case in point that he had submitted to the former
Attorney General, but he "did not seem disposed to enforce the rights
of the father, on the ground that he had sold the child." The Governor
concludes: "I did not agree with his view of the law."

The last case was referred back to the Acting Police Magistrate to
know why the woman, Leung A-Luk, was allowed to go unprosecuted. The
Police Magistrate replied: "It appeared to me that 4th defendant
(Leung A-Luk) being a well-to-do woman, and having no children of her
own, had purchased the girl with a view to adopting her." He adds:
"When Acting Superintendent of Police last year, I wished to prosecute
a man for detaining a child ... but as it was shown that the boy had
been sold by his father some months previously, the Attorney General
considered the purchaser was _in loco parentis_, [in the place of a
parent] and could not be purchased."

On the two cases to which the attention of the Governor had been
brought, the Attorney General reported:

"With the greatest respect for the Chief Justice, I doubt the
policy of prosecuting the woman he refers to, having regard to the
fact that the magistrate had discharged her for want of testimony,
and looking to his further report. The magistrate should always be
supported if possible; and if he discharged the woman, and put her
at the bar as a witness, and she was used again at the Supreme
Court, it might look like a breach of good faith to treat her now
as a criminal.... As to the druggist's case, I think that the only
thing that can be said is that it would look to be a breach of
faith to proceed against him now."

When the case was referred to the Crown Solicitor, he said:

"As to the druggist the parties had now left the Colony, and there
were no witnesses against him. The purchase by Chinese of young
orphans, and indeed of others whose parents are too poor to keep
them, is a social custom amongst the natives, and is of constant
occurrence in Hong Kong. These 'pocket-children,' as they are
usually termed, are often treated with great affection, and are
far better off than they were previous to their being so bought."

It was the 30th of May when the Chief Justice called the Governor's
attention to these cases. It was July before the Attorney General and
the Crown Solicitor seem to have paid any attention to the cases. It
was no wonder, then, that some of t