CO129-507-4 China- anti-piracy precautions- question of compensation to families of British officers killed or wounded 5-10-1928 - 2-1-1929 — Page 57

Copy.

(F 6338/43/10)

57

8. Billiter Square,

London, E.C.3.

15th November, 1928.

Dear Mr. Gwatkin,

The report in the "Times" of Mr. Locker Lampson's

reply in the House to questions on piracy in the Far East,

if correctly reported, is only partially correct and is

consequently misleading. I refer to the following sentence:

"Compensation has in the past been paid

1.

by the Government of Hong Kong in the case of the death or injury of officers of British ships as the result of resistance to piratical attacks, but now that the priacy regulations, which imposed on shipowners certain duties in connexion with the prevention of piracy, have been abolished in accordance with the ir wish so as to leave them a free hand to take their own measures, it seems likely that the Hong Kong Government will consider that the responsibility for compensating the families of the officers should also devolve on the shipowners.

The Government of Hong Kong only undertook respons-

ibility for compensating the families of officers and engin-

eers in respect of ships on the Hong Kong register as

notified in the Hong Kong Government Gazette dated April

25th 1924 as follows :-

"No.223. It is hereby notified for general information that grants will be made by Government in the event of the death or disablement of officers of ships on the Hong Kong register by reason of piratical attacks, provided that in no case will a grant be made unless Government is satisfied that the Piracy Regulations have been properly observed."

No compensation has been paid in respect to the death or

E.T. A. Ashton-Gwatkin Esq.

Foreign office,

S.W.1.

injury/