CAB7-4 — Page 232

Page 232

Page 232

204

Appendix No. 4.

Cocos OR KEELING ISLANDS. (1.) 10 8-in. B.L.R.

Works

Armaments

Total

(II.) 2 8-in. B.L.R.

..

150,000

Nothing but the most roughly approximate estimate can be formed of the cost of such a work; but it would probably be at least 15,000l. per gun, or 150,000l. in all, while the armament would be about 30,000l. more.

It is manifest that a defence of this nature is disproportionate to the importance of the port. An alternative scheme would be to mount at the same site two heavy guns in 30,000 an iron turret. The cost of the turret and its substructure would be about 50,000%., and

of the guns, 9,000Z.

.. 180,000

Works

Armament

**

£ 50,000 9,000

Total

Barracks

First scheme Second scheme

Gun-boats

59,000

£

For the former work a garrison of about 225 men, and for the latter, of about 50 men, 22,500 would be required, for whom barracks would have to be provided.

5,000

Although one of the above two works is suggested as a means to prevent the capture of the port in the event of its being assailed by a small squadron, it must not be under- stood that the erection of either of them is advocated. Indeed the whole surrounding circumstances and conditions are such that a defence by stationary works requiring a resident garrison appears altogether unsuitable; and if it be decided that the harbour is worth defending, it is submitted that such defence should be afforded by a naval force.

Two gun-boats of light draught, carrying one heavy gun, and one or two light guns 30,000 each, with a line of submarine mines laid by them between the shoals on either side of the entrance, behind which they could retire when hard pressed, should suffice to deny the use of the port to an enemy.

J. H. SMITH.

£

Cyprus.

April 26, 1881.

CYPRUS,

No. 69.

(Signed)

(Signed)

T. L. GALLWEY, Inspector-General of Fortifications.

Sir,

Colonial Office to Royal Commission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad.

Downing Street, February 9, 1882.

I AM directed by the Earl of Kimberley to transmit to you, to be laid before the Royal Com- mission on the Defence of British Possessions and Commerce Abroad, a copy of a despatch from the High Commissioner of Cyprus, inclosing the Report of the local Committee appointed to consider the defence of Famagusta, and I am to request to be furnished with the usual number of copies of the despatch and Report, &c., when printed by the Royal Commission.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

Inclosure 1 in No. 69.

(Confidential.) My Lord,

Sir R. Biddulph to the Earl of Kimberley.

Nicosia, January 20, 1882

ON the receipt of your Lordship's Secret Circular despatch of the 23rd August, 1881,* having reference to the defences of Famagusta, I communicated with the Commander-in-chief of the Mediterranean, with a view to obtaining the services of a qualified Naval Officer as a member of the Committee which your Lordship directed me to assemble.

2. It was not till Her Majesty's ship "Superb" arrived here at the end of November that I was able to assemble the Committee, and I have now the honour to transmit their Report. Having myself visited Famagusta last week and viewed the positions mentioned by the Committee, I beg to make the following observations.

3. I concur with the Committee in considering that the site which I have marked A,† pro- posed by them for a fort, is a very good position, and in many ways superior to the site marked Varoshia Fort. Its zone of fire is superior to that of Varoshia Fort, there being much shoal water opposite to the latter. Should, however, a fort be erected at the site marked A, it would, in my opinion, be better to abandon "Oxonisi" as a site, and adopt "Messanisi" instead. A work at Messanisi would, to a certain extent, replace the Old Town Battery, which the Committee propose

+ Plan not printed.

* Inclosure 2 in No. 2 A.

Page 232

Page 232

Page 232