CAB9-1_PT2 — Page 23

Page 23

ordinates in the pages that follow. Chapter IV is largely a repetition of information previously given. Some other instances appear in the Scheme as printed, and some have been eliminated in editing.

A more serious fault, tending to mar the clearness of the Scheme, is that it contains various recommendations with respect to the defences which in accordance with paragraph 47, Section V, Q.R., should only have been em- bodied in the covering letter, or should have formed the subject of a separate communication. Page 17, last line; p. 32, last paragraph; p. 36, paragraphs 14 and 15; p. 37, paragraph 16; p. 65, note; and page 127, 2nd paragraph, are all instances in which the regulation has not been complied with.

CHAPTER I.

7. Page 13, paragraph 5.-In the list of the various forms of attack to which the coaling station is exposed no mention is made of torpedo-boat attack. In their Remarks, dated the 30th May, 1894, on the Defence Scheme revised to January 1894, the Colonial Defence Committee drew attention to the liability of Port Castries to attack by "carried" boats of this nature, and in certain eventualities to attack by sea-going boats. They dealt with the same subject in their Remarks dated the 13th August, 1894, and mentioned it again in those of the 9th July, 1895.

The next revision of the Defence Scheme should embody in Chapter I a reference to this form of attack.

8. Pages 15 and 16, paragraphs 11 and 12.-Two forms of attack are considered possible by "an enemy unwilling to encounter the fire of the heavy fixed armament, and preferring to land out of range and undertake a longer advance by land," viz., attack by a large force intending to invest the place, or attack by a small party landing secretly from privateers or vessels disguised as trading or fishing-boats intending to carry out a raid.

It is recognized on p. 13, paragraph 2, that the deliberate attack by a large force is little likely to be attempted. In view, however, of the proximity of the defended coaling station at Martinique, it is possible that a force not exceeding 1,000 men might be landed for an attempt at surprise at some point of the island out of fire of the guns of the forts.

CHAPTER II.

9. Page 21, Divisions of Command.-Under this heading St. Lucia is divided for defence into three sub-sections, and the whole of the remainder of the Scheme is based on this arrangement. War Office letter St. Lucia/5/299, dated the 21st February, 1896, explained why such terms were no longer considered applicable to the conditions of St. Lucia, and directed that they should not be used in describing the general chain of command in that island. These instructions were noted in a letter from the Officer Com- manding the Troops in Barbados, dated the 29th September, 1896, but were evidently not received at St. Lucia in time for the Scheme to be modified accordingly. The sub-sectional organization will disappear from the next revision, and with it the whole of the present Chapter IV, and much of the complexity of Chapters II and III. Under these circumstances, it is scarcely worth while for the Committee to point out the inconveniences arising from the organization as embodied in the Scheme, such, for instance, as the introduction of an intermediate authority between Fire Commanders and Battery Commanders, with power to remove the gun detachments away from the guns and from the control of the Fire Commanders. (Page 33, para- graph 9, 2nd sub-paragraph.)

The abolition of the sectional organization need not interfere with the appointment of an officer to command the movable column (p. 21, line 6 from bottom), it being of course understood that in actual presence of the enemy, such as an assault on the Toc works, the senior combatant officer present will assume command in accordance with the custom of the service.

Page 23

Page 23

15