The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-25 00:00:00

S,UN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,, DEC, 7318 ER 25, 1858

ing society in general or justice in the abstract
with that rigmarole, and then, on the strength of
receiving no answer, acquitting. Mr. Sconce is
one of the best of Indian judges, as Indian judges
go, but he begins to feel the effects of Suddcr air.
Then followed the contest about the fact of
acquittal or condemnation which terminated in an
appeal to Mr. Trevor. At last we have a little
sense. In less than three paragraphs Mr. Trevor
puts the case in its true light :--
" Now, though these words as used are applicable
to a contract of hire, I am of opinion that beneath
these words there lie all the essentials of a sale ;
there is the transfer once for all nominally of the
service of, but in reality of property in, the chil-
dren for the term of their natural life, or a total
surrender on one side of all right in them in ex-
change for a sum of money paid by the other.
" As, then, these deeds on which the present
charges are based, though they bear the form of
leases, are really and essentially csntracts of sale,
the charge against the prisoner will stand for pur-
chasing the girls, being minors, with a view to
make them prostitutes, and the question is whether
that offence is criminal under Mahomedan law or
not.'

" The crime of purchasing children for the pur-
pose of prostitution has become recognised by this
court as a misdemeanour under Mahomedan law on
two different occasions so lately as 1853 (see
Sudder Nizamut Report for 1853, pages 630 and
643). I have no difficutly therefore in following
those precedents and declaring that the crime as
charged against the prisoner is a criminal offence
under our system of criminal jurisprudence."
Justice, then, will be done at last? Not a bit of
it. The Sudder has always some loophole to
escape that horrible contingency. The crime, Mr.
Trevor decided, was one against the person, and not
against public morals or decency. The magistrate,
therefore, had no right to interfere, and the pro-
ceedings were null. This opinion is so incredible
that at the risk of making this article unreadable
we must quote the words. Mr. Trevor says an
offence against the public is one affecting public
morals, but

"In order to bring an offence under the de-
signation of one affecting the public morals under
the system of criminal law existing in this
country, it must be one tending, it e -
spective of any injury to an individual, by
its directness and openness, to impair the public
morals, and also that many acts of a highly immo-
ral nature, if done in a private manner, are not
punishable criminally as offences against the public.
"Now, applying this test to the offences charged,
there is no ground for saying that, either by its
directness or openness, the public morals have been
affected; if so, it is impossible to look at it as an
offence against the public as those terms are used
in Act 11. of 1856?,

Ameerun, therefore, was acquitted. From hence-
forth, therefore, it is lawful for a brothel-keeper to
buy, and a father to sell, a child of immature years
for a hundred years to prostitution ; and unless the
scoundrel who sells, or the wretch who buys, or the
baby who suffers, chooses to prosecute, all inter-
ference is illegal.