CAB9-1_PT1 — Page 157

SECRET.

63-R

Printed for the use of the Colonial Office. July 1893. Page 157 of 425

VICTORIA.

VICTORIA.

6756.

Report of the Council of Defence, 1892.

Remarks by Colonial Defence Committee.

THE Colonial Defence Committee have had before them the Report of the Council of Defence, Victoria, dated the 30th July, 1892, accompanied by a Report by the Minister of Defence, dated the 6th October, 1892, on the Scheme of Defence for Victoria as revised to the 30th September, 1892.

1. The Scheme of Defence of the 30th September, 1892, has not been received by the Committee; but they gather that it contains no important alterations except the reduction, owing to the depressed state of the finances of the Colony, of two battalions of Metropolitan Infantry.

The Committee regret the necessity for this reduction, and that the Government has not seen its way to maintain, as advocated by the Com- mandant, the cadres of the battalions to be disbanded, so as to permit of rapid expansion in case of emergency. They also regret the postponement for the same reason of the completion of the equipment of the field force with artillery ammunition waggons, and small-arm ammunition carts, and of the provision of a reserve of Martini-Henry rifles, the importance of which was urged by the Commandant in the Defence Scheme of September 1891. They fully recognize the severity of the present financial crisis in Australia which has rendered these economies necessary, and they are of opinion that the supplying of these latter deficiencies should be regarded as the most pressing requirement whenever funds become available.

2. With regard to the reply of the Commandant, dated the 19th Sep- tember, 1892, to the Remarks by the Colonial Defence Committee on the Defence Scheme of September 1891, the Committee desire to make the following observations:-

As 9-in. R.M.L. guns were proposed in the Scheme for Tortoise Head, and as such guns cannot be mounted in a provisional manner so as to be of any practical use, the Committee inferred that a permanent work was contemplated for that place. They are glad to be assured that such is not the intention. It may further be remarked that these guns are unsuited to the requirements of a battery at that site, and that the proposal to create a work there to contain "400 men, unfit for a mobile force," involving the deliberate intention of risking their loss, is opposed to the policy_recom- mended by the Committee in the previous portion of the same Remarks.

As regards Gellibrand and Williamstown pier, all that the Committee deprecated was the creation of new fortifications. If the placing of movable armament in these positions is all that was intended, their Remarks would not apply.

They consider, however, that the principle enunciated in the concluding portion of the Commandant's reply is open to serious criticism. It is practically proposed to multiply guns and defences merely to prevent popular scares; these works are to be made when war breaks out merely "for the public to see." The Committee cannot concur in the expediency of any such

[541]

Page 157

Page 157

23