CAB7-4 — Page 489

Page 489

Page 489

401

247

Page 489

In the case of ships lying off the island being fired at obliquely by vessels taking up a position outside the reef to the eastward of the entrance, they could retire up the harbour so as to be com- pletely out of range.

The island is at present thickly covered with trees and dense underwood, so that without clearing the latter it would be impossible to determine exactly the position of the guns, but it would appear that there is room for six guns, two at each end of the island on ground about 50 feet in height (these would fire through earthern parapets), and two on the lower ground intervening, which should be behind iron shields.

The cost of this battery with its armament may be estimated at 78,100%. [N.B.-It is to be remarked that two lighter guns might be substituted for those firing over the inner harbour, thus reducing the cost.]

The channel here is not so deep as that into Suva Harbour, so the special arrangements required at the latter place would not be necessary, nor so many mines be required.

The same number of men would be required as at Suva for the service of the battery and of the submarine mines, and although the island may be said to be secure against a boat attack, it would be well to provide, say, fifty men for infantry defence, and to establish a small infantry redoubt or stockade as keep on some favourable point of the island to be hereafter chosen, perhaps by making one of the elevated batteries self-defensible.

Barracks as at Suva-

Cost-

Appendix No. 4.

FIJI ISLANDS.

Submarine mines.

Garrison-

Artillery, 135 men. Engineers, 36 men. Infantry, 50 men.

Barracks.

Cost,

Battery Submarine mines Barracks

·

1.

Total

:::

:::

:::

£

•

78,100

..

6,000

··

8,000

92,100

As against 166,000l. for Suva.

It is to be remarked that no provision has been made for the naval establishments on shore in either case.

Having reported on the steps necessary to be taken to secure a naval depôt at or near Suva, we beg to offer the following general remarks:

In time of war, no enemy would, it is presumed, so scatter its naval forces as to send a fleet into the Pacific with a view of taking possession of Fiji. Hostile operations in this part of the world would be directed against the important Colonies of Australia and New Zealand, and to the interruption of the commerce between these places and Great Britain.

Nor is it probable that this part of the Pacific Ocean would be made a cruizing-ground for vessels like the " Alabama," as no very important line of trade passes near the Fiji Islands, nor, even were the trade more important than it is, would a port in Fiji be one in which it is probable that merchant- vessels would take refuge, for, though it is in the direct line between San Francisco and Sydney, it is nearly 5,000 miles from the former place, while it is only 1,800 miles from the Australian coast.

Any advantages which the island may possess for the prevention and punishment of outrages committed on Polynesians by white men-and, it may be added, by Polynesians on British subjects- need not be taken into consideration as regards the question of providing a fortified naval station, as, in time of war, it is not likely that any vessels could be spared from the Australian squadron for purposes of police in the Pacific.

In conclusion, therefore, we venture to state our opinion that, in present circumstances, the pro- vision of any fortified naval station in the Fiji Group is unnecessary.

Any arrangements for refitting Her Majesty's vessels on the station should be made at Sydney or other Australian ports, where all facilities exist.

Coal can always be obtained at Fiji from contractors, and it might, if necessary, be easily arranged that it could be destroyed if in danger of being taken possession of by an enemy.

(Signed)

Suva, Fiji Islands, March 3, 1882.

W. CROSSMAN, Colonel, R.E.

T. E. MAXWELL, Acting Commander, Royal Navy.

P.S. Since this Report was written we have received a communication from his Excellency the Governor to the effect that the ground marked E on plan No. 2* is not a naval reserve.

This does not make any alteration in our recommendations, as we have stated that it is not suitable for a naval establishment.

March 3, 1882.

The following inclosures accompany this Report:

A Return of exports and imports, Fiji.

Plan 1.-Suva, Namuka, and Lauthala Bays.*

Plan 2-Present and proposed naval depôt at Walou Creek, Suva.*

W. C.

T. E. M.

Water-colour sketch by Lieutenant W. Russell, R.E., of Namuka Island from the entrance into Namuka Bay.*

[1103]

* Not printed.

6 B

Page 489

Page 489