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 prostitutes and the licensing of brothels and similar affairs. But from 80 to 90 per cent of all these prostitutes 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."

The Chief Justice then went on to repeat the little girl's testimony as to these "brokers of mankind," and the child's knowledge, from personal observation of these purchases and sales, to which he adds:

"Let me here ask, Is the trade, or rather profession, 'broker of mankind,' also a sacred China custom? I will not ask the queries which would naturally arise in case the question were answered in the affirmative. At present, however, I must say that, custom or no custom, the practice of this profession is prohibited by statute, and it is my duty to meet its exercise by punishment."

The prisoner was sentenced to two years' penal servitude. The Chief Justice concluded his remarks on that occasion by replying to the statements made in the Chinese petition.

He called attention to the Chinese resting their claim on the temporary promise of Governor Elliott in 1841; of the fact that they ignored the proclamation of the Queen in 1845. He said that infanticide was also a Chinese custom in the same sense that slavery was, on the words of the petition:

"Amongst the Chinese there has hitherto been the custom of drowning their daughters. The Chinese threaten the increase of this 'custom' of drowning children if their sale is put down.... I can only say that in case father, mother, or relative were convicted of infanticide, Chinese custom would be no protection, and, unless I am grievously mistaken, the presiding judge would have no alternative but to sentence the perpetrator to death ... the one custom is tolerated just as the other custom is tolerated, and both alike or neither must be claimed as sanctioned by Governor Elliott's proclamation. All remedies which ever existed by common law or by statute in England up to 1845 against ownership of human beings, against every form of slavery, extend by their own proper force and authority to Hong Kong; and, if that were not enough, all English laws applicable to Hong Kong, including those against ownership in human beings, were by express Ordinances 6 of 1845, and 12 of 1873, embodied into the laws of Hong Kong, whilst the worst forms of slavery are especially punished by Ordinance 4 of 1865, and 2 of 1875. I am bound by my most solemn obligations to enforce all these laws. I must, therefore, without fear, favour or affection, discharge this duty to the best of my ability."



CHAPTER 10.

NOT FALLEN—BUT ENSLAVED.

The Report of the Commission affords the following instructive account of the difference in the moral and social status between the prostitute of the East and West:

"In approaching the subject of prostitution, as it is found in Hong Kong at the present day, it is absolutely necessary for a full and just comprehension of it, to keep in mind two distinct considerations. One is the almost total identity of the whole system of prostitution, which since times immemorial is an established institution all over the large empire of China. The other point to be kept in mind is the radical difference which distinguishes the personal character, the life and the surroundings of Chinese prostitutes from all that is characteristic of the prostitutes of Europe." ... "At the present day the Chinese prostitutes of Hong Kong have but very little to distinguish them, either in the past, present, or future of their personal lives, or in their position and surroundings, from the prostitutes of the 18 provinces of China.... Those of the prostitutes of Hong Kong who are inmates of brothels licensed for foreigners only, or who live in sly brothels for foreigners, have adopted a different style of dress, but are otherwise in no essential point differently situated from prostitutes in China, except that the inmates of brothels licensed for foreigners are subject to compulsory medical examination, and consequently far more despised by their countrymen and even other prostitutes."

"Prostitutes in Europe are, as a general rule, fallen women, the victims of seduction, or possibly of innate vice. Being the outcasts of society, and having little, if any, prospect of being again admitted into decent and respectable circles of life, deprived also of their own self-respect as well as the regards of their relatives, occasionally even troubled with qualms of conscience, they mostly dread thinking of their future, and seek oblivion in excesses of boisterous dissipation. The Chinese prostitutes of Hong Kong are an entirely different set of people.... Very few of them can be called fallen women; scarcely any of them are the victims of seduction, according to the English sense of the term, refined or unrefined. The great majority of them are owned by professional brothel-keepers or traders in women in Canton or Macao, have been brought up for the profession, and trained in various accomplishments suited to brothel life.... They frequently know neither father nor mother, except what they call a 'pocket-mother,' that is, the woman who bought them from others.... They feel of course that they are the bought property of their pocket-mother or keeper, but they know also that this is the feeling of almost every other woman in China, liable as each is to be sold, by her own parents or relatives, to be the wife or concubine of a man she never sets eyes on before the wedding day, or liable, as the case may be, to be pledged or sold, by her parents or relatives, to serve as a domestic slave in a strange family.... They have the chance, if they are pretty and accomplished, of being wooed ... and they may look forward with tolerable certainty to being made the second, or third, or fourth, or at any rate the favorite wife of some wealthy gentleman. If not possessed of special attractions or wealthy lovers, they look forward to being taken out of the brothel by an honest devoted man to share the lot of a poor man's wife. Or they may endeavor to save money by singing, music and prostitution combined, and not only to purchase their freedom, but to set up for themselves, buying, rearing, and selling girls to act as servants or concubines or prostitutes, or they may finally come to keep brothels as managers for wealthy capitalists or speculators. There is further a certain proportion of prostitutes in Hong Kong who have, by the hand of their own parents or husbands, been mortgaged or sold into temporary servitude as prostitutes, or who of their own will and accord act as prostitutes under personal agreement with a brothel-keeper, for a definite advance of a sum of money, required to rescue the family, or some member of it, from some great calamity or permanent ruin."

"There is, however, one class of women in Hong Kong who can scarcely be called prostitutes, and who have no parallel either in China, outside the Treaty Ports, or in Europe. They are generally called 'protected women.' They may originally have come forth from one or other of the above-mentioned classes of prostitutes, or may be the offspring of protected women...."

The Report describes the situation of the "protected woman" in the following terms:

"She resides in a house rented by her protector, who lives generally in another part of the town; she receives a fixed salary from her protector, and sublets every available room to individual sly prostitutes, or to women keeping a sly brothel, no visitor being admitted unless he have some introduction or secret pass-words. If an inspector of brothels attempts to enter, he is quietly informed that this is not a brothel, but the private family residence of Mr. So and So.... This system makes the suppression of sly brothels an impossibility.... The principal points of difference between the various classes of Chinese prostitutes of Hong Kong and the prostitutes of Europe amount therefore to this, that Chinese prostitution is essentially a bargain in money and based on a national system of female slavery."

"It must not be supposed, however, from what is said above, that the Chinese, as a people, view prostitution as a matter of moral indifference. On the contrary, the literature, the religions, the laws and the public opinion of China, all join in condemning prostitution as immoral, and in co-operation to keep it under a certain check. The literature of the Confucianists, which, as regards purity and utter absence of immoral suggestions, stands unrivalled by any other nation in the world, does not countenance prostitution in any form.... The laws and public opinion ... agree in keeping prostitution rigidly out of sight. Although the Chinese are a Pagan nation, they have no deification of vice in their temples, no indecent shows in their theatres, no orgies in their houses of public entertainment, no parading of lewd women in their streets.... In short, as far as outward and public observation goes, China presents a more virtuous appearance than most European countries."

The report goes on to show that nevertheless the practice of polygamy,

"leaving the childless concubines liable to be sold or sent adrift at any moment, the law of inheritance neglecting daughters in favour of sons," and "the universal practice of buying and selling females combined with the system of domestic servitude," makes the suppression of prostitution difficult. "This intermixture of female slavery with prostitution has been noticed in Hong Kong at the very time when the Legislature first attempted to deal with Chinese prostitution."

We now understand the nature of this wretched form of slavery as carried on at Hong Kong. There did not exist a class of women brought to the pitiable plight of prostitution by the wiles of the seducer, or through the mishap of a lapse from virtue, after which all doors to reform are practically closed against such, as in Western civilization, nor were there those known to have fallen through innate perversity; but such as existed among the Chinese were literal slaves, in the full sense of that word. From the standpoint of these officials, for the most part, prostitution was necessary. This was plainly declared in many official documents. The fact that they licensed brothels proves also that prostitution was considered necessary. And since necessary, if the means failed whereby brothels in the Occident are maintained, then they must be maintained by Oriental means,—which was slavery. Under such circumstances, to license prostitution meant, from the very nature of the case, to license slavery. To encourage prostitution, as it always is encouraged by the Contagious Diseases Acts, meant to encourage slavery. Hence they reasoned, and declared—to use the language of the Registrar General, Cecil C. Smith—that it was "useless to try and deal with the question of the freedom of Chinese prostitutes by law or by any Government regulation. From all the surroundings the thing is impracticable."

It must be admitted that the conditions at Hong Kong favored the development of social impurity. From the moment of British occupation, and before, in fact, there were at that place large numbers of unmarried soldiers and sailors, many of very loose morals; also many men in civil and military positions as officials, and numerous merchants, etc., most of them separated far from their families and the restraints that surrounded them at home. On the Chinese side, there were men accustomed to deal with their women as chattels, willing to sell them to the foreigners.

But we need to inquire a little further into the matter before conceding that because a thing will almost inevitably take place, therefore it is best to license it in order to keep it within bounds. The superficial sophist says: "Prostitution always has existed and always will exist. Painful as the fact is, such is the frailty of human nature. You cannot make men moral by act of parliament, and it is foolish to try. We will have to license the thing, and thus control it as best we can. That is the only practical way to deal with this evil." Such reasoning as this exhibits the most confused notions as to the nature of law.

No law is ever enacted except with the expectation that an offense against it will take place. Law anticipates transgression as much as license; but law provides a check upon offenses and license provides an incitement to them. "The law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient." Have not murder and stealing always existed? Are they not likely to exist in spite of laws against them, so long as human nature remains so frail? Then why not license them in order to keep them under control? It is perfectly apparent to all that to license murder and stealing; would be the surest way of allowing them to get quickly beyond control. "But you cannot make men moral by act of parliament, and it is foolish to try; to put a man in jail will not change him from a thief into an honest man." "But," you reply, "we do not punish men for stealing and for murder for their own good, but for the good of the community at large." Certainly. Then what becomes of the argument that because men will not become pure by act of parliament they are to be allowed to commit their depredations unmolested? The primary object of law is not reformatory but protective,—for the victims of lawlessness.

Our great Law-Giver, Jesus Christ, admitted a certain necessity of evil, but He did not say, "therefore license it, to keep it within bounds." He said, "It must needs be that offenses come." But His remedy for keeping the offenses within bounds was, "woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." As inevitably as the offense was committed so invariably must the punishment fall on the offender's head. That is the only way to keep any evil within bounds. This is the principle that underlies all law.

These Hong Kong officials who believed in the licensing of brothel slavery and brought it about, have much to say about the "unfortunate creatures" who were the victims of men. But if the advocate of license is self-deceived in his attitude toward this social evil, we need not be deceived in him. One does not propose a license as a remedy for an evil, except as led to that view by secret sympathy with the evil. A license of an evil is never proposed excepting upon the mental acquiescence in that evil.

British officials who licensed immoral houses at Hong Kong did not wish the libertine to be disturbed in his depredations. The Chinese merchants were able to see this fact if those officials were not ready to admit it even to themselves. They knew how to throw a stone that would secure their own glass houses. Hence they said in their memorial to the Governor:

"From 80 to 90 per cent of all these prostitutes in Hong Kong were brought into these [licensed] brothels by purchase, as is well known to everybody. If buying and selling is a matter of criminal character the proper thing would be first of all, to abolish this evil (connected with the brothels). 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?"

It is to be noted that none of the officials at Hong Kong accused the Chinese merchants of slander in saying that from 80 to 90 per cent of the thousands of prostitutes in the Colony were absolute slaves. The Government was placed in a very awkward position by this challenge on the part of the Chinese. How could a Government that held slaves in its licensed brothels forbid Chinese residents holding slaves in their homes? But the Governor did not propose to be compromised. He wrote to the Secretary of State at London: "I believe I only anticipate your instructions, in giving orders that the law, whatever may be the consequences to the brothel system, should be strictly enforced so as to secure the freedom of the women." But he reckoned without his host. The Secretary of State did not stand by the Governor. So far as the records show, the Governor and Chief Justice stood alone, his entire Executive Council taking the opposing side. What was to be done?



CHAPTER 11.

THE MAN FOR THE OCCASION.

Consistency demanded that either the brothel system at Hong Kong should be abolished, or domestic slavery and so-called "adoption" should be tolerated. No other courses were open. In his perplexity, the Governor asked his learned Chinese interpreter, Dr. Eitel, to give him further light as to this domestic slavery and "adoption" prevalent among the Chinese. This request was granted in a document entitled "Domestic servitude in relation to slavery." Dr. Eitel's main points were:

Slavery as known to the Westerner "has always been an incident of race." "Slavery, therefore, has such a peculiar meaning ... that one ought to hesitate before applying the term rashly" to Chinese domestic slavery. Slavery in China grows out of the fact that the father has all power, even to death, over his family. The father, on the other hand, "has many duties as well as rights." Therefore his power over his family "is not a mark of tyranny, but of religious unity." "Few foreigners have comprehended the extent of social equality, ... the amount of influence which woman, bought and sold as she is, really has in China,... the depth of domestic affection, of filial piety, of paternal care." "To deal justly with the slavery of China, we ought to invent another name for it." "The law, although sanctioning the sale of children for purposes of adoption within each clan, and even without, is here in advance of public opinion, as it expressly allows, by an edict, ... the sale of children only to extremely poor people in times of famine, and forbids even in that case re-sale of a child once bought."

This last admission on the part of Dr. Eitel, a fact already pointed out by Sir John Smale, seems to us to clearly demonstrate that a pretext was now being sought to justify at Hong Kong a state of things as to slavery that the laws of China forbade and which in no wise could be justified as Chinese "custom." "The reason for this immense demand for young female domestics lies in the system of polygamy which obtains all over the empire, and which has a religious basis." By this he means that it is from the Chinese standpoint a religious duty for a father to leave a son, upon his death, to continue the family sacrifices. Therefore if the father has no son by his first wife, he will "take a second or third or fourth wife until he procures a son." "A family being in urgent distress, and requiring immediately a certain sum of money, take one of their female children, say five years old ... to a wealthy family, where the child becomes a member of the family, and has, perhaps, to look after a baby.... But the child may be sold out and out. In that case invariably a deed is drawn up." And this is the state of things concerning which Dr. Eitel says: "Few foreigners have comprehended the extent of social equality ... the amount of influence which woman, bought and sold as she is, really has in China ... the depth of domestic affection, of filial piety, of parental care," etc.

He adds:

"Considering the deep hold which this system has on the Chinese people, it is not to be wondered at that Chinese can scarcely comprehend how an English judge could come to designate this species of domestic servitude as 'slavery.' On the contrary, intelligent Chinese look upon this system as the necessary and indispensable complement of polygamy, as an excellent counter remedy for the deplorably wide-spread system of infanticide, and as the natural consequence of the chronic occurrence of famines, inundations, and rebellions in an over-populated country. But the abuses to which this system of buying and selling female children is liable, in the hands of unscrupulous parents and buyers, and the support it lends to public prostitution, are too patent facts to require pointing out."

"The moment we examine closely into Chinese slavery and servitude," declares Dr. Eitel, "from the standpoint of history and sociology, we find that slavery and servitude have, with the exception of the system of eunuchs, lost all barbaric and revolting features." (!) "As this organism has had its certain natural evolution, it will as certainly undergo in due time a natural dissolution, which in fact has at more than one point already set in. But no legislative or executive measures taken in Hong Kong will hasten this process, which follows its own course and its own laws laid down by a wise Providence which happily overrules for the good all that is evil in the world."

There was, indeed, a certain justice in defending the Chinese as against the foreigner, on Dr. Eitel's part. But two wrongs do not make a right. From this time onward, the word of sophistry is put in the mouth of the advocate of domestic slavery, just as the word of sophistry had been put in the mouth of the advocate of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance. Mr. Labouchere had spoken of the latter as a means of protection' for the poor slaves, and the expression, 'protection,' has been kept prominently to the front ever since Dr. Eitel suggested, likewise, not a change in the conditions, but a change in the name by which they were known. Let it be called 'domestic servitude' instead of 'domestic slavery.' All the advocates of this domestic slavery from that time have called the noxious weed by the sweeter name.

Governor Hennessey asked the opinion of others of his officials. One Acting Police Magistrate replied 'When the servant girls (or slaves girls, as some prefer to term them) in the families in this Colony are contented with their lot, and their parents do not claim them, the police cannot be expected to interfere.' Another said 'Buying and selling children by the Chinese has been considered a harmless proceeding, its only effect being to place the purchaser under a legal and moral obligation to provide for the child until the seller chose to repudiate the bargain, which he could always do under English law.'

The Attorney General, Mr. O'Malley, when asked (at a later period) his opinion as to the utterances Sir John Smale had made from time to time on the subject of slavery, replied to the Governor

"With regard to Sir John Smale's observation, I know that difficulties national, social, official and financial beset the Government in reference to the special questions I have raised, I have only to observe that I have never heard of those difficulties. My own impression is that the respectable parts of the community, Chinese as well as European, including the Government and the police, are fully alive to the brothel and domestic servitude systems, and as well informed as Sir John Smale himself as to the real facts. One would suppose from the tone of his pamphlet that he stood alone in his perception and denunciation of evil. But I believe the fact is that the Executive and the community generally are quite as anxious is he is to insist upon practical precautions necessary to prevent the abuses, and to diminish the evils naturally connected with these systems, but they look for this to practical securities and not to declamation. The obvious line of practical suggestions to take is that of careful registration and constant inspection of brothels, so that full and frequent opportunity may be given to all persons whose freedom may be open to suspicion to know their legal position, and to assert their liberty if they like ... Particularly it might be thought right to create a system of registration applicable to domestic servants and strangers in family houses. It would be a good thing if Sir John Smale would place at the disposal of the Government (as I believe he has never yet done) any facts connected with the brothel system or the domestic servitude of which he possesses any real knowledge."

This letter gives us some conception of the almost insuperable difficulties Sir John Smale had to encounter in his endeavor to put down slavery, for not a case could come up in the Superior Court for conviction on the Judge's information, of course, for that would be assuming both prosecuting and judicial powers, and the men who occupied in turn that office, during Sir John Smale's incumbency, refused to act in unison with him, and this Attorney General's language betrays hot prejudice, lack of candor as regarded the facts, and insolence toward Sir John Smale.

The Attorney General has a fling at the Chief Justice as "impracticable," yet the only practical suggestion that the former makes in his letter as to how to meet the conditions he seems to have taken from Sir John Smale's own words upon which he was asked to express an opinion. The Chief Justice had said:

"I think the evils complained of might be lessened,—(1) By a better registration of the inmates of brothels, and by frequently bringing them before persons to whom they might freely speak as to their position and wishes, and by such authoritative interference with the brothel-keepers as should keep them well in fear of exercising acts of tyranny. (2) By a stringently enforced register of all inmates of Chinese dwelling-houses, &c., (at least of all servants) with full inquiry into the conditions of servitude, and an authoritative restoration of unwilling servants to freedom from servitude. This would apply to 10,000 (according to Dr. Eitel 20,000) bond servants in Hong Kong."

The injustice of the attack of the Attorney General upon Sir John Smale was not ignored by Governor Hennessy, when he forwarded Mr. O'Malley's letter to London. He said:

"The apparent difference between Mr. O'Malley's views on brothel slavery and the views of Sir John Smale is due to the fact that Sir John Smale knew that the real brothel slavery exists in the brothels where Chinese women are provided for European soldiers and sailors, whereas Mr. O'Malley, in discarding the use of the word slavery, does so on the assumption that all the Hong Kong brothels form a part of the Chinese social system, and that the girls naturally and willingly take to that mode of earning a livelihood. This is a misconception of the actual facts, for though the Hong Kong brothels, where Chinese women meet Chinese only, may seem to provide for such women what Mr. O'Malley calls 'a natural and suitable manner of life' consistent with a part of the Chinese social system, it is absolutely the reverse in those Hong Kong brothels where Chinese women have to meet foreigners only. Such brothels are unknown in the social system of China. The Chinese girls who are registered by the Government for the use of Europeans and Americans, detest the life they are compelled to lead. They have a dread and abhorrence of foreigners, and especially of the foreign soldiers and sailors. Such girls are the real slaves in Hong Kong."

We underscore the last sentence as a most painful fact in the history of the dealings of the British officials with the native women of China, set forth on the authority of the Governor of Hong Kong, who, with the help of Sir John Smale, the Chief Justice, waged such a fearless warfare against slavery under the British flag, with such unworthy misrepresentation and opposition on the part of the other officials equally responsible with them in preserving the good name of their country, and in defending rather than trampling upon its laws. Governor Hennessy continues

"To drive Chinese girls into such brothels [i.e., those for the use of foreigners] was the object of the system of informers which Mr. C. C. Smith for so many years conducted in this Colony, and which in his evidence before the Commission on the 3rd of December, 1877, he defended on the ground of its necessity in detecting unlicensed houses, but which your Lordship [Lord Kimberley, Secretary of State for the Colonies] has now justly stigmatized as a revolting abuse. On another point the Attorney General also seems not to appreciate fully what he must have heard Sir John Smale saying from the Bench in the Supreme Court. It would be a mistake to think that the Chief Justice had not before he left the Colony, realized the public opinion of the Chinese community on the subject of kidnaping. In sentencing a prisoner for kidnaping, on the 10th of March, 1881, Sir John Smale said he was bound to declare from the Bench that, to the credit of the Chinese, a right public opinion had been growing up, and on the 25th of March, 1881, (the last occasion when Sir John Smale spoke in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong), he said, in a case in which the kidnapers had been convicted—This case presents two satisfactory facts first, that a Chinese boat woman handed one of these prisoners to the police, and that afterward an agent of the Chinese Society to suppress this class of crime caused the arrest and conviction of these prisoners. These facts are indicative of the public mind tending to treat kidnaping as a crime against society, calling for active suppression. On the same occasion, in sentencing a woman who had severely beaten an adopted child, Sir John Smale said, 'In finally disposing of these three cases, with all their enormity, sources of satisfaction present themselves in the fact that, in each of these cases, it has been owing to the spontaneous indignation of Chinese men and women that these crimes have been brought to the knowledge of the police.' The Governor closes his letter with the statement, 'It is only due to Sir John Smale to add that his own action has greatly contributed to foster the "healthy" public opinion of the native community, which induced him, when quitting the Supreme Court, to take a hopeful view of the future of this important subject.'"



CHAPTER 12.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE ANSWERS HIS OPPONENTS.

The Acting Attorney General at the time of Sir John Smale's first pronouncement against slavery had suggested to Governor Hennessy that Sir John Smale's statements should be sent to London to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and he and other advisers recommended that no prosecutions in connection with "adoption" and "domestic servitude" should be instituted, pending the receipt of instructions from the Home Government. The Chief Justice concurred in these views, and also suggested that the Chinese be told that no prosecutions as to the past should take place, but that in future, in every case where buying and selling occurred in connection with adoption or domestic service, the Government would undoubtedly prosecute.

The replies that came from the Secretary of State indicated scant sympathy with Sir John Smale's position. His action was likely to disturb the system of regulation of vice at Hong Kong, and these health measures were in high repute with that official at London. He could not sympathize with the Governor's view that laws securing the freedom of the women were to be executed, whatever the result to the brothel system. He wrote in reply as though Sir John Smale had said many things that had not been put in the same light, demanded to know what law could be put into operation to improve conditions, and wished to know if Sir John Smale accepted Dr. Eitel's views on "domestic servitude," and later he wrote pronouncing the views expressed in the insolent attack of Mr. O'Malley upon Sir John Smale's anti-slavery pronouncements as "well considered and convincing." He also referred to the "humane intentions" of Mr. Labouchere in the passing of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance of Sir John Bowring's time, which "were intended to ameliorate the condition of the women." But it does not so much concern us what the officials in London did and said, excepting at the one point, namely, that they did not at this time back the noble efforts of the Governor and of Sir John Smale to put down slavery, and so rendered it practically impossible for them to accomplish what they wished to do. The replies from Sir John Smale are, however, of much value to us, as throwing light upon social conditions at Hong Kong. On August 26, 1880, Sir John Smale replied in a letter meant for the Secretary of State at London, but sent in due form to the Colonial Secretary at Hong Kong for forwarding:

"My observations in Court arose out of cases of kidnaping; and, according to the practices of judges in England, in their addresses to the Grand Juries, and on sentencing prisoners, I did as I thought it my duty to do. I traced the cause of the kidnaping to the demand for domestic bond servants, as Dr. Eitel calls them, and for brothels ... I said on the 7th of October I expressly indicate these two, and these two only, as the specific classes of slavery in Hong Kong as then rapidly increasing ... I cannot find a sentence in it which indicates any attempt by the Court to reach criminally cases of concubines."

"All that I contended for in what I then said beyond punishing kidnapers was to bring within the cognizance of the law those who bought from such kidnapers,—the receivers of such stolen 'chattels,'—leaving such buyers to set up and prove a justification if they could."

"On the 31st of March, 1880, prisoners in four cases of kidnaping,—one most harrowing,—were sentenced. I there lamented, and I am sure every right-minded man will concur with me, that it was the fact that the very poor were punished and the rich escaped. In that case it clearly appeared that one Leong Ming Aseng, apparently a respectable tradesman, at all events a man of means, had given $60 for a young girl aged 13 years, to one of the kidnapers, and he took her away beyond the reach of her distracted mother under circumstances from which he must have known that the child had been kidnaped. But although the facts were known at the Police Court, and this man remained exceeding ten days afterward in the Colony, no charge was ever made against him. After passing sentences at this time, I made some observations on the 'patria potestas' [power of the father] theory. Dr. Eitel having painted this condition in China in what I thought too favorable colors, I quoted from Doolittle's 'Social Life in China,' unquestioned testimony as to what patria potestas was in China before the controversy now raised, and from Mr. Parker, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Canton, as to its present state in China. After these quotations, I simply asked, Can greater tyranny, more unchecked caprice, be described or even conceived as inexcusable over wife, concubine, child, or purchased or inherited slave?'—the quotations I made being up to this time undisputed ... what I said was necessary to introduce the expression of my conviction ... that none of the elements of the system of patria potestas exist in Hong Kong, including of course adoption. It is to this conviction that I point as the moral ground for enforcing English law against kidnaping and buying and selling human beings. The gravamen of all my complaints is, that the pauper kidnapers and sellers are punished, while the rich buyers go free. No case can come on for trial in this Court except upon an information by the Attorney-General. I have called on the Attorney-General of the day to prosecute a man against whom there was evidence that the boy he was keeping as a servant had been bought by him direct from a kidnaper. The then Attorney-General exercised his discretion, and did not prosecute." "There are no difficulties in the way of carrying out the punishment of kidnaping, and sellers and buyers of children, or of keeping children by the purchasers, or in selling and buying of women for brothels, or in dealing with cases of brutal bondage." "I have spoken from criminal facts and circumstances deposed to in Court; the Chinese and Dr. Eitel have spoken from the favorable surroundings of respectable domestic life in China. The conflicting views thus presented are but a reproduction of conflicting testimony in reference to negro slavery in the West Indies, and more lately in the United States. Very benevolent persons, some my own friends, looking at facts from the respectable standpoint, thought that such slavery was based on human nature, and conduced to the spread of Christianity. But the contrary view prevailed. I am quite satisfied that the right view on this question will ultimately prevail. As a man I have very decided views on these subjects, but as a judge I feel it is not for me further to debate them. I expressly retired from doing so on the 27th of October, 1879, although I thought it necessary in March last to comment on what I thought to be an erroneous view of the patria potestas."

Later, in response to a suggestion on the part of the Governor, for a more explicit statement as to wherein his views differ from those of the Chinese and of Dr. Eitel, the Chief Justice says, among other things:

"I do not admit the statements of Dr. Eitel. They do not apply to Hong Kong, but they may, and probably do, apply to certain respectable classes in China proper, where China family life proper exists. What I assert is that family life does not, in the proper Chinese sense, exist in Hong Kong, and that although, under certain very restricted conditions, the buying and selling, and adopting and taking as concubines, boys and girls in China proper, is permitted as exceptions to the penalties inflicted by Chinese law in China proper, these conditions do not exist in Hong Kong; and that the conditions necessary to these exceptions in their favor in the Chinese Criminal Code do not exist in Hong Kong, and that the penalties would apply, if in China, to all such transactions as I have denounced in Hong Kong, of that I have no doubt. Dr. Eitel's vindication is of a system as recognized in an express exception to the Penal Code in China proper, which may, for aught I know, work well in China. What I have said is that the practices in Hong Kong do not come within the cases which are only the exception to the penal enactments in the Chinese Code against all such bondage in China. I have never said ... that all buying and selling of children for adoption or domestic service is contrary to Chinese law. What I have said is that all such buying and selling of children as has come within my cognizance in Hong Kong is contrary to Chinese law; but I do think that buying and selling even for adoption and domestic servitude under the best circumstances, constitutes slavery; legal according to Chinese law, but illegal according to British law. Reference is made to Chinese gentlemen; I believe that not one of them has his 'house' in Hong Kong; the wife (small-footed) is kept at the family home in China. Each of them has his harem only in Hong Kong. There may be an exception to this rule, but I have never heard of any such exception. (I know of only one, of a Chinese gentleman, who, for certain reasons, was afraid to return to China.) ... I have not known a single case of adoption by a Chinaman in Hong Kong. They may exist in China proper, and possibly in Hong Kong ... They are not in China proper a sacred religious obligation, except in rare cases indeed, in which the conditions of clanship and other stringent conditions are precisely complied with; and they have as much to do with the necessities of the poor, and no more, than would be the case in England or Ireland in the time of a famine. These Chinese gentlemen say that the children are well cared for. If girls eligible for marriage or concubinage, they are sold for that, and form a profitable investment to a Chinese gentleman. If not so eligible, they are sold for any, even the worst purpose,—brothels, according to my experience in the Criminal Courts of Hong Kong. If the former, it may be that they do well; but if the latter, no slavery is worse. This as to females. And as to males, the purchaser holds them until they can redeem themselves, and, according to my experience, generally never. Again, the Chinese gentlemen allege that if the adoptive parent or master does not do his duty the actual parents have their remedy. The answer is, so far as Hong Kong is concerned, the far greater number of actual parents are far away in China, have entirely lost sight of the child, and are far too poor to seek a remedy in Hong Kong. They would have a remedy, if they were present and knew it, but they do not know that there is a remedy. They had their remedy from the first in China proper. Well, a remedy in the Mandarin Court, where the longest purse prevails, and into which a poor man seldom dares to enter a complaint."

"Lastly, it is said that the lot of these children is far happier than if they had been left to their ordinary fate. So say these Chinese gentlemen; so said the noble and wealthy, the much respected slave trader and holder, a century ago in England. The answer to him then is the only answer for these Chinese gentlemen. It is a long one which presents itself to everyone who has studied the slavery and the slave-trade question. Besides this long argumentative answer, one question must be answered:—Is it right to do or sanction wrong that good may come?"

"A very long time has elapsed since I received your letter forwarding that dispatch [containing the request of the Secretary of State for the Chief Justice to state his views as to Dr. Eitel's representations], in June last; but the delay has been advantageous, as it has enabled me to obtain a memorandum on the subject by Mr. Francis, barrister here, and for a year Acting Puisne Judge ... I write on this subject from an experience in Hong Kong since early in 1861; Mr. Francis from a very extensive experience in both China proper and in this Colony since some years previously." He then enters into history to show that "Mr. Francis of necessity studied ... the whole law on the subject of slavery or bondage in every form here."

Mr. Francis first reviews all the legislative measures existent at Hong Kong concerning slavery, in the clearest manner possible, leaving no doubts in the mind of any fair-minded person that laws were not wanting to put down slavery:

First: Hong Kong, being a Crown Colony, "the power of the Sovereign in respect of legislation is absolute."

Second: The proclamation of Sir Charles Elliott, of tolerance of native customs was "pending Her Majesty's pleasure," and no longer.

Third: Her Majesty's pleasure was declared at Hong Kong: (a) By the Proclamation of 1845; (b) "By Ordinance 6 of 1845, 2 of 1846, and 12 of 1873, by the combined operation of which the law of England, common and statute, as it existed on the 5th day of April, 1843, became the law of Hong Kong."

Says Mr. Francis of Ordinance 6 of 1845, "The relations of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, master and servant, whatever they may have been when Hong Kong was Chinese, became from the date of that Ordinance what English law made them, and nothing more or less."

"But in addition to the declarations of the Common Law," declares Mr. Francis, the following are in full force at Hong Kong: "The Act of the 5th George IV. c. 113, the Act of the 3rd and 4th William IV. c. 73, and the Act 6th and 7th Victoria c. 98, which have in the widest terms abolished slavery throughout the British dominions." "These Acts declare it unlawful for anyone owing allegiance to the British Crown, whether within or without the dominions of the Crown, to hold or in any way deal in slaves, or to participate in any way in such dealing, or to do any act which would contribute in any way to enable others to hold or deal in slaves. This simple declaration, if it stood alone, would make every act of slave-holding a misdemeanour, but the Acts themselves make it piracy, felony, or misdemeanour, as the case may be, to do any of the acts declared to be unlawful. These Acts further declare that persons holden in servitude as pledges or pawns for debt shall, for the purpose of the Slave Trade Acts, be deemed and construed to be slaves, or persons intended to be dealt with as slaves. Hundreds of persons are held in such servitude as pledged or pawned in Hong Kong, and not one of the parties to such transactions has ever been proceeded against under these Acts."

"In addition to the above-mentioned Acts of George, William and Victoria, there is also the Imperial Act, entitled The Slave Trade Act, 1873, which consolidates the laws for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and which is in force in Hong Kong by its own authority. We have also the provisions of the Local Ordinance 4 of 1865, sections 50 and 51, and 2 of 1875."

"Offenses against the provisions of these Ordinances, so far as they relate to women or children, are still very common, and are growing more numerous every day, and until the system of prostitution which prevails in this Colony, and the system of breeding up young girls from their infancy to supply the brothels of Hong Kong, Singapore, and San Francisco, is declared to be slavery, and is treated and punished as such in Hong Kong, no stop will ever be put to the kidnaping of women and the buying and selling of female children in Hong Kong. This buying and selling is only an effect of which the existing system of Chinese prostitution is the cause. Get rid of that, and there is an end of kidnaping."

Again the nail had been struck on the head. Licensed brothel slavery, as it exists at Hong Kong, was put forward by the Chinese merchants as something to be dealt with before British officials could consistently lay violent hands on the more trivial offenses of domestic slavery and so-called "adoption." Brothel slavery, says Mr. Francis, must be dealt with as slavery before the practice of kidnaping can be put under control. This lesson was learned long ago. What did all the laws against man-stealing and slave-trading ever accomplish so long as the slave owner was allowed to keep his slave? As soon as slave-holding was declared impossible in the United States, there was no more trouble with slave-traders. Traders go to a market where they can dispose of their goods, not to a place where their kind of goods are a drug on the market.

Says Mr. Francis bluntly: "The Chinese custom of adoption, whether of boys for continuing the family and worship of ancestors, or of girls for the ordinary purposes of domestic service, is not the foundation of all this buying and selling of women and girls; it is only the pretext and excuse." Mr. Francis states that the buying and selling of boys is rare as compared with the buying and selling of girls. That there are few Chinese families in Hong Kong.

"The better class Chinese leave their wives in China. The transaction of purchase of these boys takes place at the home of the fathers of them in China. Seldom is it necessary to buy a son, as the usual custom when a wife has no son is to take another wife, not to buy a boy for a son,—hence such buying of boys is for servitude and for ransom, at Hong Kong." "Girls are not bought and sold in Hong Kong for domestic servitude under Chinese custom. They are bought and sold for the purpose of prostitution, here and elsewhere, and instead of being apprenticed to the domesticities, and of being brought up to be good wives and mothers, they are bought and sold,—brought up and trained for a life of prostitution, a life of the most abject and degrading slavery.... By the last census [this was written in 1880], there were in Hong Kong 24,387 Chinese women to 81,025 men. Of these 24,387 women the late Mr. May [Superintendent of Police] was of opinion that 20,000, or five-sixths, come under the denomination of prostitutes ... A Chinese doctor of large experience fixed the number of quasi-respectable women at one-fourth the whole number, or say 6,000, leaving 18,000 prostitutes. These opinions were taken and adopted by the Commission of 1877-1879 ... Who and what are these prostitutes who form by far the greater bulk of the Chinese female population of Hong Kong? The Report of the Commission answers the question: 'The great majority of them are owned by professional brothel-keepers or traders in women in Canton or Macao; they have been brought up for the profession, and trained in various accomplishments suited to their life ... They frequently know neither father nor mother, except what they call a pocket-mother,—that is, the woman who bought them from others ... They are owned in Macao and Canton. They are bought as infants. They come to Hong Kong at 13 or 14, and are deflowered at a special price which goes to the owners. The owner gets the whole of their earnings, and even gets presents given to the girls, who are allowed three or four dollars a month pocket-money. When some of the girls are sent away on account of age, new ones are got from Canton. If these girls are not slaves in every sense of the word, there is no such thing as slavery in existence. If this buying and selling for the purpose of training female children up for this life is not slave-dealing, then never was such a thing as slave-dealing in this world. There are 18,000 to 20,000 prostitutes in Hong Kong to 4,000 or 5,000 respectable Chinese women.... Once in five years the stock has to be renewed. It is for this purpose, and not for the legitimate or quasi-legitimate purposes of Chinese adoption and Chinese family life, that children and women are kidnaped and bought and sold ... Until this slave-holding and slave-dealing are entirely suppressed, the grosser abuses arising out of it and incidental to it (kidnaping of women and children) can never be put an end to."

It was on May 20th, 1880, that the Secretary of State asked for the first statement of Sir John Smale's views as to kidnaping and domestic slavery. His reply is dated August 26th, and in it he refers to reasons for his delay in replying, of which the Governor is "well aware." His supplementary letter enclosing the Memorandum of slavery by Mr. Francis, was dated Nov. 24th, 1880. On April 2nd, 1881, he wrote a third time to the Colonial Secretary, from which we gather that even up to that time his explanations had not been forwarded to Lord Kimberley, Secretary of State. Said he:

"I had hoped that these letters would have been forwarded last year, in the belief that they might have induced a less unfavorable view by Lord Kimberley of my judicial action as to these matters, and with the more important object of presenting what appears to me to be the great gravity of the evils I have denounced, as they affect the moral status of the Colony, in order that some remedy may be applied to them.... I am informed that His Excellency the Governor has been unable to obtain the opinion of the Attorney-General on the points raised." ...

It is impossible not to feel that this neglect on the part of someone at Hong Kong to forward the Chief Justice's letters until the first of these was a year old (for they were actually sent in August, 1881), was a designed obstruction of his endeavors to set himself in the correct light, and to enlighten the Christian public of Great Britain as to the abuses existing at Hong Kong.

In this letter expressing regret at the delay of his letters, he speaks of convictions of eight more cases of kidnaping, and "almost unprecedented brutal assaults on bought children." "Considering the special waste of life in brothel life, and the general want of new importations to keep up the bondage class of 20,000 in this Colony, the cases of kidnaping detected cannot be one-half of one per cent of the children and women kidnaped."

"Two cases of brutal treatment of young girls by purchasers, their pocket-mothers, one little girl having had her leg broken by beating her, and the other having been shockingly and indecently burnt,—both probably weakened for life,—illustrate the cruel passions which ownership in human beings engenders here, as it ever has done elsewhere. In a case now before the magistrate, the evidence tends to show that a girl thirteen years old was bought by a brothel-keeper for $200, and forced, by beating and ill-treatment, into that course of life in a brothel licensed by law. Subject to such surveillance as these houses are by law, it seems to me such slavery is easy of suppression."

At this time the official career of Sir John Smale at Hong Kong terminated.



CHAPTER 13.

THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY TO THE STRAITS SETTLEMENT.

We have traced the development of slavery from State-protected brothel slavery to State-tolerated domestic slavery and "adoption" of boys. Now we turn to Singapore, to find that all these forms of slavery exist there under the British flag, with the addition of a coolie-traffic dangerously like slavery, also, and they are all under the management of the Registrar General, or "Protector of the Chinese," as he is always called at the Straits. For the general description of conditions in the Straits Settlements, more especially at Singapore, we give in full a paper read by an Englishman, a resident of Singapore for many years, at the Annual Conference of American Methodist Missionaries, held in Singapore in 1894,—a paper which was endorsed by that body:

It has come to be almost universally acknowledged that Singapore is indebted as much to Chinese as to British enterprise for its present commercial prosperity, and therefore the subject of Chinese labour which is vexing America and Australia, assumes a very different aspect in the Straits Settlements, and the fact that Chinese immigration has increased 50 per cent in the last ten years is looked upon as an unmitigated blessing. The magnitude of the Singapore labour trade will be understood when it is known that the number of Chinese who came to this port last year, either as genuine immigrants or for transshipment to other ports, was 122,029, which is actually more than the entire Chinese population of the town. In connection with the immigration of this multitude of men and women, speaking many dialects of a language which is wholly unknown to the officials of the British Government in the Straits, with the exception of perhaps half a dozen persons, it cannot be wondered at that many abuses arise, and the suspicion has gained ground and is frequently given expression to, in the public press and elsewhere, that many of the immigrants do not come to Singapore of their free will. Moreover, it cannot be denied that the circumstances under which the Chinese come to Singapore and are forwarded to their destination lend colour to this suspicion, so that it may fairly be inquired whether the efforts made by the Government of the Straits Settlements to control the Chinese coolie traffic and to prevent a secret form of slavery have been attended with any success, or are at all adequate to the requirements of the case.

The Annual Report for the year 1892 on the Chinese Protectorate in the Straits Settlements which is the department charged with the control of immigration, was published on the 5th of May, 1893, and states that of the 122,029 Chinese deck passengers who arrived in Singapore from China during the year, 111,164 were males, 6,867 women and 3,998 children. The circumstances under which the men and the women are brought to Singapore are in many respects the same, but inasmuch as a large number of the women and some of the children are imported for immoral purposes, this part of the subject will be dealt with separately. Turning then to the above mentioned Report, we find as regards male immigration, that out of the 111,164 who arrived in Singapore 23,647 proceeded direct to Penang, and 1,798 to Malacca, Bangkok and Mauritius, leaving 85,719 remaining in Singapore, of whom 76,601 are classed as 'paid passengers,' and 9,118 as "unpaid passengers received into depots." With the former class the Chinese Protectorate has nothing more to do, unless they come to the Protector to sign a Government labour contract with planters or other employers of labor, but with the 'unpaid passengers' the case is very different. These men are brought to the Straits to the number of about 15,000 a year, under what is spoken of in the Report as "the much objurgated depot and broker system," and the facts as presented below will speak for themselves as to whether the objurgations are warranted or not. The brokers are all China men, and are admitted to be men of the worst character. They have their assistants or partners in the chief ports of China, who scout the country round in search of men and are known to be not very particular as to the means they employ in obtaining them. Nothing is required of the recruit except a willingness to hand himself over with his scanty outfit to the tender mercies of the broker, who pays his passage and provides him with food and such things as he considers needful. While the vessels, however, with their decks crowded with emigrants, are leaving the Chinese ports, it is a common occurrence for the cry of "man overboard" to be raised, so common indeed that few Captains now take the trouble to stop their ships, leaving the fugitive coolie to his fate or to be picked up by one of the native craft which are usually close at hand. The readiness of the Chinese emigrant thus to risk his life for the purpose of regaining his freedom, is explained by the advocates of the depot and broker system as arising from a desire on his part to outwit the broker and perhaps obtain another bonus by offering himself a second time as a candidate for the honour of a free passage, but it seems quite as likely that nothing less than kidnaping or forcible detention would induce men to run so great a risk. On arrival at Singapore the broker is again on the qui vive to see that his captives do not jump into the sea, and as each coolie ship arrives at the wharf, a small force of police is in waiting to keep a space clear and prevent any attempt at escape, while the officers of the Protectorate board the ship, accompanied by a further force of marine police, for the purpose of inspecting the coolies. When permission is given to disembark, the unpaid passengers are made up into small parties and marched through the town to the depots under the escort of the brokers and several of their assistants, with much yelling and good deal of rough handling, and an occasional halt while a straggler or a would be runaway is brought back to the party. That the coolies are frequently successful in their attempts to escape is shown in the Report of the Chinese Protectorate, 160 being returned as 'absconded either when landing or at depot' in Singapore, and 101 at Penang, or about 1-3/4 per cent of the "unpaid passengers". On arrival at the depot, the coolies are probably surprised to find themselves securely confined in houses which look uncomfortably like prisons, and the passer-by may see the dirty and unkempt sin-khehs or "new men," as these emigrants are called, peering out between the thick wooden bars of the windows. The coolies are thus forcibly detained at the depots until the brokers are successful in finding employers who are prepared to pay the price per head which they demand, a sum of about L10. In the meanwhile however, it appears from the Report that nearly 4-1/2 per cent of the inmates of the depots are discovered and redeemed by their friends, the numbers being 414 at Singapore, and 278 at Penang, and a further 1-3/4 per cent, or 236 at Singapore, and 55 at Penang, are shown under the headings "released and returned to China," having presumably been discovered to have been kidnaped. Of the total number of "unpaid passengers" arriving at Singapore and Penang, about 91 per cent eventually sign contracts and are made over to their employers or their agents, the majority of these being shipped off, under escort as before to the Native States of the Malay Peninsula or other neighboring countries, to labour for a fixed term of years after which the coolie is free to return to his native land or to seek such other employment as he may see fit.

Such are the circumstances under which thousands of our fellow beings are annually brought to the labour market at Singapore, and it must be admitted that, to say the least of it, the system does not seem worthy of Western nineteenth century civilization. At the same time the extreme difficulty of controlling the 'depot and broker system,' or even of providing an efficient substitute for it, must be freely admitted. The system of Government contracts and inspection of immigrants has already done something toward ameliorating the condition of the coolie, and guarding him against illegal detention after his arrival at Singapore or Penang. Much more, however, remains to be done before the coolie trade will cease to be a reproach to the Straits Settlements, and it is doubtful whether any satisfactory reforms will be accomplished until the Chinese Government is moved in the matter with a view to checking the evil at the fountain head. Failing this, it would be worth considering whether the system of "unpaid passengers" might not advantageously be abolished, especially as this class of immigrant represents only 11 per cent of the total immigration, and more than one-third of the labor contracts last year were voluntarily signed by "paid passengers." It seems probable that if the "unpaid passenger" system were abolished, and the market thus thrown open to free competition, a much larger number of "paid passengers" would offer for contracts. But, even if this plan should appear to involve too great a risk of diminishing the flow of Chinese coolies to Singapore, it surely would not too severely tax the ingenuity of the Straits Government to devise a system of State-aided immigration, closely resembling that which has for many years been working in Canada, and more in accord with the dictates of ordinary humanity and English ideas of the liberty of the subject.

Among the Chinese at Singapore the women number less than one-fifth of the population, and at Penang the proportion between males and females is practically the same. In the immigration returns the disparity is even more marked, for there is only one female immigrant to every eighteen men. This extraordinary preponderance of males in the Chinese population of these towns has given rise to, and is made the standing excuse for, a wholesale system of prostitution to which it would be difficult to find a parallel. Government registration and protection have favored the growth of this diabolical plague spot, for, strange to say, this gigantic system of debauchery is under the direction of the department which is euphemistically entitled "The Chinese Protectorate," the "Protector of Chinese" at Singapore being also the Inspector of over 200 brothels, and the Registrar of about 1,800 prostitutes. Many streets of well built three-story houses, chiefly in one particular quarter of the town, are devoted to this nefarious traffic, and are thronged every night with Chinamen who loaf about and gaze into the front rooms and verandahs of the brothels, for these front rooms open on the street and there the women and girls are assembled in their best attire for the inspection of the passers-by. Anything more ostentatiously and revoltingly public could hardly have been devised, and it is painful to reflect that the whole arrangement is the product of Western civilization, such scenes being utterly unknown in China except in the treaty ports, where public prostitution has also been introduced by Europeans.

Taking Singapore as a sample of the working of this system of regulated vice in the Straits Settlements, we will now proceed to inquire into the means by which this army of prostitutes is recruited. Out of the total of 1,800 prostitutes in Singapore the Chinese women number on the average 1,600, and last year (1892) no less than 621 women entered brothels from China and Hong Kong, in spite of which the number of inmates fell from 1,657 in January to 1,601 in December, so that it may fairly be inferred that more than 650 women are required annually to fill up the vacancies which occur. In order to explain the manner in which this large number of girls and young women are obtained each year, it must be stated that all the affairs connected with the inmates of houses of ill-fame in the Straits Settlements are in the hands of the brothel-keepers. These persons in Penang have formed a "Brothel-keepers' Guild," which appears in the Report of the Chinese Protectorate as one of the registered societies of that town and boasts of 297 members. The brothel-keepers of Singapore are probably banded together in the same way, and in proportion to the number of brothels should be more than twice as numerous as those in Penang. These brothel-keepers have their confederates in China, who search for girls and young women in the same way that the coolie-brokers search for the men, and these unfortunate young persons are brought to Singapore in batches under escort in the same way as the men, but are taken from the ships in closed carriages instead of being driven through the town like sheep, as the men are. All these young women and girls, who are brought to Singapore for immoral purposes, with the full knowledge and consent of the Government, are taken direct from the ships to the office of the Protector of Chinese, to be questioned as to their willingness to lead a life of shame; but the value of this interrogation may be inferred from the fact that the subordinate officer to whom this duty is generally assigned is not acquainted with the language spoken by the women. As a further precaution against the illegal detention of women and girls in brothels, a Government notice is posted in each of these houses, to the effect that the inmates are perfectly at liberty to leave whenever they like, but this is of little use, as hardly any of them can read, and it would be more to the purpose if the Government ordered the removal of the bars from the doors and windows of the brothels. The fact is that these precautions against illegal detention are practically useless, and this is admitted even by the editor of such a paper as the Hong Kong Daily Press, who some time ago discussed the question apropos of the suicide of a Hong Kong prostitute who was desirous of being married. The man who wished to marry her offered the pocket-mother a sum of $2,000, but she demanded $2,300 and refused to part with the woman for less; whereupon she hung herself. The following comments on this case are from the Hong Kong Daily Press:

"It would appear on the face of it that the efforts of the Government are absolutely impotent, the notices so much waste paper, and the 'rights of liberty' mere empty phrases of no meaning or significance to the Chinese mind ... A Chinawoman would never dream of effecting her escape for the purpose of evading the blood money. Of course such transactions are absolutely illegal, there is no tittle of reason why the man should pay a cent for the girl, but it is nevertheless an indubitable fact that the custom is widely prevalent, and that Hong Kong is a market for the buying and selling of women which the Government is powerless to touch. Exeter Hall in possession of these facts would indeed have a theme for pious lucubrations."

Commenting upon the same case the Singapore Free Press says:

"A recent investigation into a case of suicide in Hong Kong brings into strong prominence what is really a system of slavery of the worst kind, and which is not unknown in Singapore."

Such testimony is valuable from papers which have consistently supported the Contagious Diseases Ordinances and vilified the opponents of the State regulation of vice. There can be little doubt that a large proportion of the girls and young women who are brought to the Straits Settlements for immoral purposes have been sold in China to the brothel-keepers' confederates. In many cases girls are thus sold by their parents for the payment of gambling and other debts, and sometimes, alas, to provide money for the purchase of opium. Surely it is a burning shame that British Colonies should have become the market for the sale of Chinese women into this diabolical form of slavery.

This article cannot be closed without a brief reference to another and more subtle form of slavery which is well known to exist in the Straits. The last Report of the Chinese Protectorate reveals the fact that during last year (1892) in Singapore alone 426 prostitutes left brothels and went into private houses, and in the same period 148 left private houses and entered brothels. The wealthy Chinese in the Straits Settlements keep up very large establishments, and the uninitiated visitor cannot fail to be surprised at the number of young women in the quarter assigned to the servants. They are employed on house work, and keep the magnificent furniture and wardrobes in splendid order, and in many cases they make cakes and sweetmeats which are sold on the streets by their own offspring. The question naturally arises,—Are these women and girls free agents? It is very difficult to say with certainty whether they are free or not, but it is generally admitted that a subtle form of domestic slavery does exist in the Straits, and that boys as well as girls are bought and sold with impunity.

This account in no way exaggerates conditions, as official documents plainly show. We will confine our thoughts, however, to the women. In a plea for the continuance of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance at Singapore, Mr. Pickering, "Protector," describes two classes of prostitutes, a proportion of free women "who come down here to gain a livelihood, and girls purchased when very young.... These are absolutely the property of their owners, chiefly women whom the girl calls 'mother,' and whom they regard as such.... The mistress brings her girls down to the Straits, and either sells them, or takes them from place to place, lodging them in licensed brothels where she resides, nominally a servant, but receiving the earnings of her girls, and paying a commission to the licensed keeper. In case of sale, the so-called 'mother' receives the price paid for her 'daughter,' and the 'daughter' signs a promissory note for the amount, with heavy interest; the former owner returns to China, and the victim is bound to serve the Straits mistress; at the same time, the girl is comparatively (!) fortunate in that, coming here under the protection we can give through the Contagious Diseases Ordinances, she has some chance of becoming a free woman."

Now listen, reader, to the wonderful chances of becoming a free woman under the British flag, this "Protector" holds out to the slave girls who are placed in his officially managed brothels:

"The girls with their promissory notes are passed from hand to hand in sale, or as pledges for loans; and in one brothel I found two girls, who had, on arrival in Singapore from China some six years previous, signed a note for $300 each, of which every cent had been received and taken back to China by the person who had disposed of them. During the six years they had been the property of two or three successive owners, and when I found them in Penang they were still being detained with the original promissory note hanging over them, though the sum had been paid over and over again. On my insisting on accounts being produced by the brothel-keeper, I discovered that for three years the girls had been earning from 20 to 30 dollars each per month, all of which went to the master, who was surprised when the girls were released and himself threatened with the law." (!)

From this we discover that Mr. Pickering intends that we shall think that the reason why he has a salary from the British Government, is, among other things, to see that slave girls only need to redeem themselves by hard earned money through unspeakable humiliation from one, or two, or more owners, and then there is an end to the patience of the "Protector" with the slave-trader, who will be surprised to find himself "threatened"—not punished—with the law! But Cecil C. Smith, formerly Protector of Chinese (Registrar General) at Hong Kong, was knighted and made Governor at Singapore, and about a year later than this, says, in reference to this very representation: "The Protector of Chinese has no efficient means of dealing with the accounts of the inmates of brothels, nor has he ever dealt with them. The Government should hold itself entirely aloof from interfering with such matters." We see, then, of how much account the representations of Mr. Pickering were as to the usefulness of the "Protector" to the women at this point, but incidentally he has revealed a shocking state of slavery perfectly known and not in the least interfered with by the "Protector."

Mr. Pickering continues: "At that time the majority of inmates of brothels were in the same condition; besides this, they were subject to great cruelty and restraint." He professes a great improvement, since then, but we may take his word for what it is worth on such a point. "We, indeed ... have asked for, and trust to get, more legislation to enable us to rescue the numbers of small children who, purchased in China, are brought down here and trained for a life of prostitution." Nothing of the sort. He knew perfectly well, as did every Englishman in the Colony, that the Common Law alone of Great Britain, if there were nothing more, was quite sufficient to deliver every one of these children, as well as every slave girl, in the country. If more legislation were desired it was for some other purpose than to empty the brothels of their slaves. He goes on to state that children born in brothels "in case of free women belong to the mother, but when prostitutes, their issue is claimed by their owners, unless their mothers complain to the Registrar," which of course, he knew, they would never venture to do. "We know well that even now there is a deal of traffic in young girls going on, and that a number of inmates of brothels are really slaves.... The only Europeans I have heard object to the Contagious Diseases Ordinance are those who, in their well-meant zeal, would abolish prostitution, and punish all parties engaged as criminals." Precisely! Sir John Smale at Hong Kong had undertaken to "punish all parties engaged" in this nefarious slave business, and his methods were declared unwise and unpractical, simply because his methods endangered prostitution in the form of brothel-slavery. Says Mr. Pickering in conclusion:

"I myself profess to be a Christian, and endeavor according to my light, and as far as my nature will allow, to conform my conduct to the standards of my religion; while holding these principles, I certainly feel that I should not be acting in accordance with the wishes of my Master, were I not to advocate most strongly that healing should be extended to the poor, the helpless, and afflicted, whether they be harlots or any other kind of sinners, who; unless the Government assist them by forced examinations, will suffer and often die in misery from the want of medical assistance." Perhaps the most charitable view to take of this creature is that suggested by himself. He was a Christian, he claims, "as far as my nature will allow." Had his nature only allowed him to see further, he would have perceived a distance as wide as heaven is from hell between the conduct of the Divine Master who "went about healing all that were oppressed," and the man who prostitutes the healing art to the service of libertines, in making it healthier, if possible, for them to defy the commandments of that same Divine Master. Such doctors are the offscouring of the medical profession.

A Chinaman one day entered Mr. Pickering's office at the Protectorate in Singapore, accused him of selling his brother into slavery, and tried to brain him with an axe. The blow was not fatal, but the "Protector," if living, is still in a mad house.

The attitude of the average official mind in this part of the world, among the British, as betrayed by innumerable expressions in their own documents, is perhaps most precisely put by Mr. Swettenham. British Resident at Perak. Speaking of measures adopted to make vice more healthy, he says: "As to the Chinese, the only question in the minds of members (of the Council) was whether such an Order would not drive the women from the state," and then he declares the measures were introduced cautiously and gradually ... "The steps already taken have been with the object of protecting Chinese women from ill treatment and oppression in a state of life ... where the labour required is compulsory prostitution for the benefit of unscrupulous masters ... and secondly, in the interest of public order and decency ..." "always remembering that where the males so enormously outnumber the females, the prostitute is a necessary evil," "I have avoided any reference to the moral question," continues Mr. Swettenham, "Morality is dependent on the influence of climate, religious belief, education, and the feeling of society. All these conditions differ in different parts of the world."



CHAPTER 14.

PROTECTIVE ORDINANCES.

After eighteen years' hard struggle, the British Abolitionists succeeded in getting Parliament to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts in force in certain military stations in England, and in force in other parts of the British Empire. It now became the duty of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to see that all the Crown Colonies, such as Hong Kong and Singapore followed suit. This was in 1886, and the Contagious Diseases Ordinances for these two places were not replaced by other legislation until 1888 at Singapore, and 1890 at Hong Kong. From what we have seen of the spirit of these officials in general it seems needless to say that the old Contagious Diseases Ordinances were repealed amid a storm of protests. One of the Municipal Commissioners of Singapore "said that the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance was the most cruel and merciless act which had ever been done." A statement from the unofficial members of the Legislative Council at Hong Kong declared: "In England abuses might have arisen under the recent law, but here it is impossible," and very much more of the same false nature. The new Ordinances are excellent reading, and in the hands of the right sort of officials would do incalculable good. But laws were not needed in the Colonies to put down slavery. Mr. Francis' Memorandum, and Sir John Smale's pronouncements have clearly demonstrated that fact, but the right sort of men were needed to enforce the laws already in existence, in the same disinterested manner in which Sir John Smale had wrought so effectually. The new law was, however, put in each case under the administration of the "Protector" and his staff of officials, and the result has been, and could but be unsatisfactory, to the present day.

For instance, in 1893, Mr. H.E. Wodehouse, Police Magistrate at Hong Kong, in reporting on a case of suicide of a slave girl to the Colonial Secretary at Hong Kong, to be transmitted for the information of Lord Ripon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, who had asked for the information, goes quite fully into a description of conditions at this time, three years after the passage of the Protective Ordinance. He says:

"The name of the deceased was Chan Ngan-Kin.... She was registered as a prostitute in this brothel on the 23rd of December, 1890. When registering her name she said she had no pocket-mother, that her parents were both dead, and that she became a prostitute of her own free will. The inspector said that that was the description of themselves that nearly all prostitutes give, and that it was very rarely that it was true. The further evidence went to prove that she and a young man were mutually attached to each other, and he was anxious to redeem her, and that she was desirous of being redeemed, but that the price asked, two thousand three hundred dollars, was more than he was willing to give, though he was willing to give two thousand dollars.... There is little doubt that his inability to redeem her caused her to commit suicide.... The pocket-mother was not produced [at the inquest], and there was a general disposition on the part of the Chinese witnesses to withhold information."

Lord Ripon said in his letter of inquiry: "If the facts were as stated in the above-mentioned paper, it would seem to prove that it is not generally understood in the Colony that a brothel keeper has no legal right to demand any redemption money for the release of one of the inmates." To this the Magistrate replies, in explanation:

"It is not quite correct to speak of the brothel-keeper as demanding redemption money. The person whose property the prostitute is is the pocket-mother, that is to say, the purchaser of the girl. Nearly every prostitute has her own pocket-mother, and she it is who has sole control over the prostitute's movements. All the earnings go to her, and the redemption money when redemption takes place. The 'brothel-keeper' is a creation of the Government, and the term has, I think, led to some misappreciation of the actual state of things. It is true that, being registered by the Government, she becomes in a manner responsible for the proper conduct of the establishment, but the property in the girl does not rest in her, except in the case of the two or three girls to whom she may herself be pocket-mother, that is to say, whom she may herself have purchased. The pocket-mothers are the real proprietresses of their purchases, and a brothel-keeper would not regard herself as in any way connected with such girls, beyond the obligation devolving upon her of registering the inmates of the house of which she, as tenant or owner, was the proprietress. A Chinese brothel is in fact merely a collection under one roof of several different establishments, consisting of the pocket-mothers and their purchases, the pocket-mothers for the most part being the body-servants of their charges, and administering to their daily wants, though in reality their mistresses and their absolute owners."

The document scarcely needs comment. It illustrates the fact that one may have most ideal laws, but laws never operate automatically, and in the absence of any desire to "let the oppressed go free," but rather an eager desire to hold them in subjection to the base propensities of profligate men, as all the State documents representing the situation tend to show, there is small proof that the "Women and Girls' Protective Ordinance of 1889" has had any appreciable effect in altering the slave conditions at Hong Kong. The same old notorious inspector, John Lee, who, Governor Hennessy thought, ought to have been prosecuted for manslaughter, after he hounded those native women to their death, was Chief Inspector of Brothels at Hong Kong in 1894, when we made investigations in that Colony, and personally interviewed many of these slave girls, and heard their stories.

The most recent official documents relating to the matter have been commented upon in The Shield (organ of the British Committee of the International Purity Federation), in its issue dated London, June, 1906, as follows:

"One of the most important parliamentary papers of recent years on our question has just been issued in response to questions put in the House of Commons by Mr. Henry J. Wilson, M.P., on March 8th last. The title is, 'Further Correspondence relating to Measures Adopted for Checking the Spread of Venereal Disease' (Cd. 2903), and relates to enactments in the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, and Gibraltar, during the period in which the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain was at the head of the Colonial office.

"The correspondence in question further reveals the existence and extent of a 'Yellow Slave Trade' in the East of large dimensions. The girls in question are stated to be 'bought when young,' and 'believe themselves bound body and soul to the brothel-keepers.' Nine hundred and sixty-eight Chinese women, presumably of this kind, are reported at Penang, and 62 Japanese women. There were 176 admissions of Japanese women, and 141 admissions of Chinese women in 1899 to the public hospital at Singapore, besides numbers of other cases to private hospitals maintained by the keepers of the houses of ill-fame.

"Many passages in the correspondence give evidence of a continual import traffic going on, which the head of the Regulation Department, the 'Protector of Chinese,' at Singapore, seems to have made some effort to counteract. He speaks of ten girls between 9 and 15 that he attempted to rescue from sale to a traveling dealer, but who were returned to their former surroundings on a writ of habeas corpus by the Supreme Court; but upon information in regard to this case reaching the Colonial office in London, correspondence ensued which resulted in Mr. Chamberlain directing an alteration of the law to meet the case of the prosecution which had so lamentably failed.

"The Protector of Chinese also tells of 'girls under ten years of age who are bought and sold in the colony,' 'brought from China for purposes of sale,' 'generally sold to inmates of brothels,' and of women who are 'in the habit of arriving from China with relays of babies' for the same purpose. The Straits Settlements Government thus attempts to cut off a twig here and there of the tree of this evil traffic, whilst leaving untouched the root and trunk of the tree itself, the State protection of vice, by which it is made practicable safely to invest large capital in this most nefarious but lucrative traffic.

"Page 4 of this Correspondence shows that an ordinance was passed in 1899, imposing very heavy fines and imprisonment on any keeper of a brothel who allowed any of the inmates suffering from contagious disease to remain in the house. This has led to a system of private arrangements with medical men for the periodical sanitary inspection and treatment of the inmates.

"At page 19 the Acting Colonial Surgeon says: 'A large number of Japanese houses had some time before made private arrangements with my partner, Dr. Mugliston and myself, for medical attendance, and the rumor regarding the intended legislation induced most of the remainder to follow their example during the month of September. The increase of Japanese inmates (of the hospital) for this month, therefore, was caused by our sending in those cases of disease then found among these fresh houses.' Paragraph 4, the same page, says: 'With regard to the Chinese women we already had long had a number of Chinese brothels to attend professionally; during September of 1899 a large proportion of the remainder made similar arrangements with us.'