Sir John Smale's utterance created intense feeling among these Chinese merchants, who at once called upon the Governor to represent their views and to protest. The Governor informed them that "slavery in any form could not be allowed in the Colony." They protested that their system of adoption and of obtaining girls for domestic purposes was not slavery; "and they referred to the more immoral practice of buying girls for the Hong Kong brothels, which, they alleged, Government departments had connived at, though it was a practice most hateful to the respectable Chinese." The Governor then asked them for their views in writing, and they sent them to him in the form of a memorial, containing the following words:
"Your petitioners are informed that his Lordship, the Chief Justice, after the trial of a case of purchasing free persons for prostitution, said, in the course of his judgment, that buying and selling of girls for domestic servitude was an indictable offense;—which put all native residents of Hong Kong in a state of extreme terror; all great merchants and wealthy residents in the first instance being afraid lest they might incur the risk of being found guilty of a statutory offence, whilst the poor and low class people, in the second instance, feared being deprived of a means to preserve their lives (by selling children to be domestic servants)."
These petitioners claimed:
That the buying of boys for "adoption" and of girls for domestic servitude, "widely differs from the above-mentioned wicked practices" of kidnaping and buying and selling of girls into brothels.
That the domestic slaves "are allowed to take their ease and have no hard work to perform," and when they grow up, "they have to be given in marriage."
That all former Governors had let them alone in the exercise of
their "social customs."
That Governor Elliott had promised them freedom in the exercise of
their native customs.
That infanticide "would be extremely increased if it were entirely forbidden to dispose of children by buying and selling;" parents deprived of the means of keeping off starvation by selling their children would "drift into thiefdom and brigandage."
Following the petition was an elaborate statement on the subject, full of subtle arguments, misstatements and perversions, together, of course, with some well-put statements, forming ten propositions in favor of domestic slavery. Their first claim is not exactly true, as even Dr. Eitel, who defended domestic servitude, was bound to declare, namely, That Chinese law does not forbid adoption and domestic servitude. We have already quoted Sir John Smale's statement of the Chinese law, which restricted the adoption of boys to the taking of one with the same surname as the family. And as to the buying of girls for domestic servitude, though largely practiced in China, yet these Chinese merchants could hardly have been ignorant of the fact that it was an illegality before the Chinese law. "The reason of this," says the Chinese protest, "is the excessive increase of population, and the wide extent of poverty and distress." But there was neither over-population nor distress at Hong Kong which should necessitate the introduction of the practice into that Colony. "If all those practices were forbidden, poor and distressed people would have no means left to save their lives, but would be compelled to sit down and wait for death." In other words, these men would claim that their motives were wholly, or largely benevolent in purchasing the children of the poor! And what better could the poor do for a living than to beget children and sell them into slavery to the rich!
"Whilst all those practices, therefore, may be classed together as buying and selling (of free persons), it is yet requisite to distinguish carefully the good or wicked purposes which each class of practice serve, and accordingly apply discriminately either punishment or non-punishment." But anti-slavery legislation has never done this, and never will. The question is not to any large extent the comfort or misery of the chattel, but the forbidding that one human being should be allowed to deal with another as a chattel at all.