CAB7-4 — Page 397

Page 397

Page 397

369

201

JAMAICA

41. We are unable to understand the advantage to be derived from the guns in Fort Augusta and Appendix No. 4. Hanover Lines, which fire towards Apostles Battery. These works should, in our opinion, be abandoned. Pending the decision of the Home authorities, it would be as well also to discontinue the so-called temporary defences now in course of construction. It seems hardly worth while completing them if they are to be immediately remodelled.

42. The cross-fire obtainable over the upper part of the southern channel from the turret on Drunkenman Cay and the battery on Port Royal Point would be ample to protect that portion. We can see no advantage in completing Apostles Battery. A vessel might possibly run past a shielded battery on Drunkenman Cay, as proposed in the War Office Memoranduin, where the arc of fire would be limited, but she could not attempt to pass an armoured turret which could follow her right up the channel. It would be necessary to silence the turret first; and if that were done, it is not to be supposed that two guns in Apostles Battery would prevent the destruction of the arsenal.

43. Before the introduction of modern guns it was no doubt necessary to occupy the western side of the harbour, and in those days Apostles and Clarence Batteries were valuable features in the defence, but we think that under existing conditions these works only add to the expense of protecting the harbour without in any way increasing that protection. If Apostles Battery is retained, it will be necessary to occupy the hill behind it to prevent the garrison being turned out and its guns used to attack Port Royal. To re-establish Fort Clarence is useless, as the turret on Drunkenman Cay effectually covers the whole of Half Moon Bay.

44. With regard to the danger of an enemy occupying the Salt Pond Hills in order to bombard the arsenal from thence, unless the turret on Drunkenman Cay was previously silenced, this would be an operation of great difficulty. The nearest point at which a landing could be affected is Old Harbour, the distance then to Salt Pond Hills is at least 12 miles as the crow flies. There are no direct roads to the hills, and the hills themselves are exceedingly rugged, being a mass of rocky boulders and tangled scrub. The task of taking guns there, liable to direct an attack along the line of railway and flanking fire from gun-boats in the neighbourhood of Half-Moon Bay, would require time and a large force. Indeed, it may be questioned whether any enemy would attempt it unless with a very large expedition, and the remainder of the island practically in his possession, which is again beyond the scope of this inquiry.

45. It will be observed that we consider the capability of both of the two advanced batteries to take part in the protection of either channel to be an essential feature of the defence. The palisadoes to the eastward of Little Plum Point should be cleared of trees so as to admit of the battery on that point covering the bight which extends to the north-east of the lighthouse. Having examined the position we find that a command of fire necessary to effect this could easily be obtained at Little Plum Point; the fire of the turret would sweep this bight by simply removing the cocoa-palms which stand in the way. In the same way Lime Cay should be cleared so as not to impede the fire in that direction of either turret.

•

46. With respect to the battery on Port Royal Point, we think it desirable to substitute breech- loading for muzzle-loading guns. We recognize the fact that the principal object of this battery is to protect the lines of submarine mines; at the same time, the defence would be greatly increased in power if breech-loading guns were placed there. A 7-ton breech-loading gun is a powerful battering gun, whilst a 7-ton muzzle-loading gun is not, and possesses far greater range and accuracy, but we confine this proposal to the understanding that breech-loading guns could be mounted in this battery without remodelling it. Should it be impossible to do so, then we think that the muzzle- loading guns would sufficiently answer the purpose.

47. Our proposals for the defence of Port Royal are, therefore, as follows:—

Substituting breech-loading guns for the muzzle-loaders as aforesaid, we would complete the works in progress at Port Royal Point Battery and Prince of Wales' Lines. On Little Piùm Point and on the position near Drunkenman Cay we would place turrets with two heavy guns in each.

48. The following works in progress to be abandoned :-

Fort Augusta.

Rocky Point Battery. Hanover Lines.

Apostles Battery.

49. Following from our proposals it would be desirable to centralize the stores and ammunition required for the batteries at Port Royal. The magazine at Fort Augusta is in a very exposed position and is unprotected. As the question of building a new magazine is under consideration, its transfer to Port Royal might now be carried out.

50. The submarine defence to be completed as already intended.

51. We consider that by this scheme Port Royal would be absolutely secure as a refitting port, and also protected from bombardment, and that to a great degree the fire from the turret on Little Plum Point would secure Kingston from bombardment also; that in fact, for a very much less cost and smaller garrison most of the defensive properties of the War Office scheme would be realized.

52. Whilst we think that with the battery on Little Plum Point there could be no question of any attempt to seize Port Royal by a coup de main along the palisadoes, we consider it desirable to put the old polygon battery or bastion front to the east of the dockyard into a state of efficiency. This would entail very little expense, as it would be sufficient to place there three or four of the old smooth-bore guns, of which there are many at Port Royal, and repair the musketry platforms.

He

53. We have no data available here which enable us to give exact figures in this respect. Cost- Commander Grenfell is also without precise information as to the cost of Gruson turrets. informed us that, to the best of his belief, the cost of a turret to mount two 12-inch guns as constructed in Germany is under 25,000l. for the turret alone, exclusive of the guns. Presuming that this is so, the cost of two advanced batteries finished and armed might be estimated at 65,0007. as an

5 B

[1103]

Page 397

Page 397

Page 397