Par. 1.
Par. 2.
Par. 6.
276
Appendix No. 22.
Extracts from "Report" on Ordinance No. 21 of 1929 by the Attorney General to the Governor.
I have examined the accompanying Ordinance instituted an Ordin- ance to amend the Protection of Women and Girls Ordinance, 1897, and I am of opinion that the Ordinance is one which is not contrary to the Governor's instructions.
This Ordinance makes various alterations in the Protection of Women and Girls Ordinance, 1897, Ordinance No. 4 of 1897, some with a view to strengthening the hands of the authorities in dealing with the elusive and persistent evil of the traffic in women and girls, and some in order to get rid of certain inconsistencies of apparent in- consistencies in the former statutory law.
Section 32 of the Protection of Women and Girls Ordinance, 1897, Ordinance No. 4 of 1897, had a curious history in the five Women and Girls Ordinances enacted between 1889, the year in which the section first occurred, and 1897. The section began its career innocently enough as section 6 of Ordinance No. 9 of 1887. That section provided that whenever the Registrar General had reason to believe that any girl between six and sixteen was in the custody of any person who had no legal right to such custody, and that it was prejudicial to the interests of such child that she should continue in such custody, he might apply to a judge in chambers for a writ of habeas corpus, and that on the return of that writ the judge might make such order respecting the custody, etc., of the girl as he should deem best in the interests of the girl. In order to give the judge full power to act in the best interests of the girl, the section went on to provide that in dealing with such cases no parent who had voluntarily parted with the child for the purpose of adoption or who had received money for parting with the custody of the child for any other purpose should be deemed to be entered as of right to the custody of the child. This section was repeated in exactly the same terms as Section 23 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1889. Curiously enough, the section failed to appear in the consolidating Women and Girls Protection Ordinance, 1890, Ordinance No. 11 of 1890. In the following year an amending Ordinance was introduced, and it was explained that the object of the bill was twofold, ie., to make certain amendments suggested by the Secretary of State, and to correct some oversights or omissions was the omission of the old Section 23 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1889. In the amending Ordinance of 1891, however, Ordinance No. 14 of 1891, it appeared in a very different form from the old form. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 14 of 1891 does not contain a word about the in- terests of the girl or about any application for a writ of habeas corpus nor does it contain any provision for the exercise of any discretion by the Registrar General. It lays down baldly that no parent who has voluntarily parted with a girl between six and sixteen for the purpose of adoption into another family, or who has received money for parting with the custody of the girl for any other purpose, shall be deemed to be entitled as of right to the custody of the girl. The surprising thing is that this new section was definitely put forward as intended to deal with the "evil" known as flying the pigeon. This is a well known form of fraud in which a woman or girl is osten- sibly sold," generally for purposes of marriage, and in which the woman or girl runs back to her fellow conspirator after the purchase money has been paid. Not a word was said in the Legislative Council about the omission from the old form of the section which I have