he could not be banished for more than five years and the period of banishment must expire in March next, even if it has not already done so. If it has not, he will get risk a year's imprisonment by going back at once can go back freely in March.
In view, however, of the circumstances as regards Australia, it will be sufficient to warn him when he leaves here.
A copy of the circumstances of his banishment in 1904 the Hong Kong Govt would be fully justified in deporting him at once if he returned and I think they should be told to do so and that he should be warned of this.
The case is not so simple where the Straits is concerned. He never did any harm in the Straits. He could of course be banished under section 3 of the 1888 Ordinance and in view of the man's character I think such action would be perfectly justifiable but think our action in the Sun Yat Sen case (see £12685 and p.p.) makes it rather difficult to do so.
Sun is, I believe, very much the more dangerous person of the two, (I note from the Press that rebels in Southern China are at this moment proclaiming their devotion to his teaching) and we refused to turn him out unless he committed some overt act. See especially Mr Churchill's minutes on 8007 and 7157. If it were not for that case, I would propose giving instructions that he should be banished if he lands and telling him so.
In the circumstances I am not sure that it would not be well for the Minister at Stockholm to try peaceful persuasion, by telling him that, if he tries to stir up trouble, action will be taken.
The Dominions Dept should be asked as to what can be done to prevent his carrying on propaganda in Australia.
I would like to add "to the Colonial Office" but it is not necessary to make any suggestion to the Commonwealth Government.
It must be confidential.
Ju930 C.P.L. 30 at once.
17B 27/7 by H.R. Acting Secretary, Straits M.
1.377 17 Proceed as Proposed.
proposed, and then to Dominions Dept.
Col. Seely 3.7 Ford Crewe Wlt. July 11. 516-07