevent people taking the coal from James' Wharf.
5761. The Earl of Camperdown.-Is there much coal there at present?-A very small supply. The depôt must be within these two points, Munden Point and Ladder Hill; it must be somewhere on that line of coast, and it will require to be protected.
5672. Sir Lintorn Simmons.-Would you think it advisable to occupy Munden Point as well as Ladder Hill ?-I think so. In the War Office Memorandum it was proposed to mount seven 10-inch guns a Munden's Point, but I should be inclined to reduce the number to three, and further, to substitute 8-inch B.L. for 10-inch guns. That, I think, would prevent any ships from bombarding the place.
5673. Could Munden's Point be made self-defensible? -Yes.
5674. What garrison would it require in addition to the garrison of Ladder Hill?—I should say fifty men at the outside.
5675. Would those guns afford protection to ships coaling in the roads?—Yes, to a considerable extent.
5676. What would be the expense of fitting up, first of all, Ladder Hill, and then Munden Point?-I do not think we should require anything at Ladder Hill; Ladder Hill is inclosed, but the guns, unless fired at a depression of more than 20 degrees, would not afford substantial defence within 500 yards of the shore. There is barrack accommodation for 241 men:
5677. Mr. Whitbread.--Would the battery defend the coal? Yes, it could deny a landing so far as the
coaling depôt itself went, but you could not command the water. You could cominand the coaling depôt by musketry fire from Ladder Hill.
5678. The Earl of Camperdown. How would an enemy obtain access to High Knoll ?- Simply by landing in one of the numerous little bays round the coast, permeating through the various roads and paths of the country, and getting possession of them if they were unoccupied. If they were occupied, it would be a difficult operation, and one not worth their while to undertake.
5679. Sir Lintorn Simmons. If considered advis- able to occupy Ladder Hill only, ought not the work on High Knoll to be destroyed-This is doubtful, as High Knoll protects the water supply.
5880. Sir Henry Holland.-What garrison do you think would be necessary for Munden's Point and Ladder Hill, giving up High Knoll ?—I think 250 men, 200 for Ladder Hill and 50 for Munden Point. the communications were not so difficult, perhaps a lesser number would do.
If
5681. Sir Lintorn Simmons.--What would be the cost of completing Munden's Point Battery in the way you propose with three guns and making it secure against a coup de main?-Three guns in casemates- about 27,000%.
5682. Sir Henry Holland.-You do not think that much expenditure would be needed at Ladder Hill?- I think not, unless you arm Ladder Hill instead of Munden's Point, when the expense would be-three guns en barbette, 4,500l.; magazines, 2,0007.; contin- gencies, 500l.
5683. Sir Lintorn Simmons.-I think you stated that there was accommodation for about 200 men at Ladder Hill ?-241 men.
5684. What is the total barrack accommodation in St. Helena ?-Good and bad, it is 500. In James' Town there is accommodation for 158, but it is not kept in repair, though it could be restored at a certain expense. (There is also hospital accommodation for twenty-four patients.)
5685. At what expenditure, think you?—Say, 2,0007. 5686. Altogether, we may assume there is accommo- dation for about 400 men, and it is in a very fair state? -That at James' Town is in a bad state, and would require expenditure as above stated to make the barracks habitable.
5687. Sir Henry Holland.-The Memorandum from the War Office of the 26th April, 1881, stated that a very large expenditure would be necessary-96,500l.
to complete the defences, and a garrison of 1,600 men, to place the whole island in a state of defence ? -Not the whole island; I think it referred to making it a more important coaling-station; the difference is accounted for by the diminution in the number of guns, and, therefore, the number of artillerymen required.
5688. It provided, at all events, for a considerable expenditure at High Knoll ?-Well, High Knoll is pretty well closed, but it requires traverses and barrack accommodation if it is to be retained.
(The witness withdrew.)
Page 620
Page 620Page 621