File C 7/9 Repatriation of persons convicted in Agency Courts in the Gulf [‎19r] (37/42)

Tel. No.: Whitehall 8100
'W ^
*<fr.
HOME OFFICE,
WHITEHALL, S.W.I.
rti
ZZ April, 1949 .
Dear Rogers,
You will remember that when the question of the removal
of prisoners from 22TI7AIT under the Oolonial Prisoners
Removal Act, 1884 was first raised the ultimate question of
costs was left open. In llorrison’s letter to Svans of
^ 24th December, 1948 he said he would like our consent to the
removal of Talter Godden to be subject to the understanding
that the cost should be borne by the Foreign Office, and
that we would take up the general question later.
Section 11(1) of the Act of 1884 leaves the incidence
of costs a matter of arrangement between the Home Office
and the removing authority, subject jWhere monies provided by
Parliament are concerned,to the consent of the Treasury.
In the case of ordinary removals from British Colonies it
has always been the practice that the cost is borne by the
removing colony, and ttiis rule is approved by the Treasury.
I have now found a case of 1924, when one, Nathaniel
Lesser was removed from Shanghai, In that case the Treasury
approved the charge of the cost of removal against the Foreign
Office Diplomatic and Consular Vote and the charge of the
cost of maintenance while in England against the Prisons Vote.
/(The