CAB7-4 — Page 10

Harrison & Sons. Lith. St Martins Lane W.C.

Page 10

3

Page 10

Report of the 18th January, 1882, that an outlay of 46,9007., with the same garrison, would suffice.

St. Helena.

12. St. Helena has many advantages over Ascension. It is larger, has a Q. 1635. cooler temperature, more vegetation, and is also a Colony. It is about 10 miles long and 7 miles broad, and is equidistant between Sierra Leone and the Cape of Good Hope, about 1,700 miles from each. The principal landing-place is on the south or leeward side in James' Bay, where is situated

the only town in the island. There is no harbour, but only a wharf wall Third Report, pp. 80, 81. and landing-place, off which vessels anchor in an open roadstead. The defences of the island have received much attention at various periods. When the Emperor Napoleon was confined there, batteries were constructed at almost every landing-place, and the principal landings were further protected by continuous entrenchments. Of late years a sum of 30,000l. has been expended on the fortifications, which, however, are still far from complete. The existing defences are described in a Memorandum furnished to us by the War Department, from which it appears that a further expenditure of 94,6501. would be necessary to complete them, and that a garrison of 1,620 men would then be required to hold them and secure the island.

13. As from the formation of the coast, ships in the roadstead can never be fully protected against long-range artillery fire, it is not advisable to encou- rage them to make use of St. Helena as a regular coaling-station, nor indeed would a regular coaling-station be necessary if one were established at Sierra Leone; but considering the distance, 3,300 miles, between Sierra Leone and the Cape of Good Hope, we think that it would be of advantage both to your Majesty's navy and to commercial ships if a limited supply of coals were kept at St. Helena. If this were done, it would only be necessary to provide defences sufficient to prevent an enemy from taking the coals. We should hesitate to recommend this course if it entailed the construction of new and costly works, and the provision of a large garrison; but we understand that coals deposited at James' Bay could not be captured so Q.5608—5670, 5677, 5682. long as Ladder Hill Fort is held, which, if completed and moderately armed at an expenditure estimated by the Inspector-General of Fortifications

at 7,000l., would also afford some protection to friendly ships. A garrison

of about 200 men would suffice for this modified defence; and it will be Third Report, p. 77. seen, by reference to the Report of the local Committee, that considerable

assistance may be looked for from a local militia, which may be raised

under the Ordinance of 1874. We understand that barrack accommodation Q.5684—5686. now exists sufficient for 200 men, and that an outlay of 2,000l. upon Government buildings now unoccupied would provide accommodation for 300 more men if required.

14. We think it unnecessary to fortify and garrison both St. Helena and Ascension. In point of shelter there is little difference between the two; but as a commercial coaling-station St. Helena would appear to be the more convenient. The works necessary to defend the coal stores already exist, and are capable of being completed at small cost; and assistance towards the necessary garrison may be looked for in the Colony. At Ascension there are neither works for defending the coal supply, nor popu lation from which to draw a part of the garrison, and the only institution of importance is the Sanitarium, which might be as conveniently placed at St. Helena. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that it would be desirable to store the supply of coal necessary for the fleet at St. Helena, and to remove thither the Admiralty establishment now maintained at Q. 1635- Ascension, leaving at the latter place only a few men to take charge of the water tanks. The cost of removal would doubtless be considerable, but the alternative is a large and continuous expenditure at Ascension, where, so long as the coal and stores remain, adequate defences are indispensable.

The Cape of Good Hope.

4--32.

15. We have already dealt with the defences of the Cape of Good Hope in First Report, paragraph our first Report, but we desire to refer to the Report of the local Committee, which we have since received. Though differing in points of detail, the Third Report, pp. 98–102

Page 10

t

Page 10

Page 10Page 11