PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
EPLIC.O. 882
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
42
I am to request you to inform the Marquess of, Lansdowne that Mr. Lyttelton has forwarded to the Governor of Hong Kong a copy of your letter with enclosures, and has requested Sir M. Nathan to favour him with his observations on the subject at an early date.
I. am, &c.,
5958
SIR,
No. 79.
TREASURY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received February 24, 1905.)
C. P. LUCAS.
[Copy to Governor, April 12, 1905. Confidential. L.F.}
Treasury Chambers, February 23, 1905. WITH reference to Mr. Lucas's letter (2463) of the 28th ultimo,* I am to transmit, for the information of Mr. Secretary Lyttelton, a copy of a letter which the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have caused to be addressed this day to the War Office on the subject of hospital stoppages in the case of the crew of the Russian destroyer "Burni "at Hong Kong.
I am, &c.,
SIR,
Enclosure in No.. 79..
TREASURY to WAR OFFICE.
G. H. MURRAY.
Treasury Chambers, February 23, 1905. WгTH reference to Mr. Brade's letter (027/131, Q.M.G. 6) of the 25th ultimo, to the Colonial Office, respecting those members of the crew of the Russian destroyer "Burni," interned at Hong Kong who may be admitted to the Military Hospital at that station, I am to request you to move the Army Council to cause the Lords Com- missioners of His Majesty's Treasury to be informed of the reasons for which it is proposed not to recover hospital stoppages from these men. It appears to their Lordships that the proper course would be to charge the ordinary hospital stoppage, which would be made under the Allowance Regulations against a British soldier under similar circumstances. The charge to be raised against the Russian Government here- after on account of the detention of the men can be considered when the occasion arises; but my Lords see no reason why it should be less than the actual cost incurred. by the Hong Kong authorities, including hospital charges.
I am, &c.,
The Secretary,
War Office.
6532
SIR,
No. 80.
FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received March 1, 1905.)
G. H. MURRAY.
Foreign Office, February 28, 1905. WITH reference to your letter, 36560/1904, of the 26th October last,† I am directed by the Marquess of Lansdowne to inform you that a communication was addressed to the Army Council by this Department, asking for their observations on the points raised in your letter relative to the treatment to be accorded to the officers and crew of the "Burni," at present interned at Hong Kong.
The Army Council state, in their reply, a copy of which, together with a copy of the letter from this Department of the 10th ultimo, is enclosed for the considera; tion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that they concur in Lord Lansdowne's opinion that it would be a mistake to impose hard labour on a soldier or sailor who tries to escape from his internment and is recaptured.
• No. 75.
↑ No. 54.
43
With regard to Clause 3 of the regulations made by the Governor of Hong Kong, the Army Council are of opinion that it is not within the powers given to the Governor by the Ordinance. Under Clause 4 of the Hong Kong Ordinance, No. 7 of 1904, the Governor has the power of making regulations defining offences and imposing punishments for breach of the regulations, but the Council are of opinion that there is no power to take the persons concerned out of the operation of the ordinary civil law, and the enforcement of all such regulations must rest with the Civil Courts. Moreover, even on the assumption that this difficulty could be surmounted by amendment of the Ordinance, they concur in Lord Lansdowne's view that it is undesirable to impose military law upon persons in the position of these interned men.
The Council further urge that, if it should prove to be necessary, in order to meet the exigencies of the case, that certain further offences should be created which would not be offences according to the civil law of the Colony, and that certain summary penalties should be imposed for the committal of any such offences, these latter should be specifically laid down and defined by the Governor's regulations, together with the penalties to be imposed in each case, which should be enforceable by the ordinary civil tribunals.
I am to state, for the information of Mr. Secretary Lyttelton, that Lord Lans- downe concurs generally in the observations of the Army Council. With regard to Clause 3 of the regulations made by the Governor, his Lordship has been inde- pendently advised that the Governor cannot, under the Hong Kong Ordinance, No. 7 of 1904, Section 4, make regulations applying any law which is not part of the ordinary body of municipal law of the Colony, and that he cannot apply a substantive statute to a class of persons to whom that statute by its own terms does not apply; e.g., he cannot apply an act which is specifically limited by its own terms to persons serving in the British Army to refugee combatants of the Russian Army.
This result, as his Lordship is advised, could only be attained by independent legislation on the lines of the Army Act, and applicable in terms to the Russian refugee combatants.
I am,
&c.,
Enclosure 1 in No. 80.
FOREIGN OFFICE to WAR OFFICE.
1. A. CAMPBELL.
SIR,
Foreign Office, January 10, 1905. I AM directed by the Marquess of Lansdowne to transinit to you, to be laid before the Army Council, a copy of a letter from the Colonial Office, with enclosures, respecting the Ordinance and the Regulations which it is proposed to issue iu Hong Kong in connexion with the internment in the Colony of any refugees belong- ing to the Russian or Japanese forces, and which will, therefore, be applicable to the crew of the "Burni," now interned at Hong Kong.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies has invited Lord Lansdowne's obser- rations on Section 5 of the proposed Ordinance, on the subject of the penalty to be imposed on interned persons for endeavouring to escape.
I am to say that, subject to the observations of the Army Council, Lord Lans- downe is of opinion, as at present advised, that it would be a mistake to impose hard labour on a soldier or sailor who tries to escape from his internment and is recaptured. The offence is not a disgraceful one, and does not merit a degrading punishment, though effective means would have to be taken--by a stricter method of confinement or otherwise-to prevent its repetition.
As regards Clause 3 of the Regulations made by the Governor in Council under Section 4 of the Ordinance, Lord Lansdowne considers that it is, no doubt, desirable, so far as may be possible, to follow the well-known precedent set in 1871 with regard to the internment of the French troops in Switzerland, but his Lordship doubts whether it would be wise to place interned prisoners as regards matters of discipline-under the provisions of the Army Act of 1881, even if that were possible. In the case of the French interned soldiers they were, it is true, placed under the Swiss “ Code Pénal Militaire Fédéral." That code was, however, probably more suitable to the circumstances than the British Army Act would be to those of the present case, and it was, moreover, in a language which the men could under- stand
20111