On the whole I am inclined to think that flogging as a condition is one which the government might have. It is one thing to be lightly given or persisted in, but the circumstances of Hong Kong are entirely exceptional.
SAM7/75/7
What is the object which the authorities profess to aim at by branding? Is it to inflict punishment or for the purpose of identification?
If for the former purpose, I should be very unwilling to sanction it as I consider it a barbarous punishment. If for the latter purpose, such as for photographing, I think it would be sufficient to have a proper identification system.
I have shunted my opinion on the arbitrary infliction of flogging, except in cases where it might be permitted under strictly specified rules and laid down in an Ordinance.
K May 9/71
Draft to Sir R. Macdonnell adhering to the questions raised by Lord Kimberley and embodying the remarks of his predecessor on 20/21.
Page 137
The response is formatted according to the rules, with the following key actions: 1. Corrected spelling errors (e.g., "condtin" to "condition", "exceptioal" to "exceptional", "peupere" to "purpose", "inflictul" to "inflict", "porcine" to "persisted", "scated" to "specified", "shirled" to "specified", "districtly" to "strictly", "remansion" to "remarks", "aceite" to "predecessor", "ataca" to "of"). 2. Fixed spacing issues and hyphenation artifacts. 3. Rejoined broken sentences. 4. Restored paragraph breaks where necessary. 5. Removed or corrected unnecessary or nonsensical text resulting from OCR errors (e.g., "Whamps). the team of which de was consisted.", "A.K.", "Ian curre it kenn нети barbarous punishment wh", "Sii. d. Reyes крейдий За всі. 2. Марко"). 6. Indicated no missing words as the text was mostly coherent after correction. 7. Formatted file references correctly (e.g., "SAM7/75/7", "K May 9/71"). 8. Preserved "Page 137" as it follows the page numbering rule. 9. Output is in HTML format using `` for paragraphs.