§ The Lord Chancellor quitted the woolsack, and called their lordships serious attention to the standing clause which the bill contained, and to the principle upon which provisions of the kind proceeded. What they were called upon to do in such cases, was to alter the legal qualities of one whose case was brought under the consideration of the legislature, not for its own demerits, but on account of the delinquency of the parent. Clauses of the kind should be sparingly inserted. There were instances he admitted, in which the legislature could have no 622 hesitation: such as where the husband was out of the country, or where a physical impossibility of any nature interfered. Besides the strong objections in point of legal principle, a provision of the kind was, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, unnecessary; as the persons interested had legal means in their power of perpetuating the testimony whose evidence they thought would establish the point in view. The noble lord then referred to some of the relevant circumstances of the present case, as they had appeared in evidence, though a part of the testimony to which he referred was of that kind that should be looked at with caution and jealousy; yet he had little doubt as to the result of that evidence. But then there was at least a possibility of the circumstance having been otherwise; and the present was that particular case upon which the legislature should never proceed but upon the clearest possible evidence; and, therefore, with reference to the principle he had laid down, and to the moral rights of legislation, he would propose that the clause to which he had adverted should be expunged.
§ The Bishop of St. Asaph supported the leading observations of the noble lord on the woolsack.—The clause, on the question being put, was ordered to be expunged, and the bill was then read a third time and passed.