Heathen Slaves and Christian Rulers Part 6

he asks:

"Have all Her Majesty's officers, civil and military, enforced these Acts within this Colony? I think they have not; I confess I have not. Our excuse has been in the difficulty of enforcing these Acts, but mainly in our ignorance of the extent of the evil. What is our duty, now that we know that slavery in its worst as in its best form exists in this dot in the ocean to the extent of say 10,000 slaves,--a number probably unexceeded within the same s.p.a.ce at any time under the British Crown, and, so far as I believe, the only spot where British law prevails in which slavery in any form exists at the present time?"

Then he deals with the pretext that this slavery is Chinese custom, in words we have already quoted in the first chapter of this book. He pa.s.ses on to consider and affirm the propriety of the Chief Justice directing the Attorney General to prosecute these cases, and answers some of the objections raised by the latter officer, concluding this portion of his remarks with the words: "What I have said has been said to meet arguments, doubts, and difficulties which have paralyzed public opinion and public action here; which arguments, doubts and difficulties are the less easy to combat because they have been rather hinted at than avowed."

The Chief Justice then sentenced several prisoners for enticing, kidnaping or detaining children with intent to sell them into slavery, to penal servitude for terms ranging from 18 months to 2 years.

On October 20th, Sir John Smale wrote the Governor:

"I cannot understand why such cla.s.ses should as cla.s.ses increase in this Colony at all, unless it be that (in addition to the Chinese demand for domestic servants and brothels) there be an increased foreign element increasing the demand. I fear that a high premium is obtained by persons who kidnap girls in the high prices which they realize on sale to foreigners as kept women.[A]

No one can walk through some of the bye-streets in this Colony without seeing well dressed China girls in great numbers whose occupations are self-proclaimed; or pa.s.s those streets, or go into the schools in this Colony, without counting beautiful children by the hundred whose Eurasian origin is self-declared. If the Government would inquire into the present condition of these cla.s.ses, and still more, into what has become of these women and their children of the past, I believe that it will be found that in the great majority of cases the women have sunk into misery, and that of the children the girls that have survived have been sold to the profession of their mothers, and that, if boys, they have been lost sight of or have sunk into the condition of the mean whites of the late slave-holding states of America. The more I penetrate below the polished surface of our civilization the more convinced am I that the broad undercurrent of life here is more like that in the Southern States of America, when slavery was dominant, than it resembles the all-pervading civilization of England." "My suggestion that the mild intervention of the law should be invoked was ignored. It was also met by the a.s.sertion that custom had so sanctioned the evils in this Colony as that they are above the reach of the law, and that by custom the slavery was mild."

[Footnote A: Rather, it would seem in later years, by renting them for a monthly stipend.]

The Governor, in a letter to the Colonial Secretary at London about this time, informs the Colonial Secretary of his own failure also to induce the Attorney General to prosecute cases to which His Excellency had called his attention, and furthermore he explains that other of his princ.i.p.al executive officers held to the same views as the Attorney General.

CHAPTER 9.

THE CHINESE PEt.i.tION AND PROTEST.

We get additional and valuable light on social conditions at Hong Kong, through statements drawn up by prominent Chinese men and laid before the Governor. As a representation from the Chinese standpoint it has peculiar value at all points excepting where self-interest might afford a motive for coloring the truth.

The occasion of these statements was as follows: On November 9, 1878, a month before the report of the Commission was published, certain Chinese merchants had pet.i.tioned the Governor to be allowed to form themselves into a society for suppressing kidnaping and trafficking in human beings. This pet.i.tion states that the worst kidnapers are "go-betweens and old women who have houses for the detention of kidnaped people." They declare that these

"inveigle virtuous women or girls to come to Hong Kong, at first deceiving them by the promise of finding them employment (as domestic servants), and then proceeding to compel them by force to become prost.i.tutes, or exporting them to a foreign port, or distribute them by sale over the different ports of China, boys being sold to become adopted children, girls being sold to be trained for prost.i.tution." "Your pet.i.tioners are of opinion that such wicked people are to be found belonging to any of the [neighboring] districts, but in our district of Tung Kun such cases of kidnaping are comparatively frequent, and all the merchants of Hong Kong, without exception, are expressing their annoyance."

Accompanying the pet.i.tion was a statement of the situation:

"Hong Kong is the emporium and thoroughfare of all the neighboring ports. Therefore these kidnapers frequent Hong Kong much, it being a place where it is easy to buy and to sell, and where effective means are at hand to make good a speedy escape. Now, the laws of Hong Kong being based on the principle of the liberty of the person, the kidnapers take advantage of this to further their own plans. Thus they use with their victims honeyed speeches, and give them trifling profits, or they use threats and stern words, all in order to induce them to say they are willing to do so and so. Even if they are confronted with witnesses it is difficult to show up their wicked game.... Kidnaping is a crime to be found everwhere, but there is no place where it is more rife than at Hong Kong....

Now it is proposed to publish everywhere offers of reward to track such kidnapers and have them arrested.... The crimes of kidnaping are increasing from day to day."

This proposal on the part of Chinese merchants to form such a society was cordially accepted by officials, and the Governor requested that two police magistrates, whom he named, the Captain Superintendent of Police and Dr. Eitel, should draw up a scheme to check kidnaping, in concert with the Chinese pet.i.tioners. This committee met, and decided that the objects of the "Chinese Society for the Protection of Women and Children" should he as follows:

1. The detection and suppression of kidnapers and kidnaping. 2.

The restoration to their homes of women and children decoyed or kidnaped for prost.i.tution, emigration, or slavery. 3. The maintenance of women and children pending investigation and restoration to their homes. 4. Undertaking to marry or set out in life women and children who could not safely be returned home.

At a subsequent meeting of these gentlemen, Mr. Francis, Acting Police Magistrate, asked the Chinese merchants present, "If there was of late any special _modus operandi_ observed in the proceedings of kidnapers differing from what had been observed and known formerly?" To this the Chinese gentlemen present replied that "there was indeed a marked difference observable in the proceedings of kidnapers of late, because they had become acquainted with the loopholes British law leaves open, also with the principle of personal freedom jealously guarded by British law, and that through this knowledge their proceedings had not only become less tangible for the police to deal with, but the kidnapers had been emboldened to give themselves a definite organization, following a regular system adapted to the peculiarities of British and Chinese law, and using regular resorts and depots in the suburbs of Hong Kong." In support of this, Mr. Fung Ming-shan laid on the table two doc.u.ments written in Chinese. One of these contained a list of 38 different houses in the neighborhood of Sai-ying-pim and Tai-ping-shan used by professional kidnapers, whose names are given, but whose residence could not be ascertained. The other doc.u.ment consists of a list of 41 professional kidnapers whose personalia have been satisfactorily ascertained.

The foreign Magistrates present then pointed out to the Chinese members of the meeting that one great difficulty the Government frequently met in dealing with such cases was the question, what to do with women or children found to have been unlawfully sold or kidnaped; how to restore them to their lawful guardians in the interior of China; how to provide for them in case such women or children had actually been sold by their very guardians, who, if the woman or child in question were restored to them, would but seek another purchaser; how to deal with persons absolutely friendless, etc. The Chinese members of the meeting replied that they were prepared to undertake this duty. They would employ trustworthy detectives to ascertain the family relations of any kidnaped person, who would see to such persons being restored to their families upon guarantee being given for proper treatment; and in cases where restoration was impossible or not advisable, they would take charge of such kidnaped persons, maintain them, and eventually see them respectably married. It was then decided that the Magistrates present should draw up a succinct statement of the provisions of the British law forbidding the sale of persons and guaranteeing the liberty of the subject, which should be translated into Chinese, and circulated freely in the neighboring districts.

Although the action on the part of the Chinese merchants in forming themselves into an organization to put down kidnaping was received with much appreciation by the Governor and Secretary of State at London, as well as by many of the officials at Hon' Kong, there were those who from the first doubted whether the motives of the Chinese in thus uniting were wholly disinterested on the part of the majority.

Such were confirmed in their doubts by the action of these same Chinese as soon as Sir John Smale set to work in earnest to exterminate slavery, and declared in his court a year later than the formation of this Chinese Society:

"I was given to understand that buying children by respectable Chinamen as servants was according to Chinese customs, and that to attempt to put it down would be to arouse the prejudices of the Chinese.... Humanity is of no party, and personal liberty is to be held the right of every human being under British law.... Whatever the law of China may be, the law of England must prevail here. If Chinamen are willing to submit to the law, they may remain, but on condition of obeying the law, whether it accords with their notions of right or wrong or not; and if remaining they act contrary to the law, they must take the consequences."

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 pet.i.tioners are informed that his Lordship, the Chief Justice, after the trial of a case of purchasing free persons for prost.i.tution, 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 cla.s.s people, in the second instance, feared being deprived of a means to preserve their lives (by selling children to be domestic servants)."

These pet.i.tioners 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 pet.i.tion 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 cla.s.sed together as buying and selling (of free persons), it is yet requisite to distinguish carefully the good or wicked purposes which each cla.s.s 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.

This att.i.tude of the Chinese merchants who allied themselves with the British officials for the Protection of Women and Children gave no omen of good from the very first. Yet from that day to the present these men have had a large share in the government of the native women of Hong Kong and Singapore, rendering it very difficult ever to elevate the standard of womanhood, or to educate Chinese women in principles that should be the common inheritance of all who live in a so called free country.

The statement continues:

"Since the last few years many Chinese have brought their property, wives and families to the place, supposing they would be able to live here in peace, and to rejoice in their property.

...Chinese residents of Hong Kong have, therefore, been in the habit of following all native customs which were not a contravention of Chinese statute law [but it seems _this sort_ of buying and selling of human beings is contrary to Chinese law.

This is a misrepresentation]. It is said that the whole increase and prosperity of the Colony from its first foundation to the present day is all based on the strength of that invitation which Sir Charles Elliott gave to intending settlers, and that this present intention of applying, all of a sudden, the repressive force of the law to both the practice of buying or selling boys or girls for purposes of adoption or for domestic servitude is not only a violation of the rule of Sir Charles Elliott, but moreover will, it is to be feared, not fail to trouble the people."

They speak of infanticide as an evil that

"must be cla.s.sed with evils almost unavoidable. Now if the buying of adoptive children and of servant girls is to be uniformly abolished, it is to be feared that henceforth the practice of infanticide will extremely increase beyond what it ever was. The heinousness of the violation of the great Creator's benevolence, which const.i.tutes infanticide, is beyond comparison with the indulgence granted to the system of buying and selling children to prolong their existence."

As though these benevolent persons only bought slaves for this one laudable purpose, to preserve their lives! "As regards the buyers, they look upon themselves as affording relief to distressed people, and consider the matter as an act akin to charity," etc.

A flood of light is let in upon the matter of the reluctance of British officials to move in the putting down of domestic slavery and the buying and selling of boys among the natives, in the following well-deserved thrust at the weak point in the armor of the British officials:

"The office of the Registrar-General was charged with the superintendence of prost.i.tutes and the licensing of brothels and similar affairs. But _from 80 to 90 per cent of all these prost.i.tutes in Hong Kong were brought into these brothels by purchase, as is well known to everybody_. If buying and selling is a matter of a criminal character, the proper thing would be, first of all, to abolish this evil (brothel slavery). But how comes it that since the first establishment of the Colony down to the present day the same old practice prevails in these licensed brothels, and has never been forbidden or abolished?"

This was a center shot, and calculated to weaken the hands of at least the guilty officials. What could they say? Were the officials prepared, since the report of the Commission a few months before had made public the scandals connected with the licensing and inspection of brothels, to set about reforming the abuses by radical measures?

Certainly the Chief Justice was. He did everything in his power to abolish slavery _as slavery_, not simply to abolish slavery when unconnected with brothels. But subsequent history seems to indicate that, from this point on, the British officials were ready to compromise with the Chinese merchants, and the testimony from this time forward was well-nigh universal in Hong Kong circles that domestic slavery, or "domestic servitude," as Dr. Eitel recommended that it should be called instead (since a weed by another name may help the imagination to think it a rose), was very "mild" and "harmless," and that the adoption of purchased boys was a "religious"

duty, or at least, had a religious flavor about it, as practiced by the Chinese. But as we have already said, that adoption in order to be lawful in China must be the adoption of one of the same surname.

On October 27th, 1879, the Chief Justice, at an adjourned sitting of the Court for the purpose, sentenced two more offenders, one for kidnaping a boy, and the other for detaining a girl with intent to sell her. In the first case the Judge said:

"Received as you had been into the father's house in charity, you availed yourself of the opportunity to steal his child, and tried to sell the child openly, probably having hawked him from door to door. The sentence of the Court on you, Tang Atim, is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for two years, and that you be kept in solitary confinement for a period of one week in every two months of your imprisonment."

Chan Achit, an old woman, convicted of having unlawfully detained a female child of 11 years of age, with intent to sell her, was next placed in the dock. His Lordship said:

"The evidence in this case has shown the extraordinary extent to which, under cloak of China custom, the iniquity of dealing in children has extended. From the evidence, I have no doubt that a vagabond clansman to whom the father had occasionally given out of his penury had originated the crime in enticing the child away, and it seems to me to be clear that the prisoner was as well known as a 'broker of mankind' as a receiver of stolen children, to sell them on commission, as receivers of old iron and marine stores could be found in this Colony to dispose of stolen property. The little girl bought and sold, aged 11 years, is a very intelligent child, and described the negotiations for her sale with great clearness."