CO885-(15-16) — Page 254

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:

C.O. 885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

2

22nd December, 1902, from the Colonial Secretary's Office at Pretoria. Copies of these documents accompany the papers. These papers contain the only information that has been furnished in addition to that contained in the papers which are already with the Law Officers, and the Director has been requested by the Colonial Office to obtain, on the present materials, the Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the question whether proceedings for high treason can be taken against Enright and against Hodg- son, or against either of them.

There are also sent herewith a typed and a written memorandum prepared by Mr. H. B. Cox on the 5th and 8th† December, 1902.

The Director begs to submit the following observations on the information and evidence which has been furnished as to the position of each of these men, preceded by some general observations applicable to both cases.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.

In order to establish a charge of high treason it would be necessary to prove that these persons were British subjects, and that so being British subjects they adhered to the late Queen's enemies, and for this purpose to prove overt acts of treason, either in the case of one such act by the evidence of two witnesses, or of more than one of such acts by the evidence of one witness to one overt and by the evidence of another witness to another overt act.

The following observations deal with the information furnished as to each of these men, and are submitted for the consideration of the Law Officers.

Re THOMAS ENRIGHT.

Enright says that he was born at Rathkeale, in Ireland, and went to South Africa in 1879, and to the Transvaal in 1887. He appears, according to his own statements, to have served in an English cavalry regiment, and to have fought in the Matabele War.

Immediately prior to the war he was the manager of an hotel in the Transvaal, and, according to his own statements, was persuaded a few days before the outbreak of war, while a drunken condition, to become naturalized as a burgher, was commandeered the following morning, and ultimately joined the Irish Brigade, and is said to have been captured at Bloemfontein, presumably on March 13th, 1900, when Lord Roberts entered that town. He became a prisoner of war, and was in due course sent to St. Helena, where he remained till the 22nd November, 1902, when he was sent to Europe at the public expense, in the " Galician," with other prisoners of war, who were released as soon after the conclusion of peace as was consistent with the necessary arrange- ments being made for their being sent from the Island. He arrived in this country practically in a destitute condition.

Enright, before leaving St. Helena, namely, on the 19th November, 1902, re- quested in writing to be sent to South Africa, "his home and country," and said he could produce evidence that he was a burgher. Immediately after his arrival in this country, on the 9th December, 1902, he protested against having been sent to England, and stated that he was a burgher before the war, and said he thought he had been treated unfairly by the repatriation officers in St. Helena. In a subsequent interview with Colonel Davies, of the Intelligence Department, on the 17th December, 1902, he fixes the date of his burghership as the 6th October, 1899, 5 days before the outbreak of war.

From the foregoing observations it may be thought that Enright has been some- what hardly treated, because a continuous residence in South Africa from 1879 shows that he had practically abandoned any English domicile, and might fairly be said to come within the principle under which colonists should be tried, if tried at all, for high treason in the part of South Africa to which they belong, and further, that taking into consideration the circumstance that he has suffered an imprisonment, or detention, of more than 2 years as a prisoner of war, it would be an act of some severity to place him on his trial here for high treason, where the penalty on conviction is of so severe

† African No. 710.

Án error, there being no memo. of that date by Mr. Cox.

3

a character in contrast with that imposed on persons tried in South Africa, who may. not have suffered any detention whatever prior to their being charged with high

treason.

With regard to evidence it is moreover submitted that what is disclosed in these papers is insufficient to justify the institution of proceedings for high treason against Enright. There is at present on the papers no direct evidence of Enright's being in arms at all beyond his admissions to Mr. Walton, Lieutenant Carden and Mr. Holting, those in his letter of the 9th December, 1902, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and those made in the course of his interview with Colonel Davies on the 17th Decem- ber, 1902. Some corroboration of these admissions is afforded by the evidence of Robert Gall, who states that in March or April, 1900, he saw Enright, whom he knew, at Jagersfontein Road Station, being escorted to Cape Town as a prisoner of war.. and there is also the fact that his name occurred in the printed list of prisoners of war captured at Bloemfontein on the 23rd March, 1900. The Director is not altogether able to explain that date, as the entry into Bloemfontein took place on the 13th March, but so it appears on the papers. Whether such evidence as this is sufficient to estab lish any overt act of treason is for the consideration of the Law Officers.

All

With regard to his British nationality, this depends upon his own statements, but he alleges that prior to the war, although doubtless in contemplation of the war, he had become a burgher, and on this point it may be observed that he would have been entitled by residence in the Transvaal to be naturalized apart altogether from the special provision for naturalization of persons not otherwise qualified who were will ing to take up arms in the service of the Republic, as was done in Lynch's case. that can be said to controvert bis allegation that he was naturalized is that no papers have been found supporting it, but this is hardly conclusive, and if it is suggested that, his nationality of origin is established by his own statements it seems somewhat questionable whether his own statements on another matter should be dis- regarded and rejected as false merely because the papers have not been found. It was not necessary in Lynch's case to consider whether naturalization prior to, but. in contemplation of, the outbreak of war would, apart from any undertaking to bear arms against the English forces in the service of the Republic, be an overt act of treason. but it is obvious this question would have to be determined on different considerations to those which were the subject of discussion in the case of Lynch. When the matter. was discussed at the Colonial Office it was supposed from the papers that the state- ments to be furnished from South Africa and from Major Banon would establish by direct evidence that Enright was serving in arms against the British forces, and that he was captured at Bloemfontein, but Robert Gall's evidence only proves that on a subsequent date he was a prisoner of war, and Major Banon does not profess to know Enright or really anything at all about his case.

Re JOHN HODGSON.

It appears that John Hodgson was born at Paisley, and went to South Africa in 1891, was in Rhodesia and the Orange River Colony up to 1898, and went imme diately before the war to the Transvaal, where, on the 27th and 28th December, 1899. that is, after the declaration of war, he took the oath of allegiance, and made a declara- tion of willingness to take up arms for the Republic under Article 1442 of the 29th September, 1899. His documents appear to be identical in form with those which were signed by Lynch, but the originals have not been sent to this country at present. and it is not known whether, or, if so, how, John Hodgson could be identified as being who took the oath, made the declaration and signed the documents. In person Lynch's case there was evidence of handwriting, but that in the case of an uneducated person would be probably less easy to obtain and less reliable than where, as in Lynch's case, the handwriting was easily recognisable. In any case that evidence is not at the present time available, and whether it could be established by two witnesses is at least doubtful.

the

The information originally furnished verbally was that Hodgson was captured at Paardeberg, which would presumably have been on the surrender of Cronje on the 27th February, 1900, but this is not shown by the papers and does not seem to be reconcilable either with the record of his arrest or with the statement of George Deddon, for at the latter end of October or the beginning of November, 1900 (probably the 19th November), Hodgson was a free man when he came to the Pass Office at