not slavery; "and they referred to the more immoral practice of buying girls for the Hong Kong brothels, which, they alleged, Government departments had connived at, though it was a practice most hateful to the respectable Chinese." The Governor then asked them for their views in writing, and they sent them to him in the form of a memorial, containing the following words: "Your petitioners are informed that his Lordship, the Chief Justice, after the trial of a case of purchasing free persons for prostitution, said, in the course of his judgment, that buying and selling of girls for domestic servitude was an indictable offense;--which put all native residents of Hong Kong in a state of extreme terror; all great merchants and wealthy residents in the first instance being afraid lest they might incur the risk of being found guilty of a statutory offence, whilst the poor and low class people, in the second instance, feared being deprived of a means to preserve their lives (by selling children to be domestic servants)." These petitioners claimed: That the buying of boys for "adoption" and of girls for domestic servitude, "widely differs from the above-mentioned wicked practices" of kidnaping and buying and selling of girls into brothels. That the domestic slaves "are allowed to take their ease and have no hard work to perform," and when they grow up, "they have to be given in marriage." That all former Governors had let them alone in the exercise of their "social customs." That Governor Elliott had promised them freedom in the exercise of their native customs. That infanticide "would be extremely increased if it were entirely forbidden to dispose of children by buying and selling;" parents deprived of the means of keeping off starvation by selling their children would "drift into thiefdom and brigandage." Following the petition was an elaborate statement on the subject, full of subtle arguments, misstatements and perversions, together, of course, with some well-put statements, forming ten propositions in favor of domestic slavery. Their first claim is not exactly true, as even Dr. Eitel, who defended domestic servitude, was bound to declare, namely, That Chinese law does not forbid adoption and domestic servitude. We have already quoted Sir John Smale's statement of the Chinese law, which restricted the adoption of boys to the taking of one with the same surname as the family. And as to the buying of girls for domestic servitude, though largely _practiced_ in China, yet these