An association on similar lines has been formed at Ahmedabad. Its distinctive features will appear from the following extracts-the first (A) from the Memorandum, and the second (B) from the Articles :

A. 3 The objects for which the Association is established are:(1.) The prevention of premature marriages, specially by taking legally enforceable pledges from parents and guardians, and by persuading castes and sub-castes which can dine together to allow intermarriage. (2.) The improvement of the status of woman, specially by discouraging Asura marriages, and male bigamy, in castes which practise either.

(3.) The doing all such other lawful things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.

B. 4. There shall be three divisions of members, consisting respectively of persons who agree to adopt any of the Qualifications of members. following three limits of marriageable age, viz. (1) 18 for boys and 14 for girls; (2) 16 for boys and 12 for girls; (3) 16 for boys and 10 for girls.

9

Every one of such persons must further agree not to marry his sons or daughters, or any other male or female relations under his control or guardianship, respectively, below the limit of age adopted by him, and in each case of breach by him, hereafter, of such agreement to pay to the Association a sum of Rs. 200, or any less sum adjudged by his division (or by any committee to which this power of adjudication may be, generally or specially, delegated by his division, or by the Association on behalf of all the divisions) after giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence.

The minimum subscription payable by each member is eight annas

a year.

Donors of Rs. 25 need pay no subscription.

Honorary Members may only be elected on account of their liberality towards the Association, or for eminent services to the cause of social reform or female education. No Honorary Member shall be bound by the Memorandum of Association or these Articles.

5. All who sign the following printed form in duplicate shall be deemed members respectively of the divisions chosen by them, and shall be registered as such by the Secretary under the control of the Managing Committee. The Secretary, under the control of the said Committee, may for recorded reasons forego the subscription in any case.

FORM.

I...... of...... caste living at ...... after understanding the Memorandum and Articles of the Gujarat Hindu Social Reform Association hereby agree to become a member of the Division.

......

Honorary Members can only be elected at a General Meeting.

APPENDIX III.

THE INDIAN LAW REGARDING THE SEDUCTION OF GIRLS-A CRYING INEQUALITY.

I have read the English Criminal Law Amendment Act, and I ask the Government most earnestly to contrast its provisions with those in our Penal Code on this subject. I put them here side by side.

How girls are protected by the

Indian Penal Code.

1. A husband having intercourse with his wife who is under ten years of age, with or without her consent, is punishable with transportation for life. (Sec. 376.)

2. A husband having intercourse with his wife who is ten years old, with or without her consent, is not punishable at all. The law in the most explicit language declares that this is not rape. (Sec. 375.)

3. Any person other than a husband, having intercourse with a girl who is ten years old, with her consent, is not punishable.

How they are protected by the English Criminal Law Amendment Act.

1. He is punishable with penal servitude for life.

He is punishable with penal servitude for life.

He is punishable with penal servitude for life.

7

4. A girl under twelve years of age is not competent to consent to the commission of any offence upon her, or in respect of her, except that of rape or seduction. and 375.)

(Secs. 90

Any one having intercourse with a girl under thirteen years of age, with or without her consent, is punishable with penal servitude for life.

Any one having intercourse with a girl over thirteen and under sixteen years of age, with or without her consent, is punishable with ten years' rigorous imprisonment.

Let the public, and the authorities, look upon this picture and upon that. Can there be any justification for such glaring divergencies and inequalities? In three out of these four cases, what is an offence in England-an offence punishable with penal servitude for life—is not an offence in India. The question affects not only us Natives, but Englishmen also. It is the Penal Code that governs them here, and not the Criminal Law Amendment Act. An English girl, ten years old, has not in India that protection which her sister under sixteen enjoys in England. Can there be a better reason for the reform of the law? And does not this show that it is the interest of every publicist, Anglo-Indian and Native, to protest against this shameful inequality ?

II.

As the public may wish to have the ipsissima verba of our code, I quote those portions of it which relate to our subject.

16

We are first warned in Sec. 90, that a consent is not such a consent as is intended by any Section of this code...... if the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which he gives his consent; or, unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by

a person who is under twelve years of age". Let us now turn to the context of Section 375:-" A man is said to commit 'rape' who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five following descriptions :

Fifthly. With or without her consent when she is under ten years of age.

Exception.-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under ten years of age, is not rape."

This Section, therefore, lays down that if a girl is under ten her consent to her seduction is immaterial, while without this Section, Section 90 would make such consent immaterial in the case of a girl under twelve. Section 375, therefore, is contrary to Section 90, and so, it has been construed by that eminent commentator, Mr. Mayne.

Now, mark the absurdities:-"Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of an offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear, or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force' to that other" and is punishable with three months' imprisonment. (Sec. 350 and 352.)

"Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple), which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. " (Sec. 354.)

The maximum punishment for rape is ten years' imprisonment (Sec. 376) or ten years' transportation (Sec. 59). To such a serious offence, a girl ten years old is supposed capable

of consenting, but not to petty criminal force or an indecent assault. If she consent to the latter, the law nevertheless rigorously enjoins that her consent is not a valid consent, and that the offence committed against her is in spite of it an offence. But if she consent to sexual intercourse-why, that consent is valid. The difference between her husband and any other person is simply this, that while the former is safe, whether she consents or not, the latter is not safe, unless she consents or is willing. But in the case of criminal force or an indecent assaualt, even a girl under twelve, and not merely a girl under ten, is supposed incompetent to give a valid consent. Is not this a most unjustifiable anomaly? Surely rape is a more heinous crime than criminal force or an attempt to outrage the modesty of a girl. Why, then, this pernicious distinction? Notice that the Penal Code holds out an indemnity, not only to the husband, but to others. The exception in favour of a husband is to a rule which is itself an exception to the general law laid down in Sec. 90. That general law prohibits us from taking a single ornament off a girl's person, even with her consent, if she is under twelve (Sec. 378). That general law prohibits us from conveying a girl of this age beyond the limits of British India, even if she consents. That general law punishes the least touch of her garments, the least contact with her person as criminal force, even if she consents (Secs. 349, 350 and 352). But the exception to this general law lays down that a girl, not under ten, is game to any one for sexual intercourse if she consents, and a further exception to this exception lays down that she is game to her husband, even if she does not consent. Is not this, then, fearful and shameful? I challenge any one to come forward to defend it. The truth is that at the time the Penal Code was framed, the English law was in a most unsatisfactory state. The English jurists held that mere physical consent was sufficient, that even though the woman was an idiot still if she consented from mere animal instinct, the offence of rape was not committed (Reg. vs. Fletcher). The Indian law was an advance upon this barbarous principle. It protected