!
J'
pr
MINUTES.
live on which we can defend the provision in the often suggest.
a paragraph to the following effect after 83 - to this connection it"
$3
may
printed out that there wrists
a clear distinction between the D. in
& the provision of the Andre
C'1920
refered
to which
regarded
in the abona
J.D.
toh dis.
Mis attitude of the
The O. in ( provides for the
punishment of offences defined in
et, while the order is concerned with
the peevention of anticipated dis- turbances by Execution action. be
the former case, a
judicial Enquiry
dearly called for; in the latter, resuming the recessity for the provision,
the decision wi sum to not most appropriately with the Excention (
it wile, on a d be bound as it wile,
by a responsable officer after the fear gainst whome action in contemplated had been join full opportunity of ex- planation & portal."
as.
27/xi
MINUTES NOT TO BE WRITTEN
ON THIS SIDE.
Any further communication on this subject should be addressed to—
The Under Secretary of State for India,
Public Department,
India Office,
and the following reference quoted-
J. & P.5731/22.
Sir,
London, S. W.
56195
THE TRE.
INDIA OFFICE,
WHITEHALL,
105
LONDON, SW.
"The
14 NOV 22) 13 November, 1922.
I am directed by the Secretary of State for India
to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No.51549 dated
24th October 1922 forwarding a copy of a despatch from the
Officer Administering the Government of Hong Kong regarding the modification suggested by the Goverment of India in the
Hong Kong Deportation Ordinance, 1921.
2. I am to invite attention to the fact that in reply
to the Governor of Hong Kong's telegram dated 24th March,
1921 the Viceroy stated that there was no objection on the part of the Government of India to legislation on the lines
The
of the China (Amendment) Order in Council 1920. question whether or not a judicial order should be required before deportation was fully considered in the Foreign Office, in consultation with this Office and the Government of India,
when the question of the continuance (as to British subjects in China) of special powers for deportation taken during the war was being examined. The China (Amendment) Order in Council 1920 was the result of this consideration and in the opinion of the Secretary of State for India the reasons which led to a judicial enquiry prior to the deportation of seditious persons being prescribed in that Order in Council have the same force in relation to the Hong Kong Deportation Ordinance 1921. In a letter from the Foreign Office dated 1st May 1919, No.40770/45A it was stated that Lord Curzon considered that it would be exceedingly difficult to propose administrative deportation of Indian subjects without trial unless under the
necessity The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office,
S.W.1.