THE DEFENCE OF PORT LYTTELTON.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1259, 1 April 1878, Page 3

THE DEFENCE OF PORT LYTTELTON.

The following letter appears in the “Press” of this morning:— Sib, —I was in hope until recently that, in consideration of their intimate connection with the port and town of Lyttelton, the Lyttelton Harbor Board would have felt it their duty to stir themselves in the matter of defence; but as it is now evident that the majority of the members do not feel themselves called to more in the matter, as one of the minority of the Board I venture to appeal to the public througli your columns. Two questions appear to me specially to suggest themselves First. Is the property which woidd be endangered by the visit of a hostile ship or ships of war worth a strong effort in its defence P Secondly. Is such an effort of defence within the means of the colony ? In reference to the first question, I purposely abstain from stating in figures the money value of damage which even a small vessel of war might cause in two or three hours’ lime; but I would suggest to your readers to ascertain for themselves—(l.) The number of large vessels trading with Europe and now lying in the harbor of Lyttelton. (2.) The value of their hulls. (3.) The value of the cargo either on board or waiting shipment or landing. (4.) :,The value of the secoud-class trading vessels now in the harbor. (5.) The sum of money which would be required to rebuild Lyttelton in the event of its being shelled and burned by a vessel of war. (6.) The money value of the damage which might bo done to our breakwater, wharves, piers, &0., &c. If any one will take the trouble to pub the answers to the above queries into figures, I think bo will be very much surprised at the result lie brings out. In reference to the second question, I cannot, of course, forget that the subject was prominently referred to by Sir George Grey in his recent speech in Christchurch, and that he mentioned certain points —viz., possible cost; of works of defence, and possibility of a landing by a hostile force at Sumner —as reasons why no movement should be made for the defence of Lyttelton, But I would cull attention to the fact that while ho claimed (and I admit justly) to be competent to speak with some authority on such matters, Jie by no means committed himself, as a highlytrained soldier, to the opinions either that as large a sum as £IOO,OOO would actually be required for the defence of Lyttelton, or that the landing of a hostile force at Sumner was in the remotest degree probable. I, a civilian, cannot, of course, speak with the authority of a soldier trained in a military school; bub I feel perfectly assured that no landing of an enemy, of sufficient strength to be any cause 'of anxiety to either Lyttelton or Christchurch, would be possible except from a large expeditionary force; and I feel equally assured that no such large expeditionary force could present itself in our waters. But there is, as far as I can see, no reason why a single steamer, or vessel with auxiliary steam power, carrying a few guns, should not lie wait in a convenient port in some out-of-the-way situation, on the chance of war breaking out —immediately on the commencement of hostilities sail for New Zealand —when on the coast run some night into the port where she thought she could do the greatest amount of damage in the shortest time—and, when in there, burn and destroy everything which was -within her reach, steaming right away before news of her arrival could reach one of our men-of-war. There appears to me to be nothing improbable in the case I have supposed. The value of such a vessel, if captured, would be nothing as compared to the amount of injury, direct and indirect, which she might inllict on the colony ; and her loss would be a good investment to the Russian Government if she had previously destroyed, say the town and jthe shipping of Lyttelton. I do not think that in all this I am led away by a merely fanciful imagination. It is hardly to be supposed that, in the event of war, Russia would a second time allow the Australian colonies of Great Britain to get off “scot free,” and the case I have supposed appears to me to bo the simplest expedient to which she could resort, so as almost to ensure a very considerable success at very little cost to herself, I have said nothing as yet with respect to the figures mentioned by Sir George Grey in connection with the cost of defence; but as I fear I may already have trespassed sufficiently on your space for one letter, I purpose, if you will permit me, to return to this part of my subject on a future occasion. R. J. S. Haem an. March 30th, 1878.