52
(2)
(૪)
(4)
The patrol vessel of the Imperial Navy which made
to inspect the fishing boats was not a submarine but'
a specially equipped mine-sweeper. According to
the findings of the Commission of Enquiry at Hongkong,
the conclusion was reached that this incident was
caused by an Imperial submarine but, although a
number of Imperial submarines were on the day in
question operating off the coast of Mako and later
moved to the south-east of Hongkong, there was no
Imperial submarine operating in Hongkong waters on
that day. It must therefore be inferred that the
conclusion of the Hongkong Commission of Enquiry is
incorrect.
The Imperial Government are unable to agree with
the Hongkong Commission of Enquiry's findings based
as they are only upon unilateral investigations on
the strength of the mere statements of ignorant
Chinese fishermen who know nothing about naval
vessels, and their acceptance of these absolute and
established facts,
The British Commission of Enquiry states that some
of the junks which were sunk were the property of
British subjects and that there are grounds for
supposing that some of those killed possessed
British nationality. But that these junks bore no
markings whatever to show that they were British,
that the area in which the junks were discovered
is habitually infested by pirates, and that the
junks illegally opened fire with rifles and began
the affray, are facts which render perfectly
natural the conclusion of the Imperial patrol vessel
concerned that they were either pirate ships or
armed Chinese junks.
His Majesty's Embassy's memorandum especially draws
the/