CAB38-23 — Page 15

Page 15

Page 15

1.

|

SIR JOHN FRENCH said that he had always understood that that was the

naval view.

THE PRIME MINISTER said that in the paper before them the Master- General of the Ordnance expressly omitted Malta as a defended port where the heavier guns were required, and in the covering letter from the Army Council it was only proposed to mount them at Dover and Gibraltar.

LORD HALDANE said that the points formerly adduced in favour of the

· 9-2-inch gun were its long life and the rapidity with which it could be depressed.

MR. CHURCHILL said that the 135-inch gun had the longest life of any, 100 or 500 rounds. This was due to the lower muzzle velocity.

COLONEL SEELY said that the 12-inch, which was the gun proposed, had unfortunately a short life.

SIR JOHN FRENCH pointed out that the emplacements would take two years to build.

LORD HALDANE said that he was surprised at the length of life attributed to the 135-inch gun. The life of a gun was a question of temperature rather than one of muzzle velocity. The Master-General of the Ordnance had always wanted to mount the larger gun, but the General Staff had always accepted the former view of the Admiralty and opposed the bigger gun.

COLONEL SEELY said that he would admit that the Army Council were not unanimous in the matter.

MR. CHURCHILL said that the Admiralty had no desire to press for a larger gun to be mounted,

MR. ASQUITH said that the conclusion seemed to be that the burden of proof of the necessity for disturbing the decisions arrived at in the Report (C.I.D. Paper 61-C), and approved by the Committee at its 105th Meeting, had not been discharged.

(Conclusion.)

There is no reason at present to revise the conclusions recorded in the joint Report of the Home Ports and Colonial Defence Committees (C.4.D. Paper 61-C), which were approved by the Committee at its 105th Meeting.

V. HONG KONG.

STRENGTH OF INFANTRY GARRISON. (C.LD. Papers 96-C, 97–C.)

COLONEL SEELY said that two corrections were required in the proof of the note by the General Staff (C.L.D. paper 97-C), paragraph 9. In Sub-paragraph (3) the attempt to calculate the value of Chinese troops in terms of British troops should be deleted, and in sub-paragraph (5) the estimate of twelve battalions to hold the land front should be altered to read the provision of a much stronger infantry garrison than is at present available.”

..

SIR JOHN FRENCHI said that he had examined the question of an attack on Hong Kong from the land side most carefully on the ground, and he thought that seven or eight battalions would probably be sufficient to hold the lines. The approved infantry garrison consisted of one British and two native (Indian) battalions, but at the present moment, at the wish of the Foreign Office, there were two extra native battalions from India.

MR. HARCOURT pointed out the necessity of reckoning with a probably hostile Chinese population within the Colony,

SIR JOHN FRENCH said that the police force should be able to deal with the civil population.

Page 15

Page 15

Page 15Page 16