I think, judging from the absence of any necessary appliances, that they had no intention of doing anything more than was found.
It is an ordinary book, 6" x 2¾", in which were three small rough sketches, quite useless from a military point of view, of the Lyemun promontory and of the hill behind, unmistakably taken from the waters. Their actions were probably not with the intention of entering, and, to my mind, it was a straining of the law to punish them at all - in fact, the newspaper account of the trial leads one to suspect a confusion between the two separate offences of "entering" and "sketching".
2. As regards increasing the severity of this law, it seems to me necessary to do so in the case of the Brennan Torpedo, when the phraseology might be altered to "any part of a battery, or of a fortification, or of a Brennan Torpedo, and of the appliances and mechanism in connection therewith".
#
3. If any alteration is to be made in the wording of this law, I would ask Your Excellency whether it is not anomalous that the permission should be obtained from the Governor instead of from the General Officer Commanding.
Page 359
4. I am strongly of the opinion that in prosecuting under this law, or under the "Forts Protection Ordinance, No. 10 of 1891", a Military Officer should always be present to give an opinion as to the degree of the offence, as it may lie between a trifling irregularity and a grave and dangerous act.
5. As regards Act No. 10 of 1891, the question is whether the phraseology might be altered to "any Battery, fortification, or the premises of any torpedo installation". In the last case, I think that the possible sentence should be raised to 3 years' imprisonment.