for domestic servitude, though largely _practiced_ in China, yet these Chinese merchants could hardly have been ignorant of the fact that it was an _illegality_ before the Chinese law. "The reason of this," says the Chinese protest, "is the excessive increase of population, and the wide extent of poverty and distress." But there was neither over-population nor distress at Hong Kong which should necessitate the introduction of the practice into that Colony. "If all those practices were forbidden, poor and distressed people would have no means left to save their lives, but would be compelled to sit down and wait for death." In other words, these men would claim that their motives were wholly, or largely benevolent in purchasing the children of the poor! And what better could the poor do for a living than to beget children and sell them into slavery to the rich! "Whilst all those practices, therefore, may be classed together as buying and selling (of free persons), it is yet requisite to distinguish carefully the good or wicked purposes which each class of practice serve, and accordingly apply discriminately either punishment or non-punishment." But anti-slavery legislation has never done this, and never will. The question is not to any large extent the comfort or misery of the chattel, but the forbidding that one human being should be allowed to deal with another _as a chattel_ at all. This attitude of the Chinese merchants who allied themselves with the British officials for the Protection of Women and Children gave no omen of good from the very first. Yet from that day to the present these men have had a large share in the government of the native women of Hong Kong and Singapore, rendering it very difficult ever to elevate the standard of womanhood, or to educate Chinese women in principles that should be the common inheritance of all who live in a so called free country. The statement continues: "Since the last few years many Chinese have brought their property, wives and families to the place, supposing they would be able to live here in peace, and to rejoice in their property. ...Chinese residents of Hong Kong have, therefore, been in the habit of following all native customs which were not a contravention of Chinese statute law [but it seems _this sort_ of buying and selling of human beings is contrary to Chinese law. This is a misrepresentation]. It is said that the whole increase and prosperity of the Colony from its first foundation to the present day is all based on the strength of that invitation which Sir Charles Elliott gave to intending settlers, and that this present intention of applying, all of a sudden, the repressive force of the law to both the practice of buying or selling boys or girls for purposes of adoption or for domestic servitude is not only a violation of the rule of Sir Charles Elliott, but moreover will, it is to be feared, not fail to trouble the people."