CAB9-1_PT1 — Page 312

2

Page 312

5. The signals proposed under Regulation 2 are concurred in.

6. The Local Joint Naval and Military Committee, under Regulation 3, still propose to impose the restrictions of the Traffic Regulations on Her Majesty's ships on account of the difficulty of distinguishing between British and foreign war-ships, and of the impossibility of communicating any private signal to a ship approaching from a distant port.

The Colonial Defence Committee understand that the necessary recognition signals between Her Majesty's ships and fortresses are in existence, and will be communicated at the right time. By this means a British war-vessel will be readily recognized, and there will be no necessity for imposing on her further restrictions.

7. In Regulation 3 the word "permit" is used. This word, implying a permission in writing, is not now considered convenient, and the word

permission" should be substituted for it.

("

8. In the Regulation now numbered 6, the note with reference to the pilots not being local men may be omitted, the Local Defence Committee having recently reported that a certain number of local men, known to be thoroughly loyal, can be obtained, and may be supplemented if necessary by men from Barbadian vessels trading with St. Lucia.

9. The only other remark on the subject of Traffic Regulations which the Colonial Defence Committee desire to make is that the Regulation formerly proposed with reference to vessels attempting to enter the port without permission should be included in a somewhat altered form as follows:-

CC

Any vessel attempting to enter the port without permission is first to be warned by firing a shot across her bows, and if she does not then stop is to be treated as an enemy without further question."

(Signed)

M. NATHAN, Secretary,

July 9, 1895.

Page 312

Colonial Defence Committee.

PRINTED AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE BY T. HARRISON.-)

-10/7/95.

Page 312

Page 313 Printed for the use of the Colonial Office. July 10, 189Page 313 of 425

SECRET.

112-R

ST. LUCIA.

ST. LUCIA. 5,

No. 276.

Report of Local Defence Committee of February 1895.

Remarks by the Colonial Defence Committee.

THE covering letter of the Officer Commanding Troops, Barbados, and the final section of the Report treat of matters concerning the civil administra- tion of St. Lucia.

The questions brought forward in the present instance will be dealt with in a communication which it is understood is shortly to be addressed by the Colonial Office to Colonial Governments. It would be convenient if, when discussing similar matters in the future, the Colonial Defence Committee could have the benefit of the opinion of the Governor of the Windward Islands, to whom the Officer Commanding Troops, Barbados, should forward all Reports of the Local Defence Committee for transmission to the Colonial Office, in accordance with Memorandum No. 19 of the Colonial Defence Committee, dated the 1st November, 1886.

2. The Colonial Defence Committee in their Remarks dated the 13th August, 1894, on the Report of the Local Joint Naval and Military Com- mittee, dated February 1894, concurred in the opinion of that Committee that "the staff of pilots should, if possible, not be local men.”

It appears from the Report now under consideration that pilots other than local ones would, from want of the necessary knowledge, be practically useless. It is also now stated that there are a certain number of local men (not all natives of St. Lucia) who are known to be thoroughly loyal, and it is recommended that they should be employed, supplemented, if necessary, by men from Barbadian steamers trading with St. Lucia.

Under the circumstances reported, the Colonial Defence Committee concur in the recommendation of the Local Committee, but, at the same time, they would urge the importance of not employing any man whose sympathies may be in the least suspected.

3. The Colonial Defence Committee have not before them the question. concerning the submarine cable which was referred to the Local Defence Committee by the Officer Commanding Troops, Barbados. They presume, however, that it was dictated by the Remarks of the Colonial Defence Committee, dated the 2nd January, 1888, that when the Scheme of Defence was prepared it would then be desirable to consider the suggestion of the removal of the cable landing-place from Grand Cul-de-Sac to Port Castries.

The Local Defence Committee recommend that, if there be no technical objection, the cable should be brought into the Bay of Castries, and, if this be not feasible, then into Toc or Choc Bay, such positions being more easily protected than Cul-de-Sac Bay.

Experience has proved that the liability to damage from ships anchoring makes it unadvisable to bring cables into harbours such as the Bay of Castries. The approach to Cul-de-Sac Bay appears to be well covered by

[387]