CAB38-17 — Page 57

Page 57

Page 57

Phot

26

absence of our fleet, which will be supreme at sea. Whether the existing armaments are sufficient to meet these contingencies is a question upon which my personal opinion would carry no weight. The view has been expressed that if an enemy held temporary command of the sea for a month he would be able in that time to capture both Hong Kong and Singapore with their existing defences.

4. The only question which has been referred to me is that of the defence of the harbour against torpedo vessels, against which, I understand, submarine mines would be ineffective. The subject of the reference was whether a rubble bank or an obstruction consisting of concrete blocks permitting a free flow of water between them should be constructed so as to partially close the open entrance between Green Island and Stonecutter's Island, along Kellet's Bank. I would suggest that a row of large sea-going junks, deeply laden with stones, and chained together bow to stern and anchored along the proposed line of this obstruction, would be a sufficient protection for the purpose required, and would form no obstruction to the free flow of tide. Such a measure would have the advantage of being cheaper than a permanent stone bank, and of not interfering with the tidal conditions of the harbour. It would, however, have to be withdrawn when a typhoon was imminent.

I have, &c.

(Signed) F. J. D. LUGARD, Governor, dc.

My Lord,

APPENDIX IV.

ANTI-TORPEDO DEFENCES.

No. 1.

Governor to Secretary of State.

Hong Kong, October 5, 1908. ON receipt of your Secret despatch of the 10th July, 1908, having reference to the construc- tion of a breakwater at the western entrance to the harbour of Hong Kong for the protection of His Majesty's ships against attack by torpedo craft, I addressed the Admiral Commanding the China squadron with a view to ascertaining what measure of protection such a breakwater would, in his opinion, afford to His Majesty's ships. I have up to date received no official reply to my questions, but Sir Hedworth Lambton informs me in a private letter received to-day that, in his view, the matter cannot be dealt with apart from the general scheme of defence with which he entirely disagrees, and that he is drawing up a letter on the subject, and will forward it in a week or two. In these circumstances, I have thought it advisable not to defer reply to your Lordship's despatch any longer.

2. Your Lordship desires me to obtain further information as to the practicability of the scheme, and as to the measure of protection it would afford. On the latter point, I will address you later when I have received Admiral Lambton's letter. With regard to the practicability, I am informed that in 1892 an attempt was actually made to form an artificial breakwater on Kellet's Bank, and several stone-laden junks were sunk there in order to promote silting. The junks, however, disappeared in the soft mud, which is estimated to be at least 50 feet deep on the bank, and the project was abandoned.

3. In the year 1902 the Assistant Harbour Master (Captain Taylor) proposed a scheme for completely closing the entrance to the harbour between Green Island and Stonecutters by forming a sea wall extending from the south point of Stonecutters to the nearest point of Green Island, which would be situated in depths of from 3 to 4 fathoms This breakwater was to form a roadway, with a view to connecting the island with the mainland, and although the then Governor appears to have thought well of it, its cost was considered prohibitive at the time. Reduced, however, from a broad masonry roadway to a mere rubble bank to form an obstruction to torpedo craft, this coat would, of course, be greatly reduced.

4. Sir Matthew Nathau's scheme has been discussed by the Local Defence Committee, but its great cost has always debarred its consideration as a feasible project, and there are no recorded proceedings on the subject. It was proposed to lace a battery of two 6-inch guns and two search-lights at the extremity of the breakwater. enclose a rough sketch of the two proposals

alluded to.⭑

5. Both these schemes contemplated a breakwater without any opening, and it was con- sidered certain that a bank of mud would silt up on the inner side of the breakwater, which would form a cushion, so that if junks were driven in that direction by a typhoon, they would at worst be stranded on soft mud.

Regarding the Admiralty proposalt to have openings in the obstruction so as not to interfere with the full circulation of water, the Harbour Master minutes, "The structure proposed by the Admiralty would, I think, be a very serious danger to craft in a typhoon. For, as it is designed with a view to damaging torpedo craft, it would necessarily be awash' at high water, if not covered, and anything dragging down on top of it would have a very small chance."

6. The Harbour Master believes that if his scheme were carried out the scour through the northern channel would result in the formation of a much larger area of deep anchorage. Pending, however, the receipt of Admiral Lambton's letter, I defer any remarks on this subject,

• Not reproduced.

↑ See Enclosure of No. 2.

Page 57

Page 57

Page 57