THE GUNS IN THE RESERVES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23054, 3 December 1936, Page 17

THE GUNS IN THE RESERVES

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l have read with amusement the letters of your correspondents on the subject of the guns in the reserves. There is no sentimental interest of any kind attached to these weapons. The prosaic facts are these: Not so many years ago our Government applied to the Home Government to send out an officer to devise a scheme of fortifications for the four principal ports of the then colony. Sir William Jervois, who afterwards became Governor, was sent. He reported that it was necessary to have a battery of guns of a certain calibre placed at Otago Heads. This was done and these are the guns that were placed there. Sir Peter Scratchley came out on a somewhat similar mission some years later. He reported that the battery was placed in the wrong position and should be shifted to another spot Whether this was done I do not know Officers disagree as well as doctors So all this “guff” about Sir George Grey, Flanders, soldiers, goosesteps, and the Navals in the vernacular of the day is wholly irrelevant. If it had been necessary to remove these weapons, which I very much doubt as they have never been replaced—it would have been easier and less costly to dump them from their comfortable bed, where they were resting, over the cliff, into the equally comfortable bed of the ocean below. I am not aware that the Navals have had anything to do with them, but I am aware that on one occasion they were permitted to fire one of the guns of the Ocean Beach Battery at a moving target towed by a small steamer. Unfortunately they fired at the steamer instead. The captain lost no time in cutting the tow rope and making for town. I can vouch for this Incident as I witnessed it. The gallant Navals became the laughing stock of Dunedin for some time. Rumour had it that the captain received £IOO as a solatium for his feelings, but we know the Jade often lies. The penguins at the South Pole were considerably flustered at the appearance of the target in their midst. The Navals were a quaint corps. I know them from their inception adjoining M’Cubbin’s Hotel, at the end of 1864 or the beginning of 1865, under Captain Paterson, who was a grocer, and his knowledge of naval work was not equal to that of his business. Following him was Captain Stavely, a genial, popular man, a wine merchant, of whom many good stories could be told. He could ride a horse but could not ride the ocean wave, and he hated the sea because he always became violently seasick. He believed in the precept in “ H.M.S. Pinafore,” “ Stick to your desk and never go to sea, and you may become the ruler of the Queen’s Navee.” Then came Captain Smith, a printer. He was not the type of naval officer that one could wish, and when he took his seal in the stern of his boat—to be pulled once in six months to Port Chalmers by his gallant but unwilling crew, who did not like the long pull—“all the world wondered.” The only gun the corps ever had was a small old Howitzer which must have belonged to a man-of-war at the time of the Deluge, probably acting as convoy to the Ark. The Navals subsequently became a garrison artillery battery, without any battery, under Colonel James (now Sir James) Allen. I suppose they are. now merged in the Royal Naval Reserve, which has probably acquired their traditions.—l am, etc.. Quidnunc. November 30.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—The controversy on the removal of the guns is rapidly degenerating from its usefulness as political propaganda to a joke. As I love a joke 1 welcome the change. I had heard that Mr J. R. E.' Smith had brought a soul-mate with him when he returned from the war, but I had no idea that his soul-mate was a “dear old gun.” There is no accounting for taste; I myself would have preferred a hot-water bottle. Seriously, I wish to thank your correspondent “Sincerity” for his information regarding the history of two guns. He says that they were never used for the purpose for which they were constructed Another correspondent says that they served their purpose. It appears that they were made by Armstrong and Co., and the two guns apparently served the purpose of preventing the Russians from invading New Zealand and, incidentally, provided a job for Armstrong and Co. Work in England and New Zealand at that time was very slack in the iron trade. It is gratifying to learn that they were not “ made in Germany.” “Sincerity” overlooked my question where I asked him if he wished to imply that the present Russian scare was not real. He also discreetly evaded any reference to the South African gun with the shameful history of which most of us are aware.—l am etc., Measure of Value. December 2. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I should like to ask under what authority the City Council let the contract to bury the seven-inch and 64pounder guns that were presented to it, removed from Otago Heads and mounted again for the council at the expense of the country? Had the guns been allowed to remain at the Heads they would have beer there for the next 300 years or more, and would have been a source of pleasure for visitors or tourists. Who knows but that the Almighty might permit the spirit of some old soldiers, who got little pay and less Braise8 raise for keeping the flag flying in lese far-off days, to revisit the scene Sir, it would be the prerogative of the Prime Minister to have these guns disinterred and placed in some spot where the royal coat of arms might be admired and their massive size be viewed It is at least the privilege of the Prime Minister to ask by what authority the guns were buried. —I am, etc., Sincerity. Dunedin, December 2.