CAB7-4 — Page 659

Page 659

Page 659

About 12,000 miles of cable would be required to reinstate the principal lines to India, China, and Australia in case of damage (4548, 4549). Beyond the first outlay of capital, a store of cable would not entail much cost, because a good cable is an article of commerce, and the store could be sold from time to time and replaced without much loss (4553, 4554). Improvements in cables need hardly be looked for unless new materials should be discovered. There has been little substantial improvement of late years. The Atlantic cable of 1866, and the latest deep-sea cable are of the same pattern (4561, 4562).

A light cable was laid during the Crimean war from Varna to Balaclava, but it ceased to work soon after the war.

Such a cable would be useless after serving its immediate purpose, whereas a good cable would always be valuable (4523, 4524). The cost of a long line of properly-constructed cable, including the cost of laying, may be taken at 3007. a mile. A light cable would not cost more than a third of this (4544). The Red Sea cables cost 1507. or 1607, per mile exclusive of the cost of laying. A light cable would cost 707. or 801. per mile (4555, 4556). It is more quickly laid than an armoured cable, and might serve for some months, but such a cable could not be lifted for repair (4541-4545, 4547). When the necessary stores have been collected, which may take two months, one of our large cable factories could turn out 400 miles of cable a-week. Practically, a light cable takes as long to make as an armoured cable. The core is the as fast as it is made in one department, the sheathing is put on in another. But the light cable would occupy less space, and a much greater length could be stowed in a ship (4558–4560).

same,

629

(4

extended to 500 feet, they would still fail to meet all naval requirements in time of war, as they would not take in ships of the type of the "Nelson" and Northampton," drawing 26 feet, or iron-clads which go up to 30 feet (4581-4583). The foreign ships of war that frequent Table Bay, such as the Portu- guese and Dutch, are generally so small that they can enter the docks, and the mail-steamers coal in dock (4625-4627). The insecurity of the anchorage, the inability of being able to coal there or to embark troops or stores in all weathers, are fatal objections to Table Bay. There is very little accommodation for fitting-out in time of war; ships would have to lie in the docks for safety, the crews would be exposed to all the temptations of a low population, and it would be difficult to maintain discipline (4597). The Cape Government have acted in a liberal spirit, and rendered every assistance in their power, but the Admiralty have no prior claim upon the docks (4598-4601). Coal is stored in sheds along the break- water and docks, and is quite unprotected (4588-4591).

If it were decided to create a naval establishment in Table Bay, land on an extensive scale would have to be acquired. Amsterdam Battery occupies so commanding a position that it could hardly be given up (4584-4586). The existing defences of Cape Town would not keep off an enterprising enemy, who could manoeuvre about the bay and drop shells into the town (4594, 4595). Simon's Bay. and

The telegraph Companies would not be able at short notice to supply any considerable length of cable (4525). No stocks are kept (4526).

For any

long line, the work could not be done in less than six months (4527). The difficulty is in having to wait so long for materials (4531). A cable can be laid at the rate of 5, or even 6, knots an hour (4530).

Nearly all submarine cables are laid by British Companies. The Americans have a line from Florida to Key West and Havana, and another to Mexico. The Great Northern Telegraph Company, which is largely owned in Denmark, has lines in the Baltic, and also lines from Russia to Japan. With these excep-

tions and a few others. such as the French Government lines from Toulon to Algiers, and the Spanish Govern- ment line from Barcelona to Port Mahon and Majorca, all the lines are managed and owned by Englishmen (4537-4540).

May 17, 1881. Rear-Admiral Sir FRANCIS SULLIVAN, K.C.B., late

Commodore at the Cape of Good Hope.

Table Bay.-Table Bay is unsuitable as a station for Her Majesty's ships (4576, 4577). The anchor- age is not good, and is not sufficiently protected by the breakwater (4569, 4570). The protected anchorage is only 5 or 6 fathoms deep, and it would not be safe to anchor a ship drawing 25 feet in such water, where the sea rolls in as heavily as it does in Table Bay (4572). Nothing less than 8 fathoms would be safe (4575). The breakwater, if extended, would enlarge the area of the anchorage, but would not afford adequate protection from the dangerous north-west wind unless carried out to the 9-fathom line, which is a great deal further than is contem- plated. It blows occasionally from the south-east also in violent squalls, and even ships of war have broken loose from their anchors. The "Boscawen " parted two chains, and was blown straight out to sea. If the breakwater had been extended far enough to give protection from the north-west she would have been driven on to it (4572-4575).

The docks at Cape Town are not deep enough for ships of large draught (4570); the dry dock is not yet available, and in 1879 the "Active," drawing 22 feet of water, could not be accommodated. If the docks were deepened to 26 feet, and the dry dock

[1103]

Simon's Bay is a perfectly safe anchorage for ships of the largest size. Eight iron clads could lay there in security (4602, 4603). There are no docks, but there is a considerable depth of water close in shore. Simon's Bay possesses un- doubted superiority over Table Bay for all naval purposes. There is no dock, but there are good store-houses, fair workshops, and the means of coaling and embarking stores in all weathers (4604-4620, 4632-4638). The south-east wind, which blows three days out of six from the middle of October to March, is the worst wind there, but makes no sea to hurt ships (4605-4607). The weather never interferes with coaling even in a south-east wind, and the anchorage is better for holding than Table Bay (4622-4624). Occasionally, during the north-west wind, ships intended for Table Bay run round to Simon's Bay for shelter (4621). The Admiralty pro- perty is practically sufficient (4608, 4609). The pier is only a landing-place for small boats, with about 6 feet of water (4610). Adequate protection will be afforded by the proposed batteries if well-armed and completed according to the design (4612, 4617).

Torpedoes.-Torpedo defence is inapplicable to Table and Simon's Bays, owing to their extent and the heavy sea, but steam torpedo launches would be useful (4618, 4619). It would be useless to defend Table Bay without defending Simon's Bay, and vice versa. The two places are mutually depen- dent one upon the other for defence (4640).

It would be hazardous to attempt a landing on Muizenberg beach with a view to moving upon either Simon's Bay or Cape Town (4643, 4644).

Sierra Leone.-Sierra Leone would be suitable for a coaling station. There is sufficient depth of water, the anchorage is good, and the entrance easy (4646– 4649).

St. Helena and Ascension.-St. Helena and Ascen- sion have fair anchorages. It is absolutely neces- sary to hold them, as they would be dangerous in other hands. At present the coal there is not protected, and the batteries at St. Helena would not protect ships in the roadstead against an enterprising enemy (4650-4655).

St. Vincent.-St. Vincent is an admirable coaling station (4659).

May 17, 1881. DONALD CURRIE, Esq., C.M.G., M.P. Simon's Bay. Of all the harbours in South Africa, Simon's Bay is the most important. Simon's Bay is capable of being made a safe and good harbour for

7 X

Page 659

Page 659

332

Page 659