damages which we have just quoted. He justly added, that "the quasi fiction of servitium amisit affords protection to the rich man, whose daughter occasionally makes his tea, but leaves without redress the poor man, whose child, as here, is sent unprotected to earn her bread amongst strangers.' We confess to a sense of rejoicing at this unanimity amongst lawyers. As the law now stands, common sense demands an alteration in the system. In the season of trouble, the father's house is the legal shelter of his erring child,―another has plundered her of virtue, but now reaps the harvest of his own wrong, the father, often guiltless, the mother, not rarely heart-broken, are the scapegoats of an atrocious crime. The woman herself can be no claimant for damages on the bare ground of her unhallowed consent. She has, indeed, the sustentation, if not the solicitude, of a parent in her day of retribution, but the position of the father is one of strong sympathy; loss and disgrace are on one side, lust and impunity on the other.2

We do not find any other form of civil action connected with this matter, unless it be the remedy for a breach of the promise of marriage. Unless this event should offer, "in no case whatever," can a woman herself obtain any legal reparation for the injury she has sustained from the seducer of her virtue." 993

66

Mr. Davis, zealous to repress vice, presents us with an abundant list of misdemeanors. To prevent confusion and undue length, we append a note, mentioning the acts which he would have created or declared to be offences. To some of

1 Davis, p. 185.

4

2 Whether the new Act should confine compensation to cases where the child actually returns after seduction, or be capable of greater latitude, is a question deserving of careful consideration, but one which we cannot stop to discuss within our brief limits.

3 Exposition, &c., p. 185.

4 P. 244.

Misdemeanors.-Master . . . seducing a girl, his servant, under 21. Hiring, or taking into service, a girl under 21 for the purpose of seduction. The carnal knowledge of a child under 14.

The forcible abduction or detention of any woman.

To procure any girl or woman (irrespective of age) by false pretences or representations to have illicit connection with the defendant or any other person, whether such other person be or not known to the defendant.

his propositions we cannot see any sufficient objection. The greater difficulty is to obtain influence in Parliament, so as to carry out improvements upon which all men of sense are agreed. Thus we would have the female intempestiva till fourteen. In our climate it must be a movement of rabid viciousness or boyish precocity approaching to disease which would prompt to the touching of an infant of thirteen years. Nor do we see why a verdict of guilty of a misdemeanor should not be combined with an acquittal for rape in the instance cited. And we entirely agree that an abduction or detention for dishonourable purposes should come within the same category. Moreover, we entertain no doubt that these last acts are misdemeanors, although, under the particular difficulty alluded to by the author1, a declaration in aid of the Common Law may be a prudent safeguard. We are, again, in union with the Prize Essay respecting procuration. The general pimp, the hardened panderer, can scarcely be brought within the meshes of the Common Law. He must be guilty of some particular overt act, or have confederated himself with others, in order to fall within the lash of the unwritten law. We are inclined likewise to hold with Mr. Davis that the stat. 12 & 13 Vict. c. 76. (the act against fraudulent defilement, passed short of its mark. If a procuration be employed to effect an illicit connection with any man, we fear that the judges would expect proof that some man in particular should have been sought for the intended victim. The framers of the Act might not have anticipated this, nor has there been, we believe, any decision; but Mr. Davis is free from doubt upon the point, and as penal statutes are subject to a strict construction, it is highly probable that his view is correct.

To procure any girl under 21 by any means of a fraudulent nature, or, if the procuring be for gain or lucre, by any means whatever, to have illicit connection with any other person.

To procure any girl or woman by the several means, and in the several cases above mentioned, to resort to any brothel or house of ill-fame, or to leave her house or parents for the purpose of illicit connection..

Any attempt to commit these misdemeanors.

Master... indicted for a rape on his servant under 21: if acquitted of rape, to be found guilty of a misdemeanor, if the evidence shall warrant such finding. 1 Essay, p. 206.

There seems to be no sufficient argument for limiting the age to twenty-one, where fraud enters into the misdeed. Cheated by a misrepresentation, a woman of thirty may be captivated by an infamous artifice, as well as a girl of sixteen. We are not to predicate of a female, when we contemplate a scene in which a woman past twenty-one is besieged by dexterous enticement, that she can, by possibility, possess the astuteness of a lawyer, or the craft of a practised sinner. Withdraw the cunning, and we are not prepared to advocate such close conclusions.

We will go a step further with Mr. Davis. It is easy to conceive that the wit of man can cozen a young woman of tender years, without risking the danger of a pretence or false statement. A mischievous lie, or a tissue of concealed craft, may as well entrap the chastity of youth, as a more active plan of fraud.

Disguise, I see thou art a wickedness,

Wherein the pregnant enemy does much."

Therefore, our author would guard a woman under twentyone against any means of a fraudulent nature. And if the payment of money is to be the price of vanquishing a woman's best endowment, we answer with him, again, that, whatever be the means, Currat lex.

An attempt to commit a misdemeanor, whether statutable or at common law, is a misdemeanor. 1 One step more. Το procure any woman of any age to attend at a brothel, is so gross a breach of decency, that we would on no account have it dispunishable. And we believe that Lord Campbell, who in 1849 so stoutly advised reliance on the Common Law, was either not cognizant of the case of R. v. Pierson 2, or that he had determined, if a case of that kind should come upon him, to overrule this decision. The impunity of a bawd, irrespective of conspiracy, is so discreditable to our law, that we applaud Mr. Davis for the distinctness and accuracy which he has shown in his notice of this serious

matter.

There are two unrighteous acts which the author of the

1 7 C. & P. 795.; Roderick's case. 2 1 Salle, 382.; 2 Lord Raym. 1197.

Essay has enumerated in his catalogue, the frequency of which, we trust, will soon cease to be a cause of complaint,the seduction of a girl under twenty-one by her master; and the "hiring or taking into service for the purpose of seduction." The first assumes a guilty course of persuasion by the master: the second is an unmanly or infamous proceeding in the worst direction. But we are not disposed to visit the principals in these sad acts with the character of statutable misdemeanants. We have already intimated our adhesion to the extension of the civil remedy, and in this decision we are supported by men of intelligence; but we are not prepared in these instances to invade the privacies of domestic life with the castigation of an indictable misdemeanor, to place an unobservant or even careless master in the power of a thoughtless young female, to incite niceties of construction in the minds of a jury as to the primary seductive movement

-

to make that notorious, which, unless the subject of conspiracy, had been best left in obscurity, or trusted to the vindication of a father or near friend, to say nothing of the extreme difficulty of proof in such cases, and the inconvenience of repeated exposures and of acquittals; — from all these obvious perplexities we gladly retire, and remain content with the large instalment of protection which has been proposed, or, if there be any remedy at Common Law, with that method of punishment.

And notwithstanding the odious character of a common stew, that "mortal poison," we are yet of opinion, that the law in this respect, without eulogising its sufficiency, should be left in statu. This is a hard and delicate matter, one which, although it may bear a close, does not deserve a diffuse, inquiry. It must not, however, escape attention, that the Common Law is undeniably hostile to such places; that proceedings are often set on foot against the most obnoxious; and that convictions are more easily obtained against the proprietors of them than in the case of common gaming houses. Without venturing even to excuse the existence of such resorts, we think that policy and expediency amonish us to leave the law as it is, in its expressed disapproval and enmity.

As long as man remains in his present state, as some hold, of imperfection, or wickedness, according to the majority, it may not be an easy task to repress the illicit commerce of the sexes. But for that unhallowed association, some think that females of purity would not be so secure as they now are. We know that, comparatively speaking, our wives and daughters enjoy a moderate and rational liberty, that they are rarely assailed with personal rudeness-that the crimes of ravishment or violence are not alarmingly on the increase; and we are not ignorant, on the other hand, that when a house of evil fame is marked by unbridled profligacy, the neighbourhood will be aroused to a successful struggle against its enormities. We, therefore, stop on the threshold when we are invited to meddle with the landlords of these houses beyond the powers inherent in the Common Law. We are not advocates for the stringent measures recommended in the Essay concerning landlords, nor would we give the right of search, nor attempt the definition, of a brothel. Had there not been good reasons for judicious forbearance in matters of this nature, the well-meaning zeal of societies and individuals would long since have worked a change; and if it be possible to refrain from crowding the statute-book with misdemeanors, the Common Law will be more honoured, the abominations of iniquity will outrage the eye and ear with less frequency, and the vices of our country be withheld from an impolitic publicity.

Mr. Wharton's chapter on Maidenhood is not without interest. He calls it the legal condition of an unmarried woman, and details her affirmative and negative powers in a series, from her inability to exercise the political franchise, to the statutory provisions which punish the negligent or careless firing of buildings by servants; a law which, though seldom heard of, is, nevertheless, unrepealed', and, we believe has been enforced upon one occasion not long past.

We turn to a more acceptable task. Matrimony, with its incidents, is a history which, although sometimes clouded with calamities beyond the reach of law, carries with it too

1 Amongst other matters, it was excepted from the repeal of 14 Geo. III. c. 78., in schedule A. of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 84. ; the Metropolis Buildings' Act. VOL. XX.

с