CAB38-23 — Page 168

Page 168

Page 168

5

Page 168

!

Sir,

APPENDIX L

Admiralty to Overssa Defence Committee.

Admiralty, December 18, 1919. IN reply to your letter No. 5264 of the 21st ultimo, respecting the defence of St. Helena, I an commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to request that you will inform the Oversea Defence Committee that they are of opinion that the clear indications recently given that Germany has made extensive preparations for attacking British trade by armed merchant steamers, in war, must be held to constitute an important change in the strategic conditions in the South Atlantic since the garrison of St. Helena was withdrawn in 1906.

2. Moreover, the naval pressure exercised by the increasing German Fleet in home waters and the consequent weakening (even if temporary only) of our naval position in the Mediterranean has necessarily enhanced the importance of the Cape route to the East.

3. It is only in connection with the protection of trade that St. Helena has any strategio use, but from that standpoint the importance of the Island is considerable at all times, and if the Mediterranean route were unsafe, it would be an invaluable possession, situated as it is on the line of traffic almost exactly half way between Sierra Leone and the Cape, which are more than 3,000 miles apart. No alternative coaling station is available except Ascension, which is much less conveniently placed to break the distance, and affords at best an insecure anchorage. The defence of St. Helena, therefore, answers the double purpose of providing our own ships with a coaling station, and denying the only practicable coaling anchorage in the South Atlantic to the commerce raiders of an enemy as a rendezvous at which to meet their colliers.

4. For these reasons the maintenance of a garrison at St. Helena has been consistently advo- oated by the Admiralty, and its withdrawal in 1906 was the result of discussions at the Committee of Imperial Defence, whose conclusions were never accepted as final by their Lordships. The existing arrangements were made as the result of another discussion at the Committee of Imperial Defence in January 1911. The Admiralty then accepted certain responsibilities in order to minimise the delay which would occur in putting the Island in a state of defence on the outbreak of war; but even so this delay cannot apparently be reduced below a month, and the danger of the garrison being captured en route must also be taken into account. St. Helena is thus placed in the unique position of being the only fortified Crown Colony without troops on the spot to defend it.

3. In its present condition, therefore, the Island offers an easy prize during the first month of a war to any hostile ship in the South Atlantic which can land fifty men at any point outside the are of fire of the single manned gun. The landing party could demolish the armament and return on board in a couple of hours. If that was successfully effected, it would take at least some months to put the Island in a state of defence, as not only a garrison but an armament would have to be sent out. During this period it could neither be defended against an enemy for the use of our shipping, nor denied to him as an anchorage for his own purposes, unless we stationed a cruiser permanently on the spot, which we could ill afford to spare.

6. This condition of affairs was open to grave objections from the first, but six years ago it was less serious than it is now, because the very evident preparations on the part of Germany for wholesale attacks on trade had not then taken shape.

7. My Lords are accordingly strongly of opinion that the present strategic conditions are such as amply to justify the re-establishment of a small Artillery garrison.

ä

I am, &c. (Signed)

(). MURRAY.

APPENDIX II.

Summary of Important Decisions and Recommendations in connection with the Defence of

St. Helena 1882-1912.

1. The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad recommended in their Final Report, issued in 1882, that the Admiralty establishment at Ascension should be moved to St. Helena. At the same time it was recommended that a limited supply of coal should be stored at St. Helena, and that defences, sufficient to prevent an enemy from taking the coal, should be provided.

The recommendation regarding the removal of the Admiralty establishment was not acted on, and a garrison of about 250 men was retained in St. Helena.

2. The question of the defence of St. Helena was considered again in 1885 by the Committee on Colonial Garrisons. The Committee recommended that the garrison of the Island should consist of a force of 362 Regulars and 410 locally raised Militia.

8. The Report of the Colonial Garrisons Commitee was referred in 1887 for the considers- tion of the Colonial (Oversea) Defence Committee. The latter Committee recommended the

[197]

с

Page 168

Page 168