Especially if they have children. Ad abroad & their children seem to have the full rights of the children of the wife, but the broad difference remains that the concubine is simply bought and may be sold, and the 2nd wives mainly kept, while the wife is not saleable, at least among respectable people, once she is married.
Bigamy at Penang does not help much. Reports of trial (num?) in Penang Gazette of (date?) & (date?) as the judge did not admit the validity as evidence of the Chinese Law Books, tendered by the Prosecution, and holding that the onus of proof was on the Prosecution, directed the Jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
It is to be noticed that S.4?? of the Straits Penal Code, under which the Penang Trial was raised, seems to be worded so as to allow bigamy where that practice is permitted by the peculiar laws of a man's religion; but it seems to me that s. 52 of Ord. 4 of 1865 prohibits bigamy in every case, except where the former marriage was contracted outside the Colony by an alien, and there is no law (e.g., Hindu or Muhammadan law) which permits plurality of wives.
I take it, therefore, that part of the section of this new Ordinance to read along with s.52 Ord. 4 of 1865 can only mean that carnal connection with a concubine (or 2nd wife) under the age of 16 is a misdemeanour.
If the section is left as it stands, it will not be in the S. of State's (or anyone else's) power to give a declaration (as this Patatine asks) that persons who take concubines under 16 years of age shall not be law-breakers - nor do I think we can give any assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to prosecute persons for taking concubines under that age.
On the whole, I think there is no sufficient reason to alter this section, and that there is little hardship in making the Chinese select somewhat older concubines. (It will be only a matter of a year or so, as they are not often taken below 15.) Sir ... Russell told me just before he left England that he thought it would not be a grave hardship.