CAB11-57-1 — Page 209

Page 209

Page 209

An alternative route, not all British, is, as above, to Australia, and thence via Banjoewanjie in Java to Singapore, &c. There is also an alternative route by trans- Atlantic cable and United States land lines to San Francisco: thence by the American cable via Honolulu, Midway Island, and Guam Island to Manila; thence by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company's cable to Hong Kong.

5. Page 3, paragraph 13.-The meaning of the statement that the docks at Aberdeen should rely on their own resources for defence " is not clear, as a guard is allotted to them according to Chapter IV (iv), paragraph 12 (3), and Chapter V (iii), paragraph 16. The subject of passive protection by nets is sufficiently dealt with in paragraph 27 of Chapter I, and the words quoted might therefore be omitted.

6. Page 4, paragraphs 18, end, and 19. Boom.-The statement that proposals for defending the western entrance by a boom have been rejected, mainly on account of the difficulty of maintaining and defending it is somewhat misleading. The main reason why there is no necessity for booms or obstructions is that Hong Kong is not con- sidered liable to attack by sea-going torpedo craft. This was pointed out with reference to Whampoa, in paragraph 9 of the Colonial Defence Committee's Remarks, No. 282 R, on the 1901 Defence Scheme. And, in a letter, No. M. 0437, dated the 7th June, 1902, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty represented that "although Makung is distant only 310 miles from Hong Kong, and this is only slightly outside the limit of 300 miles prescribed in the Appendix to Report No. XXXI of the Joint Naval and Military Committee as the distance within which ports are liable to attack by first class torpedo-boats and destroyers, yet in their opinion it is not necessary that Hong Kong should be considered as within the category of ports liable to such attack."

The Colonial Defence Committee recommend that the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 18, and also paragraph 19, which contains a proposal for a boom to meet an eventuality not contemplated in the Defence Scheme, should be omitted.

7. Page 4, third and sixth sub-paragraphs; page 75, paragraph 13 (2); page 86, paragraph 12 (2); and page 88, paragraph 11 (1). Having regard to the considerations discussed in the Colonial Defence Committee's Remarks, No. 247 R, paragraph 3, and No. 282 R, paragraph 9, on the 1900 and 1901 Defence Schemes, it would be well to make it clear that Hong Kong is not exposed to attack by sea-going torpedo-boats, and that attack by carried (as well as sea-going) torpedo-boats is primarily directed against His Majesty's ships, which can defend themselves.

8. Pages 6 to 8.-It would be convenient and conducive to uniformity with other Defence Schemes if the following forms were adopted :-

y

1

133

х

HK 5/945. MO1, 20.10.02

inform Got in

pointing out HK within rad of action & 2 party

4-12 as at Volt Hill propong

+ Mount Kellett

to his letter 18.5.04) that Addr

reply reason for modifying views with rey. to destroque

also as

все по

Langprof regards toy range bombardent

fire is nacless unless it can be prost, obawed. In the case of the bombs of

that such fire

was

possible, the obser? veral comment by wirdess of 48 no poor for ober appears to be pous. to the

Port Arthur by the Japanese, obs" office telt with the ships firing. In the case attacker, unless part of the def?

Page 209

Page 209

Page 209