🚀 go-pugleaf

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
    crimina