§ MR. LABOUCHERE,who had given Notice to move—
That, in the opinion of this House, it is improper for any British official to lend his sanction to, or to aid directly or indirectly in, retaining any person in or consigning any person to slavery,said, that when he placed his Resolution on the Paper he had in his mind to call attention to the action of the Foreign Office and of the Consuls of Turkey and Egypt in regard to slavery in these countries rather than to any other subject; but, on looking into the matter, it seemed to him that this country was hardly in a position to make any complaints to any Foreign Government on the slavery which took place within their territories until it had entirely removed from its own the stigma of permitting slavery to exist. It had been the traditional policy of this country to put an end to slavery everywhere; but the was sorry to say that of late years it bad fallen away from that traditional policy, for he found that slavery existed in many parts of the British Dominions. A Blue Book that had recently been presented to the House, treating of Slavery in Hong Kong, revealed a state of things which it was perfectly monstrous to allow to exist under the English flag. On the Gold Coast certain protected States became, after the Ashantee War, British Colonies. One was the British Colony of the Gold Coast, and the other was the Colony of Lagos. After the assumption of Sovereignty, a Proclamation was issued in the former, putting an end to what was called debt slavery; but he was credibly informed that no such Proclamation was issued in Lagos, and at the present moment there was a considerable amount of that debt slavery existing within that Colony. Then, with respect to the protected Malay States, not one word was said in the Blue Books presented of late years as regarded the slavery which they knew existed there. But there appeared in The Times of March 25 a letter from Sir Benson Maxwell, who had long been Chief Justice in these protected States, in which be stated that—We govern as absolutely—nay, more absolutely—than any Crown Colony. The Malays 1712 have two kinds of slaves, the ordinary menial creature, and the debtor slave. There is no good reason why slavery in any form should be tolerated in our Malay possessions.After that letter had appeared in The Times, a Question was put to the Under Secretary for the Colonies respecting it, and the hon. Gentleman then said that the Colonial Office was about to call the attention of the Governors of these Colonies to debtor slavery. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped that had been done, and that they should speedily hear that not only debtor slavery, but all slavery, had ceased in these Colonies. Again, in North Borneo, which was now a State affiliated to the British Empire, provisional regulations had just been laid down respecting slaves. One was to the effect that all slaves absconding would be for the present returned to their masters, unless they could purchase their freedom, or showed that they had been cruelly treated. He hoped the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would take these regulations into his serious consideration. The state of things existing in Hong Kong was a disgrace to this country; the Free Trade, which was said to account for its progress, included free trade in slaves; indeed, the place was literally an entrepôt for slavery in the East. The statements showing this were made by Chief Justice Smale and other authorities, and they were quite sufficient to justify us in demanding that the system should be put an end to at once. It might be inferred that Chief Justice Smale had done his best to induce the Attorney General of the Colony to institute prosecutions, and the Attorney General appeared to have held that there was no use in doing so in the present state of the law. But the law in Hong Kong was precisely the same as it was in this Metropolis; that was the effect of Ordinances passed in 1843 and 1845. A Report had been made to Chief Justice Smale by Mr. Francis, a barrister, who said that relatively there was little or no family life in Hong Kong among the Chinese, and, therefore, no legitimate demand for either adopted male children or for female domestic servitude; that from three-fourths to five-sixths of the Chinese women in Hong Kong were prostitutes or lived directly by prostitution; that the bulk of these prostitutes were slaves bought and trained up at considerable 1713 expense for the purpose; owned there, at Canton, or Macao; prostituted for the sole profit of their owners; redeemable only by purchase, and rarely able to purchase their freedom; that every Chinese woman who was not in the actual practice of prostitution engaged, if she could get the means, in buying and rearing girls for the work; that Singapore, Australia, and San Francisco were supplied from Hong Kong with prostitutes, kept women, and concubines; that the profits of this trade were so great and the demand so strong that Chinese men and women were daily tempted into a career of open crime as kidnappers of women and children to supply the demand, not sufficiently supplied by the breeders; that there was a veritable slave class, and a genuine slave trade carried on in Hong Kong, and that on a very large scale indeed; that the prosecutions under the local Ordinances only touched the fringe of this garment of crime—only the abuses that had grown out of this tolerated slavery and slave trade; and that until this slave holding and slave dealing were entirely suppressed, the grosser abuses arising out of them and incidental to them—kidnapping of women and children—could never be put an end to. Girls of 13 or 14 were brought from Canton or elsewhere, and delivered according to bargain, and as a regular matter of business, for large sums of money, which went to their owners, and frequently, it would appear, to their own parents. Their regular earnings went to the same gaolers, and the unfortunate creatures were subjects of speculation to regular traders residing beyond our jurisdiction, There were from 18,000 to 20,000 prostitutes in Hong Kong, and from 4,000 to 5,000 respectable Chinese women. Mr. Francis said—When some of the girls are sent away on account of age, new ones are got from Canton. There are about eight or ten changes a year (among 20 girls); they remove into other Chinese brothels or go hack to Canton. No woman is kept in a first class Chinese brothel after 24 years of age. Then, if they are not married, the parents (pocket mothers) take them away. What becomes of them is not known. They become, perhaps, hairdressers, servants, or prostitutes in other brothels. 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 fife is not slave-dealing, there never was such a thing as slave-dealing in this world.1714 In October, 1879, Chief Justice Smale, from his place on the Bench, called attention to a placard offering rewards for the detention or restoration of a slave girl, and he said—Has Cuba or has Peru ever exhibited more palpable, more public evidence of the existence of generally recognized slavery in these hotbeds of slavery than such placards do?Writing in October, 1879, Chief Justice Smale said—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. Nothing less powerful than a Commission, with legislative powers to investigate and to examine on oath, will ever lay bare the evil which, from suggestions I have received, I believe to underlie our seemingly fair surface. My suggestion that the mild intervention of the law should be invoked was ignored. It was also met by the assertion that custom has so sanctioned the evil in this Colony, that they are above the reach of law, and that by custom the slavery was mild. I must leave it to the Government to decide whether there shall or shall not be investigation, and whether the status in quo of public morals in this Colony in these particulars shall be allowed to continue as one of the many evils which neither law nor legislation can cope with. That is a question which, fortunately, is not within the province of the Judge; it is for the statesman only to decide.And in another communication he said—I take shame to myself that the appalling extent of kidnapping, buying, and selling slaves, for what I may call ordinary servile purposes, and the buying and selling young females for worse than ordinary slavery, has not presented itself before to me in the light it ought. It seems to me that it has been recognized and accepted as an ordinary outturn of Chinese habits, and thus that, until special attention has been excited, it has escaped public notice. The practice is on the increase. It is in this port and in this Colony especially that the so-called Chinese custom prevails. Under the English flag slavery, it has been said, does not, cannot ever be. Under that flag it does exist in this Colony, and is, I believe, at this moment more openly practised than at any former period of its history.[The hon. Member read the text of a bill of sale under which a boy had been sold, and also the statement made by a Chinese girl of 14, who, at the age of 11, had been sold by her parents to a Chinaman, who in Hong Kong sold her to a young Chinese gentleman, who took her to his family house, from which she ran away, because she was beaten by her mistress.] He observed that there was a disposition to represent that these girls were well 1715 treated, and were benefited rather than injured by being thus dealt with. On that point he would quote from a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Smale in a case that came before his Court. The victim was brought into Court in the arms of an Inspector of Police. She could not stand, and was placed in a chair, much emaciated, with pale and hollow cheeks, to the eye of a non-medical man almost dying; and she then narrated the history of her sufferings. This child, of about 13 years of age, lost her father, and about a year ago her mother sold her to someone, who brought her to Hong Kong and sold her to the female prisoner. The female prisoner beat her very often, sometimes with a rattan, and sometimes with firewood, taken from the ordinary bundles of split firewood, perhaps two or three times a week. She was beaten with firewood on the 3rd of November last, when her leg was broken. She could not walk even now. Some time after that the female prisoner burnt her on the arm and hand with a hot crimping-iron. The little girl showed eight places where the marks of the burning remained. One neighbour described the beating on the 3rd of November last—that the little girl was tied up by her hands to a bamboo, which hung from the ceiling, by the clothes line by the male prisoner, and that she was beaten by the woman with a piece of firewood, described as being about 2 feet long and 2 inches in diameter. This witness saw the female prisoner strike the little girl two or three times on one of her legs; then the man struck the little girl, still tied up; and he then untied her, and on the support of her being tied up failing her the little girl fell down. It would be said, perhaps, that this was an isolated case; but Chief Justice Smale was not of that opinion. He said—I fear that, though it may be pre-eminently atrocious, hundreds, nay, thousands, of cases of a like kind have existed in this Colony and under the British flag.In Hong Kong a regular Slave Market existed for the purpose of supplying Australia and California. The price was various—bought in Hong Kong, the women cost from$50 to$150; and when sold in California, they were to be disposed of for from$250 to$350. That was stated in evidence in the course of a trial at Hong Kong. In such a matter 1716 the public opinion of an Eastern Colony was sure to be wrong, and the view taken of it by the Chinese might be gathered from a Petition published in the Blue Book. The petitioners (Natives) set forth that the decisions of the Lord Chief Justice had "put all Native residents of Hong Kong in a state of extreme terror;" the merchants and wealthy classes fearing that they might be found guilty of an indictable offence, and the low-class people that they might be deprived of a means to preserve their lives—that was, by selling children to be domestic servants. Now, his hon. Friend might, perhaps, argue that there was a defence for that state of things; and, if he did so, would probably take the line that the adoption of children was for their advantage, and that they were educated as domestic servants at Hong Kong. But there was the authority of the Chief Justice of the Colony to the effect that very few of these women became domestic servants, and that the children who were brought to Hong Kong were sold from one home to another, till at last they were exported to Australia and California. His hon. Friend, who had so often raised his voice on behalf of humanity, would, he was sure, not defend such a system now that he was in Office. He need say no more on this subject; the facts he had brought forward were incontestable, and he only hoped that the Government would do all in their power to prevent Hong Kong from becoming an entrepôt for the most infamous slavery.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he thought that the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Northampton for bringing this important question under the consideration of the House—a question, indeed, second in importance to none of those ordinarily brought under their notice. But he desired, before the Under Secretary for the Colonies made a full reply to the speech of the hon. Member, to point out some curious mistakes which the hon. Member for Northampton had made in his statement. In the first place, as regarded our Possessions in West Africa, he seemed to think that Lagos and the Gold Coast became protected Territories after the Ashantee War. Now, they never were protected Territories at all; but they were Crown Colonies long before the Ashantee War, and no slavery had existed in them for many years. The hon. Member com- 1717 plained that no Proclamation against slavery had been issued in Lagos; but there was no reason why any such Proclamation should have been issued, in as much as the law of England against slavery always was in force. Some States, however, bordering on the Gold Coast, we did take under our protection after the Ashantee War, and in these domestic slavery was being gradually extinguished under the conditions imposed by Lord Carnarvon. The result of Lord Carnarvon's efforts had been most satisfactory; and, as far as he (Sir Henry Holland) knew, no complaints of the existence of slavery in those protected States had been received at the Colonial Office, nor had the hon. Member for Northampton brought forward any cases. Then, as regarded the Malay States, the hon. Member had quoted from a letter of Sir Benson Maxwell, whom he stated to have been the late Chief Justice of those States. But Sir Benson Maxwell was Chief Justice of Singapore and the Straits Settlements, and had no jurisdiction over the protected Malay States. Nor had the Colonial Government, so far as he (Sir Henry Holland) knew, such absolute jurisdiction over those States as to enable them directly to enforce the abolition of domestic slavery there. But it was well known that the late Secretary of State for the Colonies took most active steps to check domestic slavery there, and those efforts had been attended with considerable success. Then, as regarded the new Company in North Borneo—as he (Sir Henry Holland) had ventured to point out in a former debate—the Charter imposed with regard to slavery the only practicable conditions which could be imposed. The Company were bound to use all their efforts to put an end, as soon as possible, to the system of domestic slavery. They could not have been called upon to put an end at once to an institution which was firmly rooted in the country, and which had existed there for years. Lastly, as regarded Hong Kong, he (Sir Henry Holland) entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton in his strong condemnation of the abominable practice of selling young Chinese girls for the purposes of prostitution, and he trusted that the Colonial Office would use their best endeavours to stamp out that practice. But that practice, however iniquitous, was entirely 1718 different from the system of slavery; although, judging from what the hon. Member had said, it would almost seem as if the Chief Justice, Sir John Smale, must have confounded that system of selling for prostitution with the question of slavery, from which it was really quite distinct. It did not, however, appear whether the bill of sale, which the hon. Member read to the House, was brought before the Chief Justice in his judicial capacity. If it had been, it might possibly have been held to be null and void, and then those who relied upon it would have failed. But, at all events, as regarded slavery, the hon. Member was forced to admit that the law of England prevailed in Hong Kong; and if any ease had been brought into Court, the presiding Judge would have been bound to act on that law and to free the slave. If, then, any fault was to be found, it was not in the law, but in the fact that sufficient care was not taken to see that the law was put in force. No evidence, however, was produced by the hon. Member to show that there was any failure in this respect; and even if there were, it would not bring the case within the terms of the Resolution before the House. But, although the question of slavery was immediately brought before the House, a question which he had shown to be quite distinct from that of Chinese Prostitution, he could not conclude without again expressing his earnest hope that the Colonial Office would not relax in any efforts to check that iniquitous traffic, and would not hesitate to introduce and enforce any legislation which might be found necessary for that end.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it was matter for great satisfaction that there should be a discussion on Slavery at a time when that horrid institution was showing a new activity, and when we had just received information with regard to it from all parts of the world. That the Slave Trade was increasing at the present time was beyond doubt. From Jedda, in the Red Sea, our Consul reported that the stock of slaves was so increased by importation that prices had gone down 50 per cent, and that he could buy any number he pleased. From other quarters they had news which proved that the Circassian and Georgian slave dealings were also increasing. This was the White Slave Trade, and 1719 many of those were as fair and as lovely as the handsomest of our own people. That this trade was nourishing was chiefly due to the preference which the Turks had shown for the Circassian law with regard to slavery over their own. According to the Circassian law, the children born of slaves were themselves slaves, whereas, according to the Turkish law, the children of slaves were not slaves; The Turks, therefore, who were engaged in a general traffic in domestic slavery, habitually purchased large numbers of Circassians, especially children, and those children, being born in slavery, were themselves slaves. He reminded the House that just a year ago a Circassian female slave sought refuge from ill-treatment in the British Consulate at Larissa. In taking part in this debate his deliberate object was to encourage those of Her Majesty's representatives in different parts of the world who did what they could at all times to uphold the doctrine of this country in reference to freedom, and to show them that when they took that course they would have the sympathy and support of the House of Commons. He was aware of the great difficulty which surrounded those who were resident in a country in which domestic slavery was practically universal; but he also knew something of what could be done, and was persuaded of the great importance in the eyes of our Representatives of having, not an evanescent, but a persistent encouragement from this House and from the people of this country when they set themselves with discretion, but with firmness, against the institution of Slavery. He did not wish to discourage efforts so praiseworthy and zealous which had long been made, and which were now being made, by the gallant Naval Forces of this country to annihilate slavery; but he had long been convinced that we should never succeed in the abolition of slavery unless our efforts, which were entirely directed against the supply of slaves, were devoted more earnestly and more thoroughly than they had been against the demand for slaves. In this case at Larissa there was no question of the ex-territoriality of the Vice Consulate. The Civil Governor told Mr. Longworth that this female slave was not amenable to the local laws while in the Consulate, but that when she went out 1720 she might be lawfully seized and restored to her owner. Upon hearing that, Mr. Longworth called the girl, and, in his own words, "told her plainly that she must return to her master." The cause of freedom would be advanced if that House would join in reproving Mr. Longworth for this flagrant disregard of the rights of this woman and the British flag. The Consul said—"The excitement and terror caused by my words on this poor woman were beyond description." He contrasted Mr. Longworth's dealings in this matter with that of the Vice Consul at Angora in a case which occurrred lately of a slave girl named Hosheda. Her owner was about to sell her to some nomad Kurds, and she took refuge at the British Vice Consulate. Lord Granville telegraphed—"If the girl takes refuge at the Vice Consulate she should not be given up." It would be easy to quote much evidence to show that slavery was practically universal in European and Asiatic Turkey and in Egypt. There was a public Slave Market at Mecca, and there was a Slave Trade carried on by private brokers in every city of the Turkish and Persian Empires, including Egypt. Our operations, he held, ought to be directed against the demand for slaves. They were attempting the impossible when they supposed they could accomplish the abolition of slavery by attacking the traffic in the most remote parts of Africa from which black slaves were originally imported, while in every Mussulman city in the world, except in India and Algeria, there was a rapid and a constant and a certain demand for slaves from whatever quarter they might come. What a most painful contrast there was between effort and result, when we compared the brave energy of Captain Brownrigg with the fearful report that not fewer than 8,000 mutilated males, the survivors of 40,000 who had been subjected to the same cruelty, were annually imported into Turkey and Egypt. Consul Burton truly said that closing the Red Sea and hanging eunuch-manufacturers would not arrest slave importation into Egypt and Turkey, and that the absolute abolition of the legal status of slavery was the only effectual measure to adopt. He trusted the House would be of that opinion, and that the best efforts of the Government would be directed to that end. He believed that 1721 he had seen slaves imported under the British flag from Egypt to Turkey and from Turkey to Morocco, the slaves being entered as servants of the dealers with whom they were travelling. The Representative of Portugal reported that from the single province of Mozambique there was an average export of from 2,000 to 4,000 slaves per annum. There could be no doubt that two great centres of the Slave Trade were the cities known as "Mecca the venerated and Medina the resplendent," where, by an exception to the capitulations, no Power could place Consuls. Slavery was practised all over the coast of the Persian Gulf. It was not uncommon for slaves to take refuge on British vessels in those waters; but they were sometimes restored to their owners on the recommendation of the British political Residents. In fact, his observation led him to believe that a fugitive slave seeking refuge in a British ship had a better chance of escape if the British Crown had no Representative on the shore from which he had fled. In conclusion, he expressed an earnest hope that the European Powers would make strenuous efforts to procure the abolition of the status of slavery. He trusted all the Powers of Europe would unite with England in adopting a more robust attitude in opposition to slavery, so that we might hope, at no very distant date, to secure the abolition of that most grievous traffic.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies would answer that which formed the main portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He should like to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) on one point that had not been touched by the hon. Member for Northampton. The first complaint of the hon. Member for Salford was that there had not been a general distribution of Slave Trade Papers. Previous to the year 1851, 2,000 Copies of those Papers were printed. The expense did not seem to be justified by the amount of interest taken in those Papers by the public. The number of the Copies was reduced in 1852. Alterations were made in the number of printed Copies in subsequent years. From 1862 to the present year about 900 Copies had been 1722 ordered. If another change was to be made on the subject, he thought it ought to be this—that, in all cases, such Papers only as were asked for should be delivered. The hon. Member for Salford made an attack, not based upon any evidence, upon Consul Longworth. The fact was, that a very large number of slaves had been emancipated through the exertions of that gentleman. That was shown by the Papers themselves. As regarded domestic slaves employed, or seeking refuge on board British merchant vessels in territorial waters of States in which the status of slavery was recognized by law, the language of the Motion was so vague that, if adopted, it would prevent the restoration by a Naval or Consular officer of any fugitive slave to his master, whatever might be the circumstances of the case. If such a rule were adopted it would be in violation of the principles of International Law; domestic slaves would flock to our ships; enormous claims for compensation would arise; and riots and hostilities would necessarily ensue. In the discussion which took place in 1876 on the Slave Trade Circular, the present Judge Advocate said—
The Attorney General had argued that merchant ships were liable to the law of the territory in whose waters they were—a proposition which no one denied.And the present Home Secretary said—The first Circular was founded on a supposed obligation on the part of a ship to submit to the local law of the port. If that was so, all he could say was that they reduced the Queen's ships to the condition of a merchant vessel, because that was the situation of a merchant vessel."Merchant vessels were not extra-territorial within the waters of Foreign States." As regarded British merchant vessels, it was well known that a slave did not obtain his freedom by having been on board a private ship, and that a slave who had come to this country or who had been on board a British ship on the high seas, when he returned to the place where he had been a slave, resumed, on so doing, his condition as a slave. It could scarcely be supposed, therefore, that the Motion was intended to apply to cases in which fugitive slaves were returned by Her Majesty's Naval and Consular officers to the local authorities, although thereby "retained in or consigned to domestic slavery." It might be that what was 1723 meant was that no British official in whom might be vested the exercise of jurisdiction over Natives in a country where the status of domestic slavery existed should recognize such status, and give any decision whereby such Natives should be retained in or consigned to slavery. But when could that happen? If the hon. Member referred to the probability of some of the officers of the Borneo Company being made British Consuls while the status of domestic slavery was recognized by the law of that country, and would point out that officers might be called upon to enforce that law while holding Her Majesty's Consular commission, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would explain that the status of domestic slavery would only exist pending its gradual extinction among the Natives. There were Courts of Justice for the Natives, in which that status would, no doubt, be recognized by the judicial officers who might preside over them. There would necessarily be also Courts of Justice for Foreigners, and in these the status of slavery would, of course, not be recognized. It was not contemplated that Consular appointments should be conferred on any officer of the Company who would preside over the Courts of Justice established for the Natives; consequently, the state of things which the hon. Member deprecated would not arise, as no officer of the Company, holding Her Majesty's Consular commission, would be called upon to recognize the status of domestic slavery, or have it in his power to retain in, or consign anybody to, slavery. In conclusion, he could only say that this subject was not only of general interest, but was one of the highest interest that could be brought before the House. No one could ever maintain that hon. Members were not entitled to bring the subject before the House from time to time; and certainly nothing but good could result from the minds of hon. Members being directed to it. It had always been the policy of this country, and he believed it would continue to be its policy, to take steps for the suppression of slavery.
§ MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he could not regret that the subject had been brought before the House. The Blue Book dealing with this question showed that a system of slavery had been practised in the neighbourhood of Hong Kong, not only for domestic purposes, 1724 but also, in the case of women, for much viler uses. The highest praise was due to the Governor—Sir John Pope Hennessey—for the efforts which he had made to counteract these evils. It was true, as the Governor had pointed out, that a distinction should be drawn between the binding of boys and girls to domestic service, which was practised in that part of the world, and actual slavery. But the Governor had done all he could to vindicate English ideas and to prevent the importation into an English Colony of Chinese notions on the question of domestic service, and had laid down the principle that the parent was entitled to the support and aid of his children. There could be no doubt that slavery did exist in Hong Kong, although it was prohibited by English law. He trusted that the inquiry which was going to be held by Lord Kimberley into that matter would be made by impartial persons. He attached considerable importance to that debate, because he thought there were indications that we were not so vigorous in our efforts against slavery as we formerly were.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in his statement that the Government viewed the purport of the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton in a spirit of friendship. It would be admitted, he (Mr. Courtney) thought, that it had always been the desire of recent Governments to use their influence to prevent, not only slavery, but everything approaching thereto. The hon. Member for Northampton did not appear, however, to be of that opinion; and he had brought a charge against the Government which seemed to have no foundation whatever. He must point out to the House that the hon. Member had brought an extraordinary accusation against the Government. He said that he was credibly informed that slavery existed in Lagos. But he had not deemed it necessary to adduce a single fact or circumstance in support of that statement. How was it possible that the Government could meet such a charge as that? He should have thought that it would have been the duty of the hon. Member, before bringing such a charge, to make inquiry as to its correctness. It was the belief of the Government that slavery had ceased to exist, not only in Lagos, but in all the other places to 1725 which the hon. Member referred. Every attempt to revive it had been checked and punished by all recent Governments; but if the hon. Member furnished them with new facts they would cause further inquiry to be made, and take steps for the extinction of slavery where it was found to exist. The same observations applied regarding the alleged existence of slavery in the Malay States. The hon. Member complained that there were no Papers on the subject. But several Papers were published in reference to the West Coast of Africa in 1875, and many others dealing with other places had also been published from time to time. The hon. Member surely could not require that Papers on that subject should be issued year by year, when no fresh case of any description had arisen. As regarded the question of slavery in the Malay States, however, some Correspondence with the Governor of that district was in existence, and would be shortly laid before the House. The hon. Member for Northampton said he was going to rest his observations upon a substantial foundation—upon the remarks of Chief Justice Smale, and not upon the statement of any newspaper correspondent. He thought the hon. Member ought to know the value of newspaper correspondents, though he seemed to speak somewhat slightingly of them. The fact was, the hon. Member used the word "slavery" with some degree of looseness. His remarks chiefly referred to Hong Kong, and to the slavery in existence there. But, as a fact, the state of things in Hong Kong, though, no doubt, deplorable, did not amount to slavery. Slavery he defined to be a condition of life in which one person was held under the authority and compelled to work for and fulfil the will of another in such a way that the subjugated person could not escape, which condition, also, the law of the country enforced. He defined slavery so, and so, indeed, it was. Nothing of the kind existed in Hong Kong, because in that city the English law prevailed. The hon. Member for Northampton considered the whole strength of his position lay in the fact that people were so bought and sold for the purpose of prostitution. Now, there were special laws in Hong Kong affecting purchases and sales for that purpose. It was enacted in 1875 that the sale or purchase of a 1726 woman or child for the purpose of prostitution, or the harbouring of any woman or child for that purpose, should be a misdemeanour. Every person, therefore, who affected to buy or sell, or to hold out that any woman or child had been bought or sold for the purpose of prostitution, was guilty of a misdemeanour. There was a vast number of people who were bought and sold for other purposes, and such sales constituted no offence. It was so in England. They all knew of the common accusation of husbands selling their wives in Smithfield, and how the practice was not unknown even at the present day. The transaction, however, was a pure nullity. That was the state of facts as at present existed in Hong Kong, and perhaps it might be the concomitant of a very dangerous state of society; but when they remembered the situation of Hong Kong, placed in the centre of a teeming population that could with difficulty obtain a livelihood, they could not be surprised at it. In quoting the Petition of the Chinese inhabitants of Hong Kong, with the view of showing how rotten public opinion there was, the hon. Member for Northampton omitted that part of the prayer in which they condemned the purchase of free people for the purposes of prostitution, and prayed that kidnapping and selling for such purposes should be severely punished. If the hon. Member had quoted this passage, he would have answered this part of his case, for the Chinese were most eager in their desire to help the Government in checking the evils which they admitted to exist. He admitted most fully the existence of the practice of buying and selling children for the purposes of adoption and apprenticeship; but he would point out that none who were so adopted could be held in servitude against their will, that they could escape, that they could apply to the Courts, and that anyone could apply on their behalf. The fact of their having been sold, Lord Kimberley had pointed out, did not deprive them of any rights. Undoubtedly the position of children so placed was one of peril, which required to be safeguarded; and his noble Friend had suggested for consideration whether the entering into agreements should be made a misdemeanour, whether specified conditions should be exacted, whether all transactions should be registered, or 1727 whether some combination of these provisions should be adopted, in order to prevent abuses. The Government would continue, not only in the task of preventing slavery, but also in doing what they could do to avert the growth of a servile class of a different race from the dominant class, conscious as they were of the dangers that were inseparable from such a condition of things.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he must confess he was generally disappointed at the tone adopted by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and he could not help comparing the hon. Member's official utterances with those he used before he accepted Office. The hon. Member's speech was a half-hearted condemnation, amounting almost to a defence, of gross abuses. He was sure the reply of the hon. Gentleman would produce a general feeling of disappointment in the country, and he regretted the Government would not give a frank condemnation of the monstrous practices prevailing in Hong Kong. Whether there was legal slavery or not, there was practically slavery in its worst form; and the more the actual condition of things was realized the more would the country feel that the hon. Member for Northampton deserved thanks for having called attention to it.
§ MR. CROPPERsaid, that it was satisfactory that the Colonial Office had laid before the House the result of their investigations into that matter, and that it was not merely drawn from them by the investigations of any private individual. Lord Kimberley had expressed a desire that a full and trustworthy inquiry should be made into the facts and into what measures, if any, should be taken to remove the evils which might be brought to light. He had great confidence in Sir John Pope Hennessy and Sir John Smale, and he fully believed that what they would see was that in some way the system of Colonial Slavery, which it could not be denied existed at Hong Kong, would be abolished. The great evil of retaining girls in houses of ill-repute at Hong Kong was a much larger question, and it could only he removed when the question as to contagious diseases at Hong Kong was thoroughly gone into. He was convinced that the feeling expressed in England some years ago on the subject of the Slave Circular had had a good 1728 effect, and that it was now a point of honour in the Navy that wherever the British flag waved slavery was to be discouraged.