138
the place to which he belongs, and obviously my warrant
under Article 66 sending him to Hongkong would not cover
his deportation thence.
In view of your opinion that it is undoubtedly de-
sirable to prevent the return to the Treaty Ports of
persons convicted of serious offences, I have the honour
to suggest that, when a serious offence has been committed,
the culprit should be liable to be deported without
the option of finding security, if his crime is such as
to render such a punishment as that of six months im-
prisonment a proper one, and if the Court trying him is
of opinion that his return to China would be prejudicial
to good order, then, I think, that the Court might as
part of his sentence order his deportation.
Six months
may seem a small minimum, but I would point out that
the sentences passed in China are as a rule, for several
reasons, considerably lighter than sentences for like offences in England, and it must be remembered that the
addition of deportation to the sentence is serious.
Provision should also be made for the removal of
the prisoner at the expiration of his sentence from
Hongkong direct to the place to which he is to go, and
I think this might be done under an article similar to
the repealed Article 84 of the China and Corea Order in
Council 1904. Article 83 should apply to all deporta-
tions alike, with the necessary modifications to cover
cases of deportation from the Colony.
I have drafted and have the honour to enclose an
Article to deal with the extension of powers which I
have indicated above.
This might be inserted in the
(Amendment) Order in Council now under consideration.
As the matter will have to be referred to the
Government of Hongkong I have sent a copy of my draft
to Sir F. Lugard with a despatch, to explain what is
desired and to ask his co-operation. A copy of this
is also enclosed herewith.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
H. W. de Sausmarez.
Hongkong
Feuse