CLOSED UNTIL
No. 92610
Hong Kong
27/531/2
SUBJECT. 127
Previous
82837/31
Subsequent
Nguyen Ai Quốc
arrest of
Co129/539/2
85065 780/13 5,000 7/48 N.M.Ltd.
1 FO. 898/374/17
Ms. Fruelle
addressed
French Embarny
Fr. Tel 14
whether information itt
-transmitted is
outpuent
for junkose of appeal
No! ? Put by
No2. The only document received
the the cord of the fronding
so far is the uncorrected froof of cance
which has been sent to Burchells. There
be other documents in the nat
? be 10/2 with previous file
? hand copy of (2) to Burchells, enduring original of annexed précis (heeping the duplicate ) or ask whether they require
information
other points.
J. A. Calder
10/2/32 14. Duncan.
P.3. Than read the annexed prices but tham nor
Checked it with the documents in the file.
that this has already hen done by the Depur
theat the history of the case is accurately
set out.
44 To Ruschells (Me > + 3inary.) - Cons — 59m 82837/31 Qur? -
12 FEB 1932
Burchell
Well communicate parter of any
as ditional documenti or
vise required.
informatio
? be 27/2 if no feertuer letter from Burchell's
the Jamer
~17·2·32
Recriendured. - notmi further from Burcheurs.
I have spoken on the telephone to MT Charles
Burchell whose view still is that
furtuer documents on
informs? will
required in connection with this case
Hong Kong will be exfecting a reply
? Telegraph
as in dift
deft Renewitin
RuJamesa
Tee. No 41
G14. 29.2.32
29-2-32✓
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTĖ
Burchells
Iuggests that the haper
go to for Wilfred Howrs & requesti
mscūctims
I Burchells
Burchells
Ich 's, wit Kanks
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
Putly Walder
1.3.2 ton
10 to 6.T.D Burtell. Afor
Dieul to snow whether it will be possible to inform the Frenct
the French Consul
Stong Kong of 'he date Endyment will be
on which delivered.
as the F.O. have pointed out
to M. Truelle, unlikely that the nature of of the judgement will be known until
judgment has actually been passed, and, if, by any chance, it was known, it would be improper to inform the French
Government
as to it.
I am unable to see
from the correspondence
these papers that we can yet from any
accurate idea
to the dati
Judgment
in this case will be delivered.
I assume,
intended that the
French Government should infrom the French
Consul at Hong Kong
themselves, informed
We may reply that the Sec: of State
regnets that is
is not yet possible to
as to when judgment
will be passed in this case,
and that
he cannot undertake to do more than
inform F.O. of the terms
soon as it is
of communicated to him,
the judgment
in onder that they may acquaint the
French Government.
Add that he will
keep F.O. fully informed of the progress
the case
from which it sisses will
probably be possible to obtain
when the judgment may
accurate idea
be expected to be given,
announced
even if no specific date
is setite for this
Win Mone
When we get information as to the date when
this case will be heard, and, if the judgment is
reserved, as to the date when the judgment will be
delivered, we can of course pass it on to the
Foreign Office, and it ought to be sufficient if we
promise them to do that.
to refly falder
12 2 7.0.
(11 anad).
APR 1932
13. Burchello
He. capers
Mr. Lewrs, Sending
ipologises for
Mor. Freed y
? Await informs:
thearing
isa not-
Frien we have my need to furs on to to
Kuramerion
44.4.21. 14/4/32 19. Duncan.
Mr. Bushe
I understand that you have learnt'
from Sir Stafford Cripps that this Privy
Council case was due to come on, and that
he was in grave doubt whether he would be
able to defend the action of the Hong Kong
Government in issuing an order under
section 6 of the Deportation Ordinance for
the expulsion of Nguyen ai Quoc by the
steamship leaving for Saigon. I gather
that Sir Stafford Cripps was of the opinion
that an attempt to defend this order might
result in the validity of the deportation
order under section 3 being questioned 1
which would be very embarrassing to the
Hong Kong Government in any such case in
the future. Sir Stafford Cripps was
proposing to settle the matter, giving an
undertaking that the order under section 6
would not be enforced, at the same time
agreeing to pay, on behalf of the Hong
Kong Government, a sum of 2250 as part
of the costs of the appeal.
The validity of the
order under section 3 would then be
unquestioned and the Hong Kong Government
would be able to expel Nguyen ai Quoc
without further ado, which is all they
have desired to do all along.
This settlement would, of course,
not be acceptable to the French Government
but when I informed Mr. Howard Smith of the
Foreign Office of the matter, he did not
appear to be unduly perturbed, but said that
the French Government had been informed that
the matter was one for decision by the Privy
they Council; and would have to abide by the results
of the appeal, whatever they might be. I also
took the opportunity to mention the matter to
Sir William Peel who was entirely satisfied to
abide by Sir Stafford Cripps' advice and sav
no objection to the payment of the sum sugge st ed
provided that the expulsion order against
Nguyen ai Quoc remained in force.
We can await confirmation? Se no 14.
Hollowell
Burchells
The Dincai came belove the Indiceal
Committee of the Irvy Conval
24th June
Then Lordships allowed the
Append to be
withdrawn
Arranged
Copy of the
will follow
14 A. 914B
Mr Cowell.
[ M. Bushe is on leave and will noth back
until July 5]
Tham just received the two attached lettes dated June 28 from Masses Burchello with Enclosures.
Les cable
Weshall now ham to inform Stone Kone ~ of the position; and I think that when writing
to the F.O.
Ich should Enclose a
of Counsat's opinion.
14. Duncan
Draft's herewith
on Gov. ll. No.81
24 Jure 32
16. 2015. Cons; (of limon) -
17 To F.0.
whe end in 14; 15°
2- JUL 1932
Burchell
ESTRUTED UNDER STA UC
Eng. £250- towards
the Contentation of
the Appellanti Costs will
thes Comiting or
in Horghing
? Reply that funless payment has been made in Hongkong
to which we have no informs arrangements can be made payment either in this country
with copy Heamerson
Hồng Mong
thef (16)
07/18) 66 (AG, Hong Kong LF.
Volalder
The 7.0, rang up about (17). Thy
are in rather
as to what sort of explanation
a difficulty
to make to the French,
asked if
F.O. All Gyphan
telegraph to H.K., asking the Govt. to keep the French Consul informed of the steps taken
by Got. regarding the deportation rider, of any
available
particulars as to date & route of defarture of Qure Iit will be noted from No. 5 on 828
83%, that Quoe's lawyers had then washed that recrey as to his departure be obsessed, & that the Gov. did not propose to suede to the Fr. Consul General's request for information as to date and method of departure.
I think we have landed H. K. in
mough trouble and exfense by trying
to fleuse the french. The counse
suggested
spirit of the settlement of the Pony Comil
7.0. would be at least contrary to the
appeal. 3 Tell 70 that we do not think it
desirable to rend such a telegram.
J. A. Calder
/ Entirely apree with the proposed reps to the FO.
gth 4.32 + HB (1)
8/7/32 11. Duncan
19 To Burchells
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
Burchell.
Ark (19).
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
11 JUL 1932
Burchello
glad to receive
With be glad
SANTHOSED UNDER DIATUTS for £350 to the orver of Mecan
Light & Fulton.
22 7045-97 37447
Mr. Rony of letter
Addresses
to Jacques
Truelle.
No 20? Putby
No 21. ? Authorise CA to send
for £250 to Burchells as
in their letter
requested
Copy of letter to CA with copy
Jizi) to the Conf 27
No 22? Copy
ence to HK
Heuf gemerson
23 DNY TEZ 148
whether the consent of the 12
Austration Good. Can be obtained
Quve to proceed to Australia In route. for. England
The HR foot has undertaken to
use it's best endeavours to secure that
Quoc should reach a
to which he
desires to go. Hey intimated his wish to come to England (which was for originally mentioned in (27) on 82837/31) via Austrália
0982837/31
Despite (34) The DAG appears to assume that Quoc will be allowed to come to
England hast for hus stay there alone is required.
o that the consent of the Australian
durking transit
? The Brition foot is not however in any way committed by the settlement a it is most unlikely tuck the M. H.O.
will permit quoc to land in this country. (seech: Calders minute of 5.195 on 82837/21) There is no point in consulting 1.0
unleas the H.D.
to let Quoc come.
Wrcle to H.01 ref (34) on 82837/32
enclosing copy of (23). Say that the appeal
to the Privy Council to which ref
made in (34) on 82837
settled on
the terms stated in the enclosure to
(14 A) of that the Raitis Ford HH Gout in the UK
See also
ofie. 7 on Nos 20-22.
committed by
the Terms
of the settlement. Enquire what toply should be sent to the Pres regarding the quoc's desire to proceed to England.
Add that for the present
taken to obtam
the consent of the Australian foot
for Quoc to enter Australia & theme for the purpose of trans hifponent :
D.O. to see
Mr. Buche has rent two letters to Burchell,
of which copies are annexed. No action in
(23) till we
(22) Put by
(21) We must telegraph to Gov., in case
be fays locally on the withority of (15),
To for tel. No.98
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
Itlalder
19.7.32 for
25 So. C. Burchell
To 6. Brosshell.
27 C Burchell
Suburbs her
Sɛɛiny minute
Clause.3. 2
of 24/8/32. 1.DJ-
interpretation of
settlement
? Write to H.O.
Jamieson's minute
suggested in Alls.
$18.7, giving
interpretation of the 30 clause as in (27),
grs. 4/1/32
One TEL 15-2
No objection being band. here
DESTROYED UNDER STATITE
29 0.a. g. Tel 151
Reports enquiries of French Connel regarding
huoc's it was to conownance in this attitude.
it mierday
Does not propone to reveal it
and enquires as
? Copy of (29) to F.O. saying that
to their concurrence it is
subject to their
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
Action 7:27
proposed to reply
itinerary
Quocs proposed dery
should not be disclosed.
Kufquesor
Ninstant CA. to pay
£250 as in (21j. Iflalder. 17
F.O. (w/e 29) (cons)
30% To Ho. (w/e 23) to OKC. Cont: /u/2 (18, 19)
man would.
land either
23 JUL 1932
certain kat this
the Union, and
permitted to
in Australia
could not
approach them without
giving his history.
JR. Janslaugh
34 70 8495.374.17.
French Conent
to those
should reply
in terms
statis reasons
Burchells
DESTROYED UNDER STAY accounts
of charges
29.732. disbursements.
36. H.Gr. in Canada (5.0.0)
(el. 237.
"Following from S. of S. for the Cols. for Wilson.
Enquires why know should come to England.
Presumes action is
inth F.O.
(34). The F.O. ray of about this,
of the French Legation was extling
the Counsellor
elling about it in the 29th. After spending to his J. Shuckburgle,
I told them that we
adhered to our view & did
not wish to ash the for. to say anything
to the French Consuls. At the interview the
70. managed to ratify the H. Consellor that
could do
(34) will be nee
more in HK,
recevry.
rafly to
(36). I have telephoned to the H.D. several times yesterday & today. They have promised to expedite their decision, but I do not like to delay a reply to (86) any longer. Draft bewith.
J.H. Calder 32
37 Tes. to Depth HC. Canada 291 4 Ang/32
38 Burchella pr
Twde pint 7 It is Oral in Counsel for "transmission to the. Con't from which the
Appeal was.
Is not prepared to agree
admessun into
35. H.K. must pay, het it is a bad
business.
? Authings CA. to pay Burchells
₤391-10/-;rafy le
; vcrfy letter to CA. ring
enclos. in (35) to
38. ? Enclosure in orig
H.K. for Infor LF.
to BAS., H.K. LF
39. Draft teley. hermith for
Copy of its panphase to tto. & FOLfg. A. Calder
40 Luk EN HIL. NO 10.3
#Rlowell
(23+24 auss) 6 Ang im
41 To 30-39ans w/e 40 - B/12th) 8.
70 - 3400s 1/2 40-1B/122)
44.20 OMC. 2614 (udhandlinging in 25.38) A/1.
نه الماره
45 Only Tel. 191
clawns the right to
Has been
purees to England.
An extension of
2 months of
his Compulung departure. vong trong
After speaking to Mr Calder ✓
Submit for conson aft of a letter to Burchells for M. Bushe's sig
4.F. Jactions indicated on aft
Ratameson
46 To. Burchells. - W/k-28, 39, 40, 45,
$47707.01 41. Ho. |
49 Burchells
Subimti obsins
the right to proceed
As th. Burchell cap
to England.
he will lay
ffore we
ger hold of Sin S. Griffe, I suffere
perizer letter for him речи
In his reply of 19.7.32.(No.27) to Mr.Bushe's letter of the same date (No.26)
both of which I saw yesterday on my return
from leave Mr.Burchell said
"The whole trouble arose from the very
"frank statement made at consultation that
"what had been done in Hong Kong was because
"extradition was not applicable, and therefore
"the end was to be obtained in another way."
This, I take it, is an attempt by
Mr.Burchell to shift the responsibility for the
settlement in question from the shoulders of
Sir S.Cripps (whom he had asked to be allowed to
brief as Leader) to mine.
Be that as it may, this statement by
Mr.Burchell is inaccurate and misleading, because
Sir S.Cripps opened the consultation with the
following crude observation, which surprised me:
"This is a ramp, is it not? I want some
instructions in the matter from the Colonial
Office." In short, before I or anyone else
present at the consultation had said anything, he
made it clear
what his own opinion
of the case was; and he then proceeded to
amplify his views on the subject in response to
Mr.Wilfrid Lewis's request as to what he meant by
a "ramp".
In the discussion which ensued, and
in which Sir S.Cripps pointed out that a lot of
unpleasant things would probably be said in Court,
it is true that, in reply to his further question
as to whether the Colonial Office in this case were
out for "a man hunt", I hastened to say that in my
·X. Ser now also M. Busles
minute of 16/8/32 on Grueral 90157/
attached.
view they were not. It is true that I pointed out
to Sir S.Cripps that I had myself advised (see my
minute of 19.9.31 on Hong Kong 82837/31 attached) that
the order made under section 6 of the Deportation
Ordinance should be withdrawn, and that Quoc should
be ordered to leave Hong Kong within a specified time;
that I understood Mr.Bushe had agreed to this (see his
minute of 6.10.31 on the same file); and that this
was the course we had thought it proper to adopt.
It is also true that I explained to Sir S.Cripps that
it was contrary to the principles generally observed
to use the machinery provided by Ordinances for the
expulsion of undesirable persons as a substitute for
extradition proceedings (i.e. where such proceedings
were not possible), and I cited the advice which I gave
(and with which Mr.Bushe agreed) in the recent
Trinidad case (see my minute of 15.6.32; Mr.Bushe's
minute of 16.6.32; and the Department's letter to the
Foreign Office No.7 – in Trinidad 95839/32 attached)
All this, I may add, was gone into in view
of the attitude adopted at the outset by Sir S.Cripps
himself and in similar circumstances I should take
the same line again. The apparent suggestion that a
client should not be frank with counsel who is appearing
for him is, to say the least of it, a novel one!
In any case, I told Sir S.Cripps at the
consultation that I did not wish him to commit us in
any way until I had informed Mr.Bushe (who, owing to othe
work, had been unable to attend and had asked me to go
in his place) of the position.
This I did, and
Mr.Bushe subsequently got into touch with Sir S.Cripps
on the telephone.
H. Duncan.
2 August, 1932.
50. Burchells
Burchells 24.8.32
Please register the attached letter
24/8/32 and Enclosure from M. Burchell
to M. Bushe
and ceiculate
11. Duncan
Praft tel. herewith. r Tuncan will no
doubt say whether a request for a fee
for this opinion is reasonable. If so,
we can authorise C.A. to pay such sum
as may be arranged.
and the reply should be sent
to .0. who should be informed that the
reply was based on an opini on obtained
from Sir S.Cripps.
I ham made certain alterations in the attached draft telegram after discursion
with M. Cowell.
I think we can and to aper for this opuiion provided it is a modest one. the file is reciculated to me hill.
Write to Mess Burchells on the subject.
29/8/32.
To mound
11. Duncan.
was 29, 532
5t Lo Gov. Tel No. 113 - 45 Aud. 29.8.32
5.2 0.A. G. Tel.
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
ESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
Toro (west)
DESEROTONDER, STAT
JENO (27 MEMA) 31 Augrasz.
To. Burchello
Please see my reply to Merns Burchells.
57a Burchells
Ach. (56) with thank, and will Arrange with In Stafford Cuffs Cleck
Accordingly.
Mulamess
Burchells
Trs copy letter from Marrs Light & Fulton, did - 13/9 - Stating that after avsanyents had been concluded for Sung to leave H.K. for Syland, intimatio was received that he would not be allowed in England. Ark that the matter may be deall with myently.
Burchells
Oft submitted after speaking & Me Duncan
To turshells (570ss amps) 22
Burchell.
DESTROY LINK TATUTE
Acis (59) with thanke
Put by Walder
br Light & Fulton
21th Sept
interview
the question
Early date to discuss
Of & noi's deportation
Mens Bunhell
( Encloser copies of letters to Mens Light & Fulton)
It seems
and might be
undesirable, to grant the interview
asked for in 61. Draft her with for
J. A. Calder
(.3 f Light + Fulton (61 amx.)
bet Light & Fuellin
cies receipt of (63) & exper
their dissatisfaction
of the contents
with the native
deal with
Nos/2770 (34) on 82837/31 Quse's attempt to get permission come to this country last year.
His request
refused.
Idiscussed with you
as agreed submit short dift reply for conse
66 Light
LL. ANSW
11/10/22
12.10.32
Acks No65
7 comments thereon.
9 Fullan
nr o The solicitors deliberately twist everything
to them. Ms Cowell agrees that we
should not reply.
Post by Ilalder
14-10-32
67 Light & Sultan
25.10.32
Requests intemin negdg. queation
whether Sung than the cauld proceed do
Russia sin
Phạm Kongland.
II Quae wants to get to Russia
his obvious route would be rea
Siberia and I forces that Hong Kong
arrange for his passage
readivostock.
The responsibility for refusing
to permit quse to come to England rests
with the H.D.
• Informm Light Hulton that
the question of whether M. Seng rau Cho should be permitted to come to England in transit to Russia is a matter for the
H.O. and
that they should
address themselves to that office. Say that a copy of their letter is being sent to liff H.O.
Inform H.. by telephone what
we are doing send to H.D. (at the same time as we write to hight & dulton)
copies of renal 56 64 61, 63, 64, 65, 66,
be informed as
67& above letter
55 and conversation
asking that we
to the outcome of the further application.
(Ifowhen we hear that it has been
lumed down Ilink the best course will
be to so inform HK by tel asking whether
can not range as at A/aband)
Reply that the normal route to Ranie
from Ho Kang jo
via Vladivostock
would obviously
be more convenient for der
lung Man Tho to travel by
that route.
J. A. Calder
27-10-32
Yes- but why not add about Ho
fermission tolome through Cuyland"
& send all the corresp. to H.D. imp. LF. It is not our bromers to plead the
this man
A Blowell
VS. 28/10/32
༢༠ ། ག་ག་ན་ས་ ་ ་ ་ ་ ་ ་ ་ ་
4.4.alton
69.5.1.0 — p.
61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68
11.ANSWD.
-4/11/12
13/1.19.41/11/32
Enqunes whether
towned the expenditure
Contribution
involved can
be recovered from the French Authorities,
or from desperat fundo
140 606,693/10.
cally Sy
Correspond eme
with Light & Fulton
Theme is I imagine very chance of obtaining anything from Irance towards the cost of this The Ireuch have not oblained the
to deportation of Quoc to French Indo luina a are not even to be informed of his destination when deported so they would no value for any payment. I do not expect that the F.D. would wish to
The Treasury would hardly be likely to agree to any part of the costs Huis case falling upon unporeal funds hough from the Hong Kong point of res it is most unsatisfactory host the costs should have had to be inccorred as a result of directions Senk
In the first place
? Send duplicate of (70) to F. L.F. for Hsons Hef (54)
Conf LF.
* The mistake was mache in the decisin a No.11 on
• File 82837/31
To Some extent but the rear trouble Was the Settlement.
Ithink we must now let the DAG know what has happened sence
we last telegraplied. The deportation of Quoc to Vladwostack would be within the terms of the instructions
contained in the labt para sentense
as he has now
7(51) especially expressed through his a desire to goto Russia
Isubmit ift for
Isabnick
Solicitors
Hurgueser
There is not the least chann of the Freuch
or the Treamy paying, & I should be inclined to sopiform H.K. with regret.
No.71. I am disinclined to telegraph. The you.
to a named destination only by
could defort to
of a freak stuffing order, & we
have more court actions.
Aslottis see my lete 2026
? Simply send copy of 61, 63, 64, 65, 66,
you confid LF jar infor.
J-t. Calder
17.11.32
It is clear from the minutes under (II:
on 32937/31 that the decision to instruct the
Covernor to deport hoc to Indo-China was
taken by Lord assfield on the merits of the
case as they were then seen, and that there
is no ground for holding the rench Lovt. or
the .0. responsible for that decision. here
is, therefore, no basis for any claim against
either, even if there were the remotest chance
of any such claim Leing admitted. „e can,
therefore, only reply as proposed.
I would not send any further instruct ions
to the Covernor, who has sufficient guidance
in our telegram no. (51) No doubt les rs light
and ulton have reported to Choc s lawyers in
Hong kong the result of their endeavours in
this country. It will be enough to send the
correspondence to overnor proposed.
# Rlowell
72. LoC Code (26)
18.11.320
Jrs 18/11/32
73. to OKC Conl) (Wed(265) All.
61,63,64,65,
66,67,68,71/
day. senet
Requests, renfication of (34) on 82837/3,
See on 92610/1/32 Secret Ku Jameror
28·41-32
75 To Sav. Secret-74 anad- ms.
16 Gor. Secret -.
92610/1/32 Senet--13.12.32
31. 1. 33
Reports circumstances in which
Quoe was
chung trong
allowed to leave
It appears that Quoc has finally departed from Hong Kong But the whole position i
most unsatisfactory, as the loo states
The duplicate of (76) has
12525/33 Several
been blaced on
? This file can lesefore be put by
[Malde Lymchweeney – 9.3.33
We ought to let 7.0. have
Hallowell
The Western Dept of the F.D. have
asked us to send a
copy of (76)
Secret LF
785440 bu 4276 -
92610/xenes.
7--MAKSE
GOVERNMENT HOUSE.
HONG KONG, 31st January, 1933.
15/12588
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of your secret despatch of the 13th December, 1932,
regarding your cypher telegram No. 124 of the 8th
October, 1931 and to inform you that the misunderstanding
referred to in the third paragraph of your despatch
under reply was due to the fact that Nguyen Ai Quoc's
solicitors here had been informed in accordance with
the incorrect paraphrase of your telegram of the 8th
October that Nguyen Ai Quoc's admission to England would
not be objected to. It is not possible to say exactly
at what time this information was communicated as this
appears to have been done in conversation of which there
is no written record. It was however known to the
Solicitors in June 1932 when after the receipt of your
telegram No. 81. giving the terms of settlement of the
appeal by Nguyen Ai Quoc to the Privy Council, the Crown
Solicitor together with Mr. L.H.V. Booth of the Police
Department who was in charge of the case began to explore with Nguyen's solicitors the possibility of Nguyen's
reaching England, which was a "place to which he desired to
: go" and was by a misinterpretation of your telegram No.
124/1931 believed to be willing to receive him.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
SIR P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER, G.B.E., M.C., M.P.
2. In the following August however the receipt
of your telegrams Nos. 103 and 113 indicated some mistake
and although its exact nature was not understood, its
existence and the actual facts regarding your instructions
were communicated in guarded terms to Nguyen's solicitors
who passed them on to Messrs. Light & Fulton in equally
guarded terms. They also told Nguyen himself and from
that time he abandoned all idea of going to England and
concentrated on an endeavour to reach Vladivostok.
3. Here again serious difficulties arose. Nguyen
would not trust himself on any but a Soviet ship
proceeding direct to Vladivostok and such ships do not
call at Hong Kong. An endeavour was made to arrange
for him to proceed under surveillance to Singapore, but
the Government of the Straits Settlements found themselves
unable to concur. Finally Nguyen's solicitors were told
that their client must be out of the Colony on or before
the 15th January to which date I had extended the time
limit by order under Section 6 (1)(c) of the Ordinance
and that he would be freed from custody and
surveillance a few days before that date in order that
he might depart with as much secrecy as he could devise.
After much argument it was arranged that he should be
fetched from the Prison hospital in a car by a Cadet
Officer attached to the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs
on the afternoon of the 28th December and released in
the streets, on the clear understanding that after the
15th January he remained in the Colony at his peril.
This scheme was duly carried out but on the 15th
January information was given to the police by the
French Consul to the effect that Nguyen had been to
Singapore and was then on his way back to Hong Kong and
on the 19th January the police meeting the s.s. "Ho Sang"
from that port observed Nguyen about to land and arrested
4. Nguyen's solicitors at once protested that the
action of the police was in breach of the undertaking not
to exercise surveillance over Nguyen's movements outside the
Colony and further had defeated careful plans for covering
the deportee's tracks and was contrary to the Hong Kong Government's responsibility, for "using the best endeavours
to secure that the appellant should reach the place to
which he desired to go" without exposing him to the danger of
arrest by the French Authorities.
5. I do not agree that the facts support any such
view but was advised that in the circumstances it might be better to ignore Nguyen's technical breach of the deportation
order and to set him at liberty with a view to making a
further attempt to get away unnoticed towards his desired
destination which was declared to be Vladivostok.
Accordingly with considerable reluctance I directed the
police to release their prisoner and this was done the
same night (19th January). At the same time the solicitors
were informed that the law would only hold its hand for
a further three days. This they claimed was quite
inadequate for their object, namely, a secret departure
northwards and I was considering some further latitude
when they decided to take no further responsibility for
Nguyen's safety and informed the Government that he would
be leaving by the s.s. "Anhui" at 5 p.m. on the 22nd
January and called upon me to implement the undertaking
given on behalf of this Government at the settlement of the
appeal in the words quoted above.
Thereupon I decided to make a definite offer
assistance by arranging that a non-Government launch
should be put at Nguyen's disposal at a given time and
place and should convey him to a point some distance from the "Anhui's" berth at which it would be arranged
that the ship should stop and receive him on board as a
belated passenger, the only person having knowledge of his identity being an Assistant Superintendent of Police who knew him and could take charge of the manoeuvre. This offer was accepted, and executed according to to plan.
7. I also considered the possibility of asking
the Shanghai police not to molest Nguyen on his arrival there but was strongly advised to the contrary as such
а step was much more likely to bring the French Authorities there in search of the fugitive than to protect him.
Whether the same sources of information as told the French
Consul of Nguyen's arrival in Singapore and return
therefrom will have been too efficient to be deceived
by this final effort I cannot of course say. I fear they may and have thought it desirable to give you full information regarding the issue of this troublesome case, because
judging from the attitude of Nguyen's solicitors in the past it seems probable that if he is caught at Shanghai they will
renew in London the accusation of breach of faith which
they have so freely used here.
In conclusion I must draw your attention to the very unsatisfactory position which this case and the
similar one of Tan Malaka reveals. The police of this Colony have had in their hands two of the most dangerous of Moscow's agents in the Far East but have been powerless
to do anything, beyond deporting them from Hong Kong, to prevent them from continuing to work for the
subversion of European rule in the Far East and in the
present case have actually been obliged to assist in getting the agent back into touch with his Russian
principals.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
Governor, &C.,
TIG NG KONG.
Eng on 92610/1/32 Secret.
Downing Street,
December, 1932.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of kr.Southorn's despatch of the 27th of October, 1932,
regarding the case of Sung Man Cho alias Nguyen Ai Quoc,
with which was enclosed for verification a copy of a
paraphrase of my cypher telegram No.124 of the 8th of
October, 1931, and to inform you that the word "not"
in the sentence: "His coming to England would not be
objected to by the Home Office" in the paraphrase
forwarded, is, as was suspected, a mistake.
2. There is no longer in existence any copy of the telegraphic groups sent, but a copy of the original
message enciphered is still available. A close
paraphrase of it reads "Home Office most unlikely to agree to Nguyen coming to England", and from this it
appears that in order to make the sense of the messa e
as sent the sme as that of the paraphrase forwarded with the despatch under reply, it would have been necessary for the words "most likely" to have been enciphered instead of the words "most unlikely". In view of the
clarity of the sentence in question, that seems very im-
probable. It therefore seems almost certain that the
mistake arose when the paraphrase of the telegram was made in Hong Kong.
3. I should be glad to know whether the
misunderstanding to which reference was made in the
LOVERNOR
SIR WILLIAM P3L, K.C.M.C., K.B.E.,
first paragraph of a letter dated the 25th of October,
1932, from Messrs. Light and Fulton, a copy of which
was enclosed with my Confidential (2) despatch of the
25th of November, 1932, was due to some communication
made to the Hong Kong solicitors who were representing or to Nguyen Ai Quoc.
Nguyen Ai Quoc himself, as a result of the incorrect
paraphrase.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient
humble servant,
(Sgd.) P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER.
No. SECRET.
Duplicate regt 92610/1/32
GOVERNMENT HOUSE,
HONG KONG,
27th October, 1932.
With reference to recent correspondence dealing
with the deportation of Sung Man Cho alias Nguyen Ai Quoc
and more particularly to my telegram No.171 of 18th August, 1932, and your reply No.113 of 29th August, 1932,
regarding the destination of this deportee, I have the honour to enclose a copy of the paraphrase of your (cypher telegram No.124 of 8th October, 1931, as it stands
in the records of this Government and to request that it may be verified with the original message.
On 82837/11
In the light of your more recent instructions it seems probable that the word 'NOT' in the sentence "His
coming to England would not be objected to by the Home Office" is a mistake, but as the original cypher message
has been destroyed further investigation here is
impossible.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
W.D. Southor.
Officer Administering the Government.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
SIR P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER, G.B.E., M.C., M.P.,
CONFIDENTIAL.
From: Secretary of State (124)
Governor, Hong Kong.
Dated: 8th October, 1931.
9th October, 1931.
PARAPHRASE.
Your telegram No, 182 of September 25th, 1931.
Nguyen Ai Quốc.
On what grounds did the Court grant leave to
I should like to know
appeal to the Privy Council?
precisely.
His coming to England would not be objected to
by the Home Office. Would it not be sufficient were
he to be released and allowed to make his own
arrangements for leaving Hong Kong within a given time?
If so, I would consult the Foreign Office, so as to
smooth out any possible French objections.
Mr. Delahunt. 23/11/32.
Hong rong.
92610/1932. Hong Zon
Downing Street,
Novr. 1932.
Mr. Parkinson.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
I have, etc. to ack.
the receipt of ir.Southorns
Confidential despatch of
HONG KONG.
CONFIDENTIAL.
Copy 61.63,
the 13th of October on
the subject of the expenditure
incuurred in connection with
64, 65, 66,67,68, and 71 Govr. Conf. LF.
the appeal to the Privy Council
in the case of Sung Man-cho
alias Nguyen ai Quoc,
I regret that i
rcumstances, I can see
no prospect of any part of
the expenditure in question
being recovered from the
French authorities or from
Imperial funds, and I have
accordingly decided that no
useful purpose would be served
by approaching the French Govt
or the Treasury in the matter.
I have, etc.
(Sgd.) P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER.
16 NOV 2
The Under Secretary of State,
Home Office,
London, S.W.1.
H.O. Ref. No. 606, 692/10.
The Under Secretary of State,
COLONIAL OFFICE.
Copies of the undermentioned papers are forwarded for information.
Home Office.
15th November, 1932.
Name and date.
Reference to previous correspondence:
(Letter (92610/32) from Colonial
Office dated
November, 1932.
Description of Enclosures.
Letter from Messrs.Light & Fulton dated the 9th November 1932 and Home Office reply dated the 15th November 1932.
ter sent to
D 6276-1 300 I B
Subject.
Sung Man Cho.
Light & Fulton.
5 & 6, Clement's Inn,
9th November 1932.
We have been referred by the Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office to you, with regard to the question
of Mr. Sung Man Cho passing through England from Hong Kong
to Russia.
We shall be obliged if you could give us an
appointment at an early date to discuss this matter with
Yours faithfully,
(Signed)
Light & Fulton.
Under Secretary of State,
Home Office,
606,692/10.
HOME OFFICE,
WHITEHALL.
15th November, 1932.
Gentlemen,
With reference to your letter of the 9th instant
regarding Mr.Sung Man Cho, I am directed by the Secretary of
State to say that he regrets that he is not prepared to
authorise any facilities for Ir. Cho's journey to this country
en route for Russia, In the circumstances an interview would
serve no useful purpose.
Hessrs.Light & Fulton, 5 à 6 plement's Inn,
3trand, W.0.2.
Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
No. CONFIDENTIAL.
GOVERNMENT HOUSE,
HONG KONG, 13th October, 1932.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of the telegram and despatches noted in the margin,
Telegram from Secretary of State) relating to the appeal to
No.81 dated 29th June, 1932.
Confidential despatch from
Secretary of State dated 1st July, 1932.
Despatch from Secretary of State
No.264 dated 10th August,
the Privy Council by Sung
Man-cho alias Nguyen Ai
Quoc, and to enquire whether
some contribution towards
the expenditure involved in these proceedings can be recovered from the French Authorities or, failing
that, from Imperial funds.
Prior to the receipt of these claims the
funds of this Colony had already been charged with the payment of $7,500 by way of damages to Nguyen in respect of the detention found by the Court to be ### by reason of defects in procedure and it is realized that this expenditure, though regrettable, is one for which the Colony must be responsible. But the appeal, involving a payment of £250 to the appellants and £391.10.0. to Messrs. Burchells, is, it is submitted, on a very different footing in that
it arose solely out of the pressure brought by the
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
SIR P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER, G.B.E., M.C., M.P.,
82837/31
French Authorities to secure a course of action which
could not mure to the benefit of the Colony. It
will be recalled that the original intention of this Government as notified in Sir William Peel's telegram
No.142 of 24th July, 1931, was to remove Nguyen from the Colony with all speed and prohibit his return for a period of years and it was not until the receipt of your telegram No.94 of 7th August, 1931, that steps were taken to compel Nguyen not merely to leave the Colony but to proceed to Indo-China. It was precisely these steps which led the Colonial Court to grant leave for the appeal to the Privy Council which
has resulted in the cancellation of these steps at a cost of nearly £650, apart from the charges (which
still continue) for the maintenance of Nguyen until his
departure to a destination of his own chasing can be
arranged.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
to D. Southook.
Officer Administering the Government.
Mr. Dela funt 2 "1
AST. Bickle
r. Parkinson.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
messos Light & Fulton.
92610/32
Gentleman
hovember, 1932
I am etc. to acknowledge
the receipt of your
(67) 7 the 25th of October.
Coby ONS. (93
copy 61.63, 64./65, 66, heft.0.27.
67 + This
regarding
the case
luc sung hạn bảo
and to inform you that the question whether her Sung man lobo can be granted permission to bar
come to England from
in the way to
dụng đồng Russia concerns the
in trawick to
Home Office. In the
crcumstances
circumstances I am to
with should communicate in the matter with
that Department, matter to which copy of Your letter is being said.
2. I am however to point out
that the normal route to Russia
from Hong Kong is via Kladivostock Vladwostok, and that it would
oborously he more convenient hur. Sung Man Coles to travel by
that route.
(Signed) H. R. COWER
ACKD. BY P.C.
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS, “DOSSIER, LONDON"
LIGHT & FULTON.
DONALD OWEN LIGHT.
THOMAS A.GROSE.
/ 260CT J52
SOLICITORS AND
NIAL LAW AGENTS.
TEL. NO 1027 HOLBORN.
70, HIGH STREET,
SEVENOAKS.
'PHONE: 716.
The Under Secretary of State
Colonial Office,
5 & 6, CLEMENT'S INN,
STRAND, W. C. 2.
25th October 1932.
ra Mr. Sung Man Cho.
Your Ref. 92610/1932
With further reference to your letter of the 11th
inst., we at once cabled out to our Hong Kong agents for
substantiation of their instructions to us that the Home Office
consented last year to Mr. Sung Man Cho landing in this country.
Their answer has just been received as follows:- "We were informed
"Home Office verbally consented. Are now informed previous
"information probably inaccurate due to a misunderstanding".
In view of this we at once desire to express our
regret at making what appears now to be an inaccurate statement
to you in our letter of the 1st inst. We were relying on our
instructions being accurate.
If the decision to refuse to allow this gentleman
to come to England is definite may we urge that he be allowed
transit through England to Russia with whatever safeguards you
may wish to impose against his remaining in England. For this
purpose we should be obliged if you would grant us the courtesy
of an interview to discuss this point
Yours faithfully
1th full5%, fulto.
LIGHT & FULTON.
DONALD OWEN LIGHT.
THOMAS A. GROSE.
SOLICITORS AND
COLONIAL LAW AGENTS.
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS, "DOSSIER, LONDON"
TEL. NO 1027 HOLBORN.
30CT 1842
70, HIGH STREET, SEVENOAKS.
'PHONE: 716.
5 & 6, CLEMENT'S INN,
STRAND, W. C. 2.
12th October 1932.
re Mr. Sing Man Cho.
92610/1932
We are in receipt of your letter of yesterday's
date, which appears to us to be a contradiction in itself.
You state that the settlement was approved by
the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government of Hong Kong;
that is to imply that the Secretary of State, while approving
on behalf of the Governor of Hong Kong to the clause that the
Government of Hong Kong would use its best endeavours to enable
Mr. Sung Man Cho to reach a place of safety, had already decided at
that time, that it would be useless for the Government of Hong
Kong to use any endeavours to allow Mr. Sung Man Cho to reach
England.
Ca/n PC.
It seems incredible to us that such can really
been the intention of the Secretary of State at that time.
are cabling to Hong Kong with regard to the
latter portion of your letter, but our instructions here from
Hong Kong are definitely to the contrary.
Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Yours faithfully,
My Jameson 4/10 Mr.
asks.. (66
Mr. Calder 4:10
Buste de reperuction
"ur Cowell 6.
Mr. Parkinson.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shyokburgh.
Gentlemen
XSiv [64] of your
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
65 92610/32
11. Oct 1952
paper 7.1. I am ete to ack the recepti
letter of the 1st of Ock regarding
5747 Buy ran the [and
fears you must
kers Light & Ballon
ca/4 440 (69)
Forconsor
The Settlement:
the case
that he fears
be under a
misapprehension
as H.M. foot in the D.K. were
concerned in
or in the settlement
reached and So
Sir Philip Cumliffe tester is aware,
H.M. Goot in the that no
time lask
year expressed
it's willingness to allow
MT Bung Man Cho to land
in tries
hot the intention
this case was affroudly the bee] State on behalf Itte forr & HK, G Certauch
this country. The fomnos
was, on the other hand
SIS that, the teams agreed should give,
"Su Machs the right to come to definitely informed that
this Cowly.
there was no likelihood that such perminixion would be
Mr. Calder. 24/9/32.
Mr. Burke 226
Mr. Parkinson.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
X Sir J. Shuckburgh. 261
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
92610/32.
Downing Street,
Gentlemen,
September, 1932.
I am etc. to ack. the
MESS S LIGHT AND FOULTON.
Coly ORS (73.
169).0.1 400
receipt of your letter of the 21st
of September on the subject of the
case of Mr. Sung Man Cho, and to
inform you that in so far as the
interpretation of the terms of the
settlement
applications of the Privy Council
appeal is concerned, he has nothing
of 20th leftember
to add to the letters which have has
been sent to you by Messrs.Burchells.
If, on the other hand, you wish to
urge that, quite apart from the terms
of the settlement, Mr. Sung Man Cho
should be permitted to come to this
country, I am to inform you that the
admission of aliens to this country is
a matter for the Home Office, and
he would not be prepared to ask
that Department to modify its decision.
2. In the circumstances
inform you that he sees no advantage in
granting you an interview to discuss the
it would not affear that
Any useful fundre
Could be served hy
interview.
I am, etc.
(Signed) J
A. CALDER
LIGHT & FULTON.
DONALD OWEN LIGHT.
THOMAS A.GROSE.
SOLICITORS AND
COLONIAL LAW AGENTS.
TEL. Ni 1027 HOLBORN.
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS,"DOSSIER, LONDON"
5 & 6, CLEMENT'S INN,
STRAND, W. C. 2.
1st October 1932.
70, HIGH STREET,
SEVENOAKS.
'PHONE: 716.
3 OCT 1932
Sung Man Cho. 92610/32
We acknowledge re ceipt of your letter and regret
the nature of the contents.
Although the settlement in this case was, admittedly,
made nominally with the Hong Kong Government, that Settlement
was made with the cognisance of the British Government who had
last year expressed its willingness to allow Mr. Sung Man Cho
to land in England, by whom the Hong Kong Government is ultimately
controlled.
We are perfectly satisfied that the possibility
of Mr. Sung Man Cho coming to England was in the minds of both
parties at the time of the settlement
The present decision appears the refore, to mean
one of two alternatives. A, that at the time of the Settlement
the Hong Kong Government knew that there was no intention of Mr.
Sung Man Cho being allowed to come to England, or B, that the
British Government having reconsidered the terms of the settlement
later discovered the technical loophole through which it could
1st October 1932.
assist the Hong Kong Government in evading what was the known,
but unexpressed intention of the Settlement.
In our past experience we have always found
ourselves able to rely on the good faith of the British Government
It is with considerable regret that we now find
ourselves compelled to change our ideas for the future.
We are Sir,
Yours faithfully,
dightstneton
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office,
Whitehall.
92610/32.
28 September 2
Gentlemen,
I am directed by Secretary Sir Philip
Cunliffe-Lister to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 21st of September on the subject of the case of Mr. Sung Man Cho, and to inform you that in so far as the interpretation of the terms of the settlement of the Privy Council appeal is concerned, he has nothing to add to the letter of 20th September which has been
If, on the other hand, sent to you by Messrs. Burchells. you wish to urge that, quite apart from the terms of the settlement, Mr. Sung Man Cho should be permitted to come to this country, I an to inform you that the admission of aliens to this country is a matter for the liome Office, and he would not be prepared to ask that Department to
modify its decision.
MESSRS. LIGHT AND FULTON.
2. In the circumstances it would not appear
that any useful purpose could be served by an interview.
Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) J
A. CALDER,
BURCHELLS.
C.T. D. BURCHELL.
A.W.BURCHELL.
TELEPHONE - VICTORIA 6431.
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR REPLY TO
THE FIRM AND REFER TO INITIAL
5, The Sanctuary,
82837/31.
RECEIVED 24 SEP 1932 fOOL.CFFICE
Westminster, S.W.-1.
23rd. Septr. 1932.
As promised on the telephone to-day we enclose herewith
copies of the two letters we have written to Messrs. Light
& Fulton in reply to their request that Sung Man Cho might
be permitted to come to England.
We are Sir,
Your obedient Servants,
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office,
Downing Street,
Dear Sirs,
5, The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.1.
14th Septr. 1932.
Sung Man Cho.
We have forwarded a copy of your letter of yesterday
to our clients and will reply thereto as soon as we have received their instructions, and will merely remark that any suggestion that the Government of Hong Kong has not complied with the arrangement seems premature.
Yours faithfully,
BURCHELLS.
Messrs. Light & Fulton,
5 & 6 Clement's Inn, Strand, W.C.2.
Dear Sirs,
5, The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.1.
20th September, 1932.
re Sung Man Cho
With further reference to your letter of the 13th
inst., we feel you must be under some misapprehension as to
the terms of the arrangement come to between Counsel when
the Appeal was before the Privy Council.
In our view the terms of the Settlement do not
commit the Government of Hong Kong to procure admission of
Sung Man Cho into any particular Country but they are only to
use their best endeavours to assist Sung Man Cho to go to
any Country that he may select; there is no compulsion
placed on the Government of Hong Kong by the terms of the
Settlement which compel the Government to send him to any
Country where objection may be taken to his landing, the
only obligation of the Government of Hong Kong being not to
send Sung Man Cho into any Country where he would be in danger
of arrest by the French.
Yours faithfully,
Messrs. Light & Fulton,
5, Clements Inn, W.C.2.
BUR CHELLS
LIGHT & FULTON.
DONALD OWEN LIGHT. THOMAS A. GROSE.
SOLICITORS AND
COLONIAL LAW AGENTS.
TEL. NO 1027 HOLBORN.
Ardd, P. C. 22.9.82.
TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS,"DOSSIER, LONDON."
70, HIGH STREET,
SEVENOAKS.
'PHONE: 716.
22 SEP 1932
5 & 6, CLEMENT'S INN,
STRAND, W. c. 2.
21st September 1932.
We are representing a gentleman by name Mr. Sung Man
Cho, who was recently the subject of a Privy Council Appeal against
an order made by His Majesty's Government at Hong Kong.
The Appeal was duly settled on terms agreed between the
Government of Hong Kong and the Appellant, Mr. Sung Man Ch..
Negotiations have recently been taking place in Hong
Kong with regard to Mr. Sung Man Cho leaving that Country, and we understand that the British Government has now refused admission
to this gentleman to land in England.
We are also instructed that His Majesty's Governor
of Hong Kong has cabled to yourself recently explaining the views
of our professional clients in Hong Kong on the matter. We should
be glad if you will grant us an interview at an early date to
discuss the matter with you.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Colonial Office.
Whitehall.
Yours faithfully
Lig Kultow
0.0. 0.0.16
Mr Hal 15.9.
1851. Duncan - 15/9/32 fs.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Sir G. Grindle.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
Lessrs urchells
r Juncan s sig.
1) Do 1932
with ref. to your letters of the
14th ept. to .r ushe and myself in
the case of ung an ho, I enclose
for your information cop
addreond & the
telograpilib
of the a
A espondenco with th
ov. of ong kong since the despatch of
ir ushe s letter to
of the 18th Aug.
Copy Opinion
2nd page of endos. to 50. tel. To foo. kl. 29 Amy
In case you did not keep a copy
of it, I also enclose a copy of the
Opinion which ir Stafford ripus en-
dorsed on your
the 22nd Aug.
original to .r
letter to him of
his Opini on was sent in
ushe in r urchell S
letter of the 24th Aug.
ou will no doubt communicate with
me again if you require any further
information to enable you to reply
to es right and ulton's letter of
the 13th Sept.
Jon Forte fülle
Harold Duncan
BURCHELLS.
C.T. D. BURCHELL.
A.W.BURCHELL.
TELEPHONE - VICTORIA 6431.
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR REPLY TO THE FIRM AND REFER TO INITIAL
Dear Sir,
5, The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.-1.
14th. Septr.
Sung Han Cho.
With reference to the copy letter from Messrs. Light &
Fulton we sent to you by hand this morning in which they suggeste there had been a serious breach of the Agreement, as it seemed
advisable that you should have a copy of this letter as soon as
possible we did not express any views of our own on the subject,
principally for the reason that we have no knowledge as to the
truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in their letter.
So far as the arrangement is concerned beyond the obligation
not to place Sung Man Cho on board a French vessel or send into.
French Territory the obligation is that if he selected some other destination the Government of Hong Kong would use their good offices to assist him if possible.
Harold Duncan Esq.,
Colonial Office,
Downing Street,
Yours faithfully,
BURCHELLS.
C.T.D. BURCHELL. A.W.BURCHELL.
TELEPHONE - VICTORIA 6431.
ПECEIVEL 14 SEP 1932
5, The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.-1.
COL. OFFICE
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR REPLY TO THE FIRM AND REFER TO INITIAL
.........
14th. Septı.... 1932.
Dear Sir,
Sung Man Cho.
We enclose copy of a letter received this morning from
Messrs. Light & Fulton on which we shall be glad to have
your instructions.
Yours faithfully,
H.G. Bushe Esq., C.M.G.,
Colonial Office,
Downing Street,
Dear Sirs,
5 & 6 Clement's Inn,
Strand, W.C.2.
13th September, 1932.
Sung Man Cho
We have received a letter from our professional
clients in Hong Kong to the effect that after discussion
with the Police and the Crown Solicitor of Hong Kong
agreement was reached that the only safe place for the
gentleman was England and the only safe route was via
Australia, South Africa.
Arrangements were made for Mr. Sung Man Cho to
leave Hong Kong on the 23rd August subject to the consent
of the Colonial Office. After all the arrangements had
been made, our client was notified that Mr. Sung Man Cho
would not be allowed in England. This appears to us to
be directly contrary to Clause 3 of the undertaking given
by Sir Stafford Cripps in settlement of this matter.
We also understand that the Governor of Hong
Kong has cabled to England explaining the position and
saying that he has granted two months extension for the
purpose of this point being elucidated.
The matter is urgent and we shall be glad to
hear from you as early as possible.
We view this matter very seriously, as we feel
sure that you your selves will also.
Yours faithfully,
LIGHT & FULTON
Messrs. Burchell,
5. The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.1.
Mr.H.R.C. 26.8.
Mr.Duncan. 29/8/32.
Sir C.Bottomley. 29.8. at once.
PARAPHRASE TELEGRAM from the Secretary of State for the
Colonies to the Officer Administering the Government of
Hong Kong.
(Sent 5.30 p.m., 29th August, 1932.)
tá co to GAY CLÁ VE ten kit can cut en een of an ---
Your telegram No.171. It cannot be admitted that
settlement committed or could commit His Majesty's
Government to grant Quoc admission to this country.
advised that under settlement he cannot choose his
destination or compel Hong Kong Government to send him
to any country which is not disposed to admit him. He must
leave the Colony but must not be sent into arrest or into
danger of arrest by the French.
If he does not select a
place not open to reasonable objection himself he should be
sent to such place in the east as you consider is safest
for him.
Burchells 59
Recirc to Mr. Duncan
BURCHELLS.
C.T. D. BURCHELL.
A.W.BURCHELL.
TELEPHONE - VICTORIA 6431.
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR REPLY TO THE FIRM AND REFER TO INITIAL...........
My dear Bushe,
Onclosure
5, The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.-1.
24th August,
32 .19....
Nguyen ai quoc alias Sung Man Cho
I found that Cripps was returning to town so I
wrote him the enclosed letter on which he has written his
Opinion, which I think will be satisfactory to you. He
wants to know if he may charge a fee and I said I would
mention it to you.
Yours sincerely,
Charles J. D. Duriken.
H.G. Bushe Esq., C.M.G.
Colonial Office,
Downing Street,
BURCHELLS.
C.T. D. BURCHELL.
A.W.BURCHELL.
TELEPHONE - VICTORIA 6431.
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR REPLY TO THE FIRM AND REFER TO INITIAL
Enclosure
The Hon. Sir R. Stafford Cripps,
K.C., M.P.
3 Elm Court,
Dear Sir,
5, The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.-1.
22nd August
Nguyen ai quoc alias Sung Man Cho.
We enclose herewith a copy of the terms in which
the above Appeal was withdrawn. We also enclose a copy of a
letter from Mr. Bushe the Legal Adviser at the Colonial Office
and of telegraphic Despatches which have passed between the
Colonial Office and the Governor of Hong Kong.
From these you will see that the Appellant claims
the right to come to England via Australia and Cape of Good
Hope and he requires the Governor of Hong Kong to obtain the
requisite permission for him to enter and stay in Australia
for the purpose of trans-shipment, and presumably a similar
Order as regards Cape of Good Hope, should such be necessary.
The Government will not permit him to come to this country as
is stated in Despatch No. 103, and we agree with Mr. Bushe's
comment that such a proposal is fantastic.
We also enclose a copy of the Joint Opinion of
yourself and Mr. Lewis, in which you express the view that
the Appeal against the Order of the Court of Hong Kong for
the deportation of the Appellant had been withdrawn, and that
that Order stood, that the Appellant would have to leave Hong
FROM BURCHELLS,
LETTER TO The Hon. Sir R. Stafford CrippsHEET NO. 2. 22nd August, 1932.
K.C., M.P.
Kong, but his destination would not be French Territory or
any country in which the French hold sway, and by some ship
other than a French ship.
The Colonial Office would be much obliged if you
will now give us your view as to what rights the Appellant
has to nominate his destination and what control the Govern-
ment can exercise in the matter.
Yours faithfully,
Burchells.
The Appellant cannot choose his destination or compel the fox to send hem to any country where he is wanted. He must leave Any tong but
must not be sent wro
or into dange
Reuch arrest. If he does not humalf
reasonable place in the east
the for should send him to the _ for hun_ safest place in the east that the.
BURCHELLS.
C.T. D. BURCHELL.
A.W.BURCHELL.
- VICTORIA 6431.
20 AUG 1932
OFFIŒThe
H.G. Bushe Esq., COOL, OFFI
Colonial Office,
Downing Street,
The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.-1.
Westminster, S.W.1.
19th August,
DRESS YOUR REPLY TO
THE FIRM AND REFER TO INITIAL
92610/32.
My dear Bushe,
Nguyen ai quoc alias Sung Man Cho.
I have your letter of yesterday and will see if I
can get hold of Cripps, but my latest news of him was that he
was at some German Bad taking a cure for his indigestion, but
I may remind you that in the Joint Opinion of Cripps and Lewis
dated June last they state, the object of the Governor and the
authorities in Hong Kong has been achieved because the Depor-
tation Order stands and the Appellant will have to leave Hong
Kong, but his destination on leaving Hong Kong will not be
French Territory or any country in which the French hold sway
and he would reach that destination by some ship other than a
French ship.' It would appear therefore that at the date
of this Opinion Counsel held the view that quoc had got to be
deported to any place other than French Territory, and that it
was not for him to select where he would go, and in the earlier
part of the Opinion they point out that 'as the matter stanās
now no decision has been given by the Judicial Committee upon
Section 5 of the Ordinance of 1917, or as to the validity of
what was uone in this case; the Appeal against the Order of
FROM BURCHELLS,
LETTER TO H.G. Bushe Esq., C.M.G.
SHEET NO. 2.DATE 19th August, 1932.
the Court of Hong Kong has been withdrawn and that Order
stands.'
Yours sincerely,
Charles S. D. Durchell.
Mr. Jameson 1/7/8
ve. Calder 17.8
Mr. Buche 17
Mr. Parkinson.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
Charles Burchell
Burchell by
for conson
(23) 21.7.32
6.8.32 (40) 15.8.32
lopies of (45) XFF
|(45) AFFE F.o. of 4/1
92610/32
91% for H = Buche's Sy 72
My dear Burchell
Nguyen ai quoc
our letter
With ref to y
19th of July
letter of
about the above
I enclose copies of the
marginally noted telegrams which have been exchanged
with the
HongKong
foot and if you will comult riffor let me
I shall be glad to bool / your
regarding further views, Quoc's claim
to the right to proceed to
England under the terms of the settlement of his appeal.
which latin bezaint
I need scances defeat that the
idea that the
Settlement could or did
Comenit to be G have to
admit Qures flayland
is to my mind
mind fantastic Ju sive
(yo) A gratter Busi
COPY FOR REGISTRATION17 AUG 1932
COL. OFFICE 73 PARAPHRASE telegram from the Officer Adminis tering the
Government of Hong Kong to th Secretary of State for
the Colonies.
(Dated 15th August 1932. Lec ived, Colonial Office,
15th August 1932).
4.59 p.nl.
Your tele ram of Au just 6th. Quoc still
claims the right to proceed t› England under the terms
of the settlement of his appo l and is referring his
claim to his Counsel in Londo. He alleges that China
is dangerous for him. He has asked for an extension for
2 months of the date of his compulsory departure to
give time for a reply from England. I have agreed to prolongation accordingly. Le nwhile he remains under
do tantion.
Copy Bucker's us
H.O (48)
Mr. Calder 6.8
Mr. Cowell 6
Sir J.Shuckburgh 6/8/32 at once
92610/32
PARAPHRASE
TELEGRAM from the Secretary of Sta e for the Colonies to
the Officer Administering the Goverment of Hong Kong,
(Sent 4.45 p.m., 6th August, 1932.)
Your telegramm No. 148. Home Office refuse to
grant permission for Quoc to enter England,
I do not
propose in circumstances to approach Australian Government
As Quoc claims to be a native of Clina, it would be
natural for him to proceed to that country.
Your telegram 21st July 10, 151 I agres.
Copy paraphrase to H.0. & F.O. LF.
(174)-076-31
70 (42) Burchells (46)
Any communication on the
subject of this letter should be
addressed to-
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE,
HOME OFFICE,
LONDON, S.W. 1.
nd the following number quoted :-
606,692/5.
(ens (41)
RECEIVED
DISABLED
AUG 1932
HOME OFFICE,
COL. OFFICE
WHITEHALL.
5th August, 1932.
With reference to your letter (92610/32) of the 26th
ultimo regarding Nguyen ai Quoc, I am directed by Secretary
Sir Herbert Samuel to request you to inform Secretary Sir
Philip Cunliffe-Lister that he is not prepared to agree to
this man's admission into the United Kingdom.
Your obedient Servant,
The Under Secretary of State,
COLONIAL OFFICE.
5. House.
BURCHELLS.
Achd aft
C.T.D. BURCHELL.
A.W.BURCHELL.
TELEPHONE - VICTORIA 6431.
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR REPLY TO
THE FIRM AND REFER TO INITIAL.
92610/32.
BAUG 19.5
5, The Sanctuary,
Westminster, S.W.-1.
2nd August,
32 .19....
re Sung Man Cho.
We beg to enclose herewith a print of His Majesty's
Order in Council on this Appeal which should be sent to the
Court from which the Appeal was brought, for filing. We also
enclose a plain copy for the use of your Department.
Your obedient Servants,
Burchells
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office
Downing Street,
At the Court at Buckingham Palace
The 21st day of July, 1932.
PRESENT,
THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY
LORD CHANCELLOR
LORD IRWIN
LORD TYRRELL
SIR HENRY BETTERTON
SIR HORACE AVORY.
WHEREAS there was this day read at the Board a Report from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dated the 27th day of June, 1932, in the words following, viz. :-
WHEREAS by virtue of His late Majesty King Edward the Seventh's Order in Council of the 18th day of October 1909 there was referred unto this Committee the matter of an Appeal from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong in the matter of the Deportation Ordinances 1917-1931 and in the matter of Sung Man Cho between Sung Man Cho Appellant and the Superintendent. of Prisons Hong Kong and the Inspector General of Police Hong Kong Respondents (Privy Council Appeal No. 9 of 1932) and likewise a humble Petition of the Appellant setting forth that on the 6th June 1931 the Appellant was arrested at Hong Kong and on the 12th June 1931 was re-arrested there under a warrant for arrest and detention issued under the provisions of the Deportation Ordinances 1917-31: that thereafter until the 12th August 1931 the Appellant was held by the Superintendent of Prisons Hong Kong and on the 12th August he was removed from the custody of the Superintendent and a Deportation Order made against him on the 6th August 1931 was served upon him: that on the 31st July 1931 the Appellant obtained ex parte in the Supreme Court an Order for the issue of a summons to all parties concerned to attend and show cause why a Writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue directed to the Superintendent: that on the Summons the Attorney General appeared and showed cause and that on the 20th August 1931 the Full Court decided that the Deportation Order of the 6th August 1931 was bad : that in the meantime a second Deportation Order was served on the Appellant who was then in the custody of the Inspector General of Police Hong Kong: that on the 11th September 1931 judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court discharging the Order Nisi addressed to the Superintendent of Prisons and refusing the application for an Order Nisi addressed to the Inspector General of Police: that the Appellant [19]
obtained leave to appeal to Your Majesty in Council: And humbly praying Your Majesty in Council to take this Appeal into consideration and that the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11th September 1931 may be reversed altered or varied or for further or other relief:
THE LORDS OF THE COMMITTEE in obedience to His late Majesty's said Order in Council have taken the Appeal and humble Petition into consideration and having heard Counsel on behalf of the Appellant who applied for leave to withdraw the Appeal and Counsel for the Respondent agreeing Their Lordships do this day agree humbly to report to Your Majesty as their opinion that leave ought to be granted to withdraw this Appeal without any Order as to costs.”
HIS MAJESTY having taken the said Report into consideration was pleased by and with the advice of His Privy Council to approve thereof and to order as it is hereby ordered that the same be punctually observed obeyed and carried into execution.
Whereof the Governor or Officer administering the Government of Hong Kong and its Dependencies for the time being and all other persons whom it may concern are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.
M. P. A. HANKEY,
l'rinted under the authority of His MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
BY HARRISON AND SONB, LTD., 44-47, St. Martin's Lane, London, W.C.2, Printers in Ordinary to His Majesty,
(= 305/6734)T Wt. 150 11 7/32 H&S Ltd. Gp. 306
11r. Cowell's
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shuckburgh. 4/8/32
Sir G. Grindle.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
DRAFT. Teley. (Code)
92610/2H.K.
H. Comm. in Canada for 1775.
Following from
for Sec. of State for
Colonies. No reason
why Nguyen Aguac
should cave here
here exept
his son wish & Ame in
communication with H.D. who
know that this Dept does not
fress. for his admission in
'COPY FOR REGISTRATIO:
RECEIVED
& 1 AUG 1932 80
OOL, OFFICE
TELEHL from the High Commissioner in Canada for His
Lajesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the
Jecretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
(Dated 30th July 1932.
heceived, Dominions Office,
12.10 a.m.
31st July 1932).
Following from Secretary of State for the
Colonies for Wilsa..
Reference Hong Kong telegram No.148
NGUYEN AIQUOC. Why should this man come to England?
Presume that you agree action with Foreign Office
and Home Office.
Ano (42)
In any further communication on this subject, please quote
W 8495/374/17.
address--
not to any person by name,
"The Under-Secretary of State."
Foreign Office,
London, S.W.1.
IMMEDIATE.
BORIVE***
29JUL 1932
ICOL, OFFICE
FOREIGN OFFICE,
28th July, 1932.
With reference to your letter No.92610/32 of
July 23rd concerning the case of Nguyen Ai Quoc, I am
directed by Secretary Sir John Simon to state that he is
unable to agree with the view of the Hongkong Government
that the communication to the French Consul of the route
to be taken by this man on his departure from the colony
would be contrary to the spirit of the Deportation
Ordinance, or indeed to understand how it can have anything
to do with it. The police of different countries often
inform each other confidentially of the movements of
agitators or criminals whether deported or not.
2. It is however possible that the communication
of this information might be contrary to the spirit of the
settlement on which the appeal was withdrawn, though this
seems to Sir John Simon to be taking an excessive view of
that settlement. In any case Sir John Simon is of the
opinion that the Governor of Hongkong should explain to
the French Consul why, and the terms on which, the appeal
was withdrawn, in terms similar to those of Mr. Howard
Smith's letter to Monsieur Truelle, of which a copy was
enclosed in Foreign Office letter W 7597/374/17 of July 16th.
Your obedient Servant,
Howard with
The Under-Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Mr. Delahunt. 26/7/32.
Bickle 26ts
Mr. Parkinson.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
92610/32. Hong Kong.
Confidential
Downing Street,
July, 1932.
With reference to the
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE HOME OFFICE.
Tel from 0.A.G.
36 82837/31
Dominions Office to see
10 after
letter from this Dept.
No. 82837/31 of the 10th of
October, 1931, regarding the case
of Nguyen ai Quốc, an annamite
Communist who was detained in
directed
Hong Kong, I am ., to transmit
to you, to be laid before the
Secretary of State for the
Home Department, a copy of a
telegram from the 0.4.C. of
Hong Kong reporting that Nguyen
ai Quoc desires to proceed to
this country via Australia and
the Cupe of Good Hope.
Souch Africa.
I am to explain that
the Appeal to the Privy Council,
to which reference was made in
the enclosure to the letter of
the 10th of October was withdrawn
on the undertaking of the Govt. of
Hong Long undertaking
(1) To remove the "ship" indorsements
from the Deportation Order which had been issued.
(2) That in no case will the Appellant be
sent to French or French Protected Territory
or put on a French ship.
(3) To use its best endeavours to secure
that he should reach a place to which he
desires to go.
(4) To subscribe £250 towards the
Appellant's costs.
It is understood that Clause 3 → of
the terms of settlement was intended
merely to mean that Nguyen ai Quoc would
not be sent to any place to which he did
not want to go, and that he would be
helped to go to any place he wished,
provided that there was no real objection
to his doing so.
H.M. G in the U.K.
is in no way committed by the terms of the
settlement.
4. I am to enquire what reply
should be sent to the 0.A.G. regarding
Nguyen ai Quoc's desire to proceed to
England.
5. For the present no steps are
being taken to obtain the consent of
the Govt. of the Commonwealth of
Australia for him to enter Australia
and stay there for the purpose of
transhipment.
I am, etc.
Delufumit 22.7-32
Mr. Tomlinson.
926/0/32
Sir C. Bottomley.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Sir G. Grindle.
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Secretary of State.
The U.S.AS.
Jeby, 1952
With refer are to your letter No. 1.7597/374/179
(dis) 16th July
From 0.4.G..
16th July morning the came 7 Ingayen
ai Qure, I
am directed to transmit
to be laid before
the S.JS. for 7.a.,
the accompanying copy of
telegram from th0.a.9.
f Hong Kong regarding the desire of the French Conn &
Hong Kong to be informed of the route to be taken by heguyen ai Qure
his departure from the Colony.
2. Subject to the excom bir John Simon's concurrence it is
proposed to inform the O. A
that hope nguyen Ai Quse's proposed itinerary should not be
disclosed.
(Signed) J
A. CALDER.
OOPY FOR REGISTRATION
PARAPHRASE TELEGRAM from the Officer Administering the Government of
Hong Kong to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Dated 21st July 1932.
(Received Colonial Office 12.44 p.. 21st July,
Secret. No. 151.
French Com ul
My telegram No. 148 of 16th July.