Lords Sitting of 30 July 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from the Island of Newfoundland, calling attention to the distracted state of that Colony.—By the Earl of RIPON, from Lincoln, to Enfranchise Church Property on just and equitable terms.—By the Bishop of HEREFORD, several, against the encouragement of Hindoo Idolatry.—By the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, from Leith, against the Appropriation of Municipal Funds under the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Chelmsford, complaining of certain Convicted Prisoners having been Liberated.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, several, from places in Yorkshire and elsewhere, for the repeal of the Beer Bill.—By Lord SONDES, from Stafford, Derby, Runcorn, and other places, against the encouragement of Hindoo Idolatry by the Indian Government.

CANADA—LORD DURHAM'S PROCLAMATION.
Lord Broughamwished to call the attention of their Lordships to the announcement of a proclamation of ordinance which he had seen in the public papers, and which was of the greatest importance to the people of Canada. It was a proclamation agreed to by the Earl of Durham in council, and which, if the noble Earl presumed to carry into effect, he would be guilty of no less a crime than murder. So outrageous, so abominable a violation of the law, ought not, if it did exist, to be suffered to continue for an hour. He hoped, however, that no such proclamation had been issued. But the American papers had stated the fact, and they had also given the names of the parties appointed to act on the Special Council. As was the case with the former selection, no Canadian was named. He saw that the military secretary, the aide-de camp, and the civil secretary, were enrolled, but no Canadian, Then Lord
756
Durham had issued a proclamation stating, that certain persons had declared themselves guilty, and, therefore, the Governor-general, without bringing them to trial, without having any regular examination, had sentenced them himself to transportation to Bermuda, and declared that they should be put to death if they left the place of their banishment and again appeared in Canada. This, if carried into effect, would be gross murder. Neither the Governor-general nor any one else had the least right to pass any sentence, much less a sentence of a nature so highly penal, unless the parties had been previously tried. But it appeared, that these individuals, if they returned from transportation, were to be put to death. Now, what was the course adopted in this country? Why, if the party returned (and it was every day's practice), he could not be summarily put to death under the mandate of any person. It was only when the court, which had legal jurisdiction, ordered him to be put to death that execution could be inflicted on him. It was made a capital felony, by Act of Parliament, to return prematurely from transportation, after a man had been regularly tried, convicted, and sentenced. But, in this instance, the moment a man confessed himself guilty, he was, without any legal form having been gone through, sentenced to transportation, and subjected to death if he returned from it. But this was not all. By this proclamation or ordinance, Mr. Papineau and others, who had not confessed themselves guilty, who had made no admission of the kind, were outlawed, and it was proclaimed, that if they entered the territory of Canada, Upper or Lower, they were also to be put to death. There had been already a most outrageous tampering with the law, when 1,000 l. was offered for evidence; but this was nothing When they looked to a proclamation by which the Governor-general pronounced that he was prepared, should circumstances arise, to commit a capital felony. His commission only allowed the Governor-general in Council to frame general laws—not to make a sudden regulation under which men were to be hanged. The whole proceeding was utterly at variance with the known, and just, and established law of this country.
Lord Ellenboroughrose to move for a copy of the proclamation to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded.

757
Also, for the names of the persons appointed to act on the Special Council, and the day on which the proclamation or ordinance had passed. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, would see the propriety of his calling for the date; because, he believed, connected with the date, he could show that three other grounds of illegality with reference to this proceeding existed, besides that which his noble and learned Friend had pointed out. Before Sir J. Colborne left the Special Council he sanctioned certain rules for the government of the proceedings of that council. One of these rules set forth, that every meeting of that council should be convened by proclamation twenty-one days before the meeting took place. Now, the council at which this ordinance was passed was summoned on the 28th of June, and proceeded to business on that day, which was manifestly against the regulation. Again, the 15th resolution directed, that when any new law was introduced, any Member might move, that it should be read a second time on the next day of meeting, and that it might then be read, unless some more distant day was proposed. In this case, however, the rule was wholly departed from; and the ordinance was read a first, second, and third time, and agreed to, on the same day—the day that he had already mentioned. This was contrary to the standing order. It was at least irregular, if not actually illegal. He now came to his last, but to his most important, objection. Five persons only had been appointed to the Special Council, and it had been ordered, that five should be present when any act was passed. The ordinance in question was discussed on the 28th of June; and he found that one of the five members of the Special Council did not arrive at Quebec till the 29th of June, the day after the ordinance was passed. Therefore, there could have been only four members in the council when the decision took place, which rendered the whole proceeding illegal. There was not anything, he must observe, that required more anxious deliberation than cases of that description to which the ordinance referred; because it was necessary to draw a line of distinction between persons who, on the first glimpse, might seem to be involved in the same degree of criminality; and it was a nice thing to declare, without serious deliberation, that some should be
758
transported, and others, on their recognizance, set free. Here he saw, after a very short consideration, that eight persons should be transported to Bermuda, and hanged if they dared to come back; and sixteen more were outlawed—banished from the colony, and subjected to capital punishment if they returned. Others, it appeared were to be pardoned on giving security. These, he repeated, were matters that required deep consideration; but here twenty-four cases of transportation and banishment, with the penalty, on returning, of death, were decided in one day. Great punishment was awarded against these persons, while pardon was extended to others. It was necessary that their Lordships should have these papers before them, in order, that they might investigate a proceeding which appeared to him to be disgraceful to the Government, and likely to bring into hatred the authority of this country.
Lord Glenelgwas quite ready to lay upon their Lordships' table any papers upon the subject in his possession. All that he now had were the ordinances, and some private letters, which he was not at liberty to produce. He had only to observe, that it was premature to condemn the conduct of Lord Durham, which had gained the confidence of both parties in Canada.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he did not absolutely condemn Lord Durham. He only condemned him, in the event of its being true, that he had issued such a proclamation. He appealed to any lawyer in the House whether murder would not be committed in hanging a man without first bringing him to trial.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that considering the difficulties of Lord Durham's position—considering the distracted state of the colonies over which he was sent to preside—considering the state of the empire, and how deeply the empire might be affected by what passed in that House, it was in the very highest degree imprudent, and he would add, unpatriotic—it was sacrificing the interests of the country to the interested party—it was sacrificing the highest objects to the desire of attacking an individual, to pass such a decided and determined condemnation upon an act which had been deemed necessary by the noble Lord who was upon the spot, and had the best means of judging what was fit to be done and what

759
was for the benefit of the State. He had no objection to the production of the papers, or to the fullest discussion in that House or elsewhere of what had been done in the province. He could not refrain from expressing the strong opinion which he felt upon the course which had been adopted in reference to Canadian affairs.
Lord Broughamdissented most strongly and peremptorily from the doctrines which had been laid down by the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. He held it to be neither premature, nor imprudent, nor unpatriotic in that House to keep a watchful eye on the exercise of the dictatorial powers which had been intrusted to the Governor-general of Canada. They were told during the debates which preceded the passing of the bill that Parliament would be always at hand to superintend and control the exercise of those powers. "Don't fear," said the noble Viscount and his colleagues, "to give ample authority. It will be always under the control and supervision of Parliament, and if unduly exercised, Parliament can be called upon to interfere." Powers ample and extensive were accordingly given—powers hideous and portentous in their nature, and yet even these had been exceeded by the noble Lord to whom they were intrusted. This authority, however ample and tyrannical, was not considered sufficient by those upon the spot. They were exceeded to an extent, that if before they were given any one had predicted such a result, it would immediately have been pronounced to be impossible. The noble Viscount talked as if the powers given to Lord Durham had been exercised, but not exceeded. Was the issuing of such an ordinance an exercise of the powers of the act? Instead of confining himself to the powers of the act, the noble Earl was running in the teeth of the act, and of every known law and usage in England. The noble Viscount had talked of a person upon the spot knowing best what was necessary to be done for the good of the public; he would ask was it necessary to commit a felony for the good of the public? Was it necessary to hang a man before they brought him to trial? Could any difficulties of the noble Lord's position—could any state of the empire, justify the tolerating of such orders? The House, he thought, would fail in their duty to their country if they allowed a single day to
760
elapse without calling for an explanation of such proceedings. He denied, that he sought an occasion of attacking Lord Durham. These ordinances had been published in America, and were known to the world. But, says the noble Lord, Lord Durham has conciliated all parties in Canada. Did all parties in Canada, then, approve of illegal acts? When Lord Durham was given up by the noble Viscount, he had defended the noble Lord, and by doing so called down upon himself the censure of a right rev. Prelate for whom he had a great respect, because he always acted conscientiously, and also the censure of a noble Duke. Nothing could be more solemn than the denunciation upon that occasion by the noble Viscount of Lord Durham and Mr. Turton. In its generality there was wanted no charge, however odious. He never desired to be set-down more in his presence or in his absence—in public or in private—than to have it said of him by the one who had appointed him to a confidential situation, "I have seen with deep regret the acts which he has done, and am greatly surprised at them." With respect to the charges which had been made against him by the noble Viscount, of being influenced by factious motives, he regarded them as little as the noble Viscount used himself to regard similar charges when he was accused for bringing charges against the Government of that period, being influenced by factious motives.
Lord Glenelgrepeated, that he had no objection to lay the papers upon the Table.
Motion agreed to.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the third reading of the Juvenile Offenders' Bill, said, that he wished to correct a statement which he had formerly made respecting the number of children lost or abandoned in the town of Manchester. He had stated the numbers correctly, according to the police returns, but the inference which he had drawn was incorrect, for the number of children returned as lost or abandoned included the whole number every day in the year; and, consequently, it was not to be inferred, that that immense number was the actual number of children permanently lost or abandoned; for the fact was, that a great number included in the returns were afterwards claimed

761
by their parents and returned to their homes.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he was desirous before the bill passed of calling their Lordships' attention to it. The subject was one of great interest and importance, and he was ready to admit fully that the object of the bill was in every respect laudable. Its object was to have a separate prison for offenders under a certain age; and nothing could be more desirable than that offenders of that class should be enabled to avoid that influence and example, which were found to be prejudicial to their morals, when they were kept in the same custody with the general class of offenders. Looking at the preamble, he found, that part of the object of the bill was to reform and instruct juvenile offenders. The object, therefore, was highly laudable, and in proportion to the importance of the object was the importance of considering the manner in which that object was to be effected; but he did not find on the face of the bill, nor in the statement of the noble Marquess, either today or on a former occasion anything which could give them any insight into the system which was intended to be pursued. In the first place, however, he wished to remark, that the observations of the noble Marquess with regard to the town of Manchester were founded in a total misapprehension; the fact was, that there were scarcely any instances of children being lost or abandoned there. A humane regulation existed in the town, by which the police took any children whom they found wandering to the nearest police station, that parents might know where to claim them; for this purpose they were taken there; and though it was true, that in that manner upwards of 8,000 had been found within the last four years, still he understood that all of them, with the exception of a single instance, had been claimed and had returned to their parents. Now, considering the importance of this subject, he submitted that there ought to be, either on the face of the bill or in the statement of the noble Marquess, some explanation of the course which was intended to be pursued. If they intended to adopt anything like the separate system, he protested vehemently against it; but further, there was a principle now introduced for the first time in this bill, to which he very strongly objected. In all
762
the prisons of this country whether county gaols, houses of correction, or penitentiaries, a system of inspection was established, which had been of the greatest public benefit. Nothing was so liable to abuse as imprisonment, sometimes from negligence, sometimes from indifference, sometimes from cruelty, sometimes from passion, and therefore the law had wisely provided for the strict inspection of all the gaols of this country. By the 31st of George the 3rd, visiting magistrates were appointed, who were bound to inspect the prisons three times in every quarter, and individual magistrates had the right of inspecting them at any time. That system had been found to work very beneficially; and it applied to all the prisons of England, with a single exception, and that exception was the Penitentiary at Millbank, which the magistrates had no right to visit, and which did not come under their jurisdiction; but so anxious was Parliament on this subject, that a committee had been appointed by the Privy Council for that purpose. Now, what was the principle which was attempted to be established for the first time by this bill? That no magistrate should have any right to enter the juvenile prison, which was to be liable to the inspection of no one but the individuals appointed by the Government, and in the pay of the Government. It would, perhaps, be said, that there was already persons appointed as inspectors of prisons; but they were appointed by the Government, and dependant upon the Government; and as the existence of their offices did not interfere with the visiting power of the magistrates in regard to other prisons, he protested most strongly against the principle which was sought to be established. He knew some noble Lords considered this bill an experiment, which ought to be made on the responsibility of Government, and that that responsibility would be diminished if they admitted the magistrates to have any control or influence in the management of this prison; and he admitted, that it was an experiment which should be made on the responsibility of the Government; but how were they to know in what manner the system worked, and with what success it was attended, unless some persons were allowed to witness its operation besides those who were dependent on the Government and favourable to their views? Another point which rendered this inspec-

763
tion still more important was, that the governor was to have the right to inflict corporal punishment: it was true, the Secretary of State was to lay down certain regulations, but who was to apply them? The nature and extent of that corporal punishment was left in the breast of the governor, for anything that appeared to the contrary. For these reasons he submitted, that the general rule ought not to be departed from in this instance, but that the visiting magistrates should be required to report either to the bench of magistrates, if the noble Marquess pleased, or to Parliament, or to the Secretary of State, from time to time, upon the success of the system. He had said, that if the separate system of punishment were to be adopted for the reformation, instruction, and improvement, of juvenile offenders, he protested strongly against it; and why? He had had his attention drawn to this subject by being a member of a committee of their Lordships, which sat early this Session; and he would advert to the separate system established in the Penitentiary which was then examined. He did not mean to make any charges against any individuals or body of men connected with that prison, for he believed that the persons superintending the Penitentiary were persons of great humanity, and discharged their duty well and faithfully; but his objection was to the system; and he would state the instance of one of the persons to whom that inquiry before their Lordships extended—he meant the case of Matilda Seymour. She had been instigated by her mother to commit a trifling theft, and her mother received the goods which she stole. Both were tried and convicted; and the mother was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour, which consisted, he believed, in being kept at the washing tub. The child was sentenced to be transported; but her sentence was commuted into a sentence of imprisonment for three years. That child was scarcely an object of punishment; at the most she was about ten years of age, and she had acted at the instigation of her mother. Accordingly, it must be said, by way of defence, that the sentence was not intended as punishment, but for her reformation and instruction. She was sentenced to the Penitentiary for three years for her improvement and reformation. But if the Government undertook the reformation and improvement of chil-
764
dren, it should establish a different system from that pursued in the Penitentiary—a system entirely different from the separate system. What was the evidence of the resident governor himself? He had said, that the system was not generally applicable to children; and Mr. Russell, another governor, had expressed the same opinion, even in stronger terms. Was he not right, then, in saying, that if the Government undertook the reformation and instruction of children, they ought to establish a different system? Some exercise was necessary for the preservation of health; but what description of exercise ought it to be? Merely putting one leg before another was not sufficient for a child. The exercise ought to be of every kind and variety; every part of the body ought occasionally to be brought into activity; and at the same time the mind should be employed to render the exercise beneficial, Their Lordships, assenting to these observations, would be surprised at the kind of exercise which was allowed to this child, who was put there not for punishment but improvement. For half an hour in the morning, she was allowed to walk in single file round a small yard, enclosed by a high wall; and if the weather permitted, for half an hour in the afternoon. That was all the exercise she was allowed in the twenty-four hours. Again, he had made a calculation of the average number of hours out of the twenty-four during which she was shut up by herself in a cell not much larger than that table. If they added together the hours for attendance in chapel, for instruction, for washing, and for walking, the amount would be twenty hours in the week, or less than three hours each day; so that this child, not more than ten years of age, was to be confined for twenty-one hours out of the twenty-four during three successive years, in a cell not larger than that table; and in order that the child might derive no instruction from without, the window-cills were so high as to prevent her from looking out, and there was that child kept for twenty-one hours out of the twenty-four—not kept there for punishment, but for the reformation of her morals and the improvement of her mind. Was he wrong, then, when the Government was presenting a bill respecting the imprisonment of juvenile offenders, to call their attention to these matters, and to urge the necessity of adopting a different system? There was

765
a beautiful passage of a French author, St. Pierre, in which he spoke of the impression produced by external objects on the mind of a child, and of the manner in which the young mind gradually expanded under the influence of those impressions: but here they had acted on a directly contrary principle; they acted on the principle of shutting out all external sources of improvement from the mind of the child, and of barbarising and stupifying its mind. He hoped, therefore, the noble Marquess would have the kindness to tell them, that a system of this kind was not intended to be established under this bill. The beautiful lines of their great epic poet, afforded almost a literal description of the situation of that child placed under the cruelties of that system:—
"Thus with the year
Seasons return; but not to me returns
Day, or the sweet approach of eve or morn,
Or sight of vernal bloom or summer's rose,
Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine;
But cloud instead, and ever-during dark
Surrounds me, from the cheerful ways of men
Cut off, and for the book of knowledge fair
Presented with a universal blank
Of nature's works to me expunged and rased."
Almost literally did these beautiful lines apply to the situation of that child. The effect of the confinement had been this—that in a short time she was afflicted with scrofula, and the medical man had said that she would not recover as long as that confinement was continued; and he had further said that scrofula and consumption arising from confinement, were the prevalent diseases of the establishment. Would she not have been better if she had been allowed to walk in the garden of the establishment? Undoubtedly she would; but then the strict rules of discipline would have been broken. He had called their Lordships' attention to this matter for the purpose of mentioning the evidence of the Chairman at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Mr. Sergeant Addams), who was a member of the Children's Friend's Society. What was the evidence of the learned Gentleman? Why, that in that society they acted on a principle directly the reverse of that adopted at the Penitentiary, that they allowed the children to associate together, they indulged them in all the amusements of childhood, that they treated them with great kindness, and that the effects that that system produced were perfectly maryellous. One child,
766
who had experienced the benefits of that system, had expressed his gratitude in these natural terms:—"You have changed me entirely, and I love you all." Why had he called the attention of their Lordships and of the Government to these subjects? For the purpose of inducing the noble Marquess to tell them what system it was intended to adopt in the prison regulated by this Bill. He called on the noble Marquess to give that explanation, for, if it were intended to adopt the separate system, he desired to enter his protest against it; but, if, on the contrary, the noble Marquess meant to say that the more benevolent and wiser system acted upon by the Children's Friends' Society were that which he proposed to introduce, he would heartily join with him in pressing forward this measure, which only proposed to do that which ought to have been done much earlier. Whatever that explanation might be, he had merely done his duty in calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject. The noble and learned Lord then moved the insertion of certain clauses providing for the appointment of visiting magistrates, who were to inspect the prison three times every quarter, and to report on its state from time to time.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas glad of the opportunity of giving an explanation on the points to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, and first he would notice the statement made by the noble and learned Lord in reference to his explanation of the returns from Manchester which he had cited on a former occasion; he had given the explanation nearly in the terms of the noble and learned Lord himself. He had said that which was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord, viz. that a great proportion of the children included in that return, had been reclaimed by their parents, but he had no authority to go to the extent of saying that there was scarcely any exception. But now he again reverted to that statement as bearing out his argument, that in great cities there must constantly be a vast number of children freed from the care and control of parents, and that that was the class which supplied the materials out of which arose that tremendous increase of crime amongst children, which it was their Lordships' province to check. The noble and learned Lord had proceeded to express doubts as to the character of the remedy which was to be applied, and he had rather

767
unnecessarily argued before their Lordships that which was admitted by the Government and all persons who had attended to the subject—that a new system was necessary to be introduced. It was surely unneccessary for the noble and learned Lord to use so much of his eloquence to prove that common prisons were not the places in which either male or female children should be confined. The noble and learned Lord had referred to an inquiry into the cases of certain children in the Penitentiary, and he had told them that the result was that even in the opinion of the best officers connected with the administration of that prison, they were not proper places for juvenile offenders. The noble and learned Lord might have added, in the particular instances inquired into, such was the care, the vigilance, the attention paid to those children, that though they were necessarily restricted to obey the peculiar rules of discipline established there, they stated themselves to be without complaint, and to be comparatively happy; and especially with regard to the particular case of Matilda Seymour. By the care and attention which had been paid to her she had been placed in a situation to earn her own livelihood; she had received various kinds of instruction, and had been rescued from a woman from whom she would have learnt nothing but depravity. It was nothing new to condemn the system of prisons, as inapplicable to the cases of children, and that was the very groundwork of the present bill. The noble and learned Lord had referred to a society of which he had been a member for several years; he had presided at its meetings, and he had observed the operation of its system to be most beneficial; but the noble and learned Lord should have stated that these establishments were confined to children wandering about, not having actually committed any crime, because the society had no authority to receive children convicted of any offence. It would be, therefore, rather unfair and illogical to suppose that precisely the same results should attend the operation of that system in the case of children already in some degree hardened in crime. The noble and learned Lord had asked him whether a system different from that adopted in the Penitentiary were to be introduced. Why the whole object of the measure was that it should be different. But did he state that for the first time?
768
As almost doubted whether the noble and learned Lord had attended to him; because he had formerly stated that the object of the Bill was to introduce a system totally different, and he had adverted to a document in explanation of that new system, which, if the noble and learned Lord had read, it would have given him complete satisfaction. The first thing he found in that document was, that a system of separation was not applicable to children; the commissioners said that they did not advocate the application of the separate system generally to young children, though for very short periods that species of disciple might be necessary. That was the document to which he had referred a fortnight ago as forming the basis of this bill. As to air and exercise for this particular prison, no less than eighty acres of land were to be provided for the purpose. Most beneficial results had been produced by the Society of the Refuge for the Destitute, of which he was chairman, which afforded a better example than the Children's Friends' Society, inasmuch as they would receive convicted children. It might be interesting to their Lordships to know that at this moment there was a considerable tradesman in a neighbouring town who was an arrant thief when ten years old, and had been taken into the Refuge for the Destitute, and there taught the trade which he now followed, he had nine apprentices, some of whom came from the Refuge for the Destitute. He objected to the clauses proposed by the noble and learned Lord, because they introduced the authority of the local justices of the county in which this prison happened to be situated, though the prison itself had nothing to do with the country. It was a national prison, subject to the inspectors of prisons, who were under the control of Parliament; and it was placed he believed, on the same footing with the Penitentiary, and all similar national establishments, independent of the local authorities. All that he wished was, that whatever authority the noble and learned Lord proposed to establish, it should be an authority of a central nature, that it should report to the Government or to Parliament should it be preferred, and that it should be under the control of the Government as well as of the Parliament. The other amendment provided, that a child escaping from confinement should be liable to punishment. Now, he had no

769
doubt that when a child so circumstanced was brought back to the place of confinement the original punishment to which he was liable would revert, and consequently there was no reason to introduce that clause. There were various degrees of offence and penalty, and he thought it would be more uniform if the original punishment should revert in the case of such parties than that they should all be subject to one particular punishment for having escaped, and that this punishment should be fixed without reference to their various grades and degrees of guilt.
The Earl of Chichesterlooked upon the bill which was now before their Lordships as a most important, wise, and salutary measure; and he had always considered it to be the fulfilment of a promise made two Sessions ago by the noble Marquess who had just sat down, in reply to some questions put to him by the noble Duke (Wellington) with reference to some children tried and convicted at quarter sessions. He had fully considered the subject of the noble and learned Lord's amendments; and it was his conviction that these prisons could not be subjected to that constant and vigilant superintendence which was so necessary to their well being, if they were left merely to the inspectors of prisons. He had recommended to the committee which sat upon the subject of prison discipline to appoint a board expressly for the purpose of inspecting and superintending these prisons, with inspectors acting under their authority, and representing to them correctly the state of the different prisons. At the same time he would not interfere with the authority of the visiting justices, whose advantageous local influence he should be most sorry to dispense with. It was, at the same time, however, most important, that the prisons should be visited by regular official inspectors; he certainly did not think that this was a matter to be left to the Secretary of State, who had so many other important matters to attend to. He would suggest, that a certain number of persons should be appointed at Quarter Sessions to the duties of this inspection of which they should report the result to the Secretary of State, sending also a copy of the report to be laid before the next Court of Quarter Sessions. He could not help thinking, that the publicity given to these reports would be productive
770
of the utmost advantage. He would move, that the existing prisons for juvenile offenders, and any others which might be hereafter erected for the same purpose, should be referred to this board, of which he had spoken. He was most anxious that this experiment should succeed, and he hoped, that it would be extended, in that case, to other classes of criminals. From all that he had seen, he was more and more convinced of the unsatisfactory character of the secondary punishments now inflicted. He earnestly hoped that some system of penitentiary discipline might be adopted; and he hoped that his noble Friend the noble Marquess might before long propose to their Lordships some measure of this kind. The noble Earl concluded by proposing an amendment to the first clause, to the effect that two or more visiting justices be appointed, who should personally visit and inspect the prisons at least three times in each quarter of a-year, and should make a report once in each quarter of a-year to the Secretary of State; and that a copy of such report should be sent to the clerk of the peace; provided always, that such visiting justices should be empowered, at all reasonable hours, to visit and inspect the prisons, and to make a report upon any abuse to the Secretary of State whenever they deemed it necessary.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that if the noble Marquess would assent to this amendment, he was willing to withdraw his own, in order that the noble Earl might propose his. He only wanted some proper and independent persons to inspect the prisons, and report thereon to the Secretary of State.
The Marquess of Lansdownewould not object to the appointment of persons by the Privy Council for that purpose; nor did he object to any species of observation emanating from the public generally, and not from the particular county.
Lord Portmanwanted independent persons to be appointed. At the same time he thought that any justice ought to have the power of inspecting these prisons, and he should therefore submit to his noble Friend's consideration an amendment to the effect that any justice of the peace, acting for any county in England, should be allowed to enter into and examine such prisons as often as he thought fit, and if he discovered any abuses therein, he should be required to report them to the Secretary of State. He thought that this

771
would secure that additional inspection which the noble and learned Lord and his noble Friend the noble Earl seemed to have agreed upon, and he thought it expedient that every justice should have the right of inspection. He hoped, that their Lordships would study the third report of the inspectors of prisons, than which no more valuable document had been laid on the table of that House for many years. He hoped the noble Marquess would turn his attention to the establishment of some general prison, where persons incarcerated for a long term of imprisonment might be removed, and where some corrective system might be applied. He would put his amendment in the hands of his noble Friend the noble Marquess, and would beg him to consider it.
Lord Broughamobjected to the practice of making material amendments in a measure after the third reading of the bill. He thought it would be better to postpone the debate on this subject to a future day.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS.
Lord Hatherton, in moving the second reading of the Recovery of Tenements Bill, said that it was extremely probable that most of their Lordships were not aware of the difficulty of obtaining the recovery of small tenements, though such Members of that House as were acquainted with the manufacturing districts might be apprised of it. He was himself a trustee of property on which there were more than 3,000 cottages, and in that capacity not a month passed but he had experience of the extreme inconvenience of the present state of the law. He believed, that the poor themselves were the greatest sufferers by this state of things. The object of the bill was, not to give the owner any additional remedy for the recovery of rent, but more certainty in recovering the possession of the premises. The mode proposed of operating a change in the law, was by enabling the owners of tenements, after due notice to the party, holding over, to apply for a magistrate's warrant to take possession, notice of not less than seven days having been given to the tenant holding over; and if the magistrates in petty sessions should be satisfied as to the ownership of the property by the applicant, they might issue their warrant at once to take possession, but at least twenty-one days' notice was to be given to the opposite
772
party. Then, the bill provided, that if the party obtaining this warrant had not the right of possession, such warrant was to be a trespass, and the party holding over having given his own bond and that of two sureties to prosecute the action, if he obtained a verdict, was to be entitled to at least double costs. He thought, therefore, that under this bill the rich man would not be likely to avail himself of any unfair advantage. If, however, the defendant obtained a verdict, he would recover his costs from the party holding over, or from the sureties joined with him. He trusted this bill would not meet with any opposition. He believed, that under the present law persons were frequently obliged to spend more than the value of the property in an attempt to recover it from a tenant. The bill had been three years in the House of Commons, and had never been opposed by a larger minority than seven, and so far was that House from thinking the measure unpopular, that they raised the value of the tenements to which the bill applied from 10 l. to 20 l. He therefore moved, that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Broughamremarked, that there might be a termor and a title, and if so, this plan amounted to trying an ejectment in a summary manner.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that the question of title would be tried at the Assizes. When the party holding over entered into a bond to prosecute the action, he would retain possession of the property till the question was decided at the Assizes.
Lord Broughamsaid, that this removed much of his objection to the bill.
Bill read a second time.

CUSTODY OF INFANTS.
Lord Lyndhurstonmore than one occasion had had the good fortune to submit to their Lordships' consideration questions connected with the great principles of humanity and justice, and many alterations of the law founded upon those principles—alterations which had met with the entire approbation of their Lordships; but he had never yet submitted to the House a question which he felt more deeply, or which he considered of more importance than that which was embodied in the bill the second reading of which he was about to move—the Custody of Infants Bill. The measure had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by an hon. and learned

773
Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst's), a Gentleman of great eloquence and high attainments; it had been most actively and most vigorously opposed by another hon. and learned Friend, who was distinguished for his great legal knowledge, and for the extraordinary acumen of his mind; and notwithstanding that active and legal opposition in every stage of the bill in the other House of Parliament, still the promoters of the measure succeeded in carrying it by very large majorities. It was under the sanction of the other House of Parliament, that he submitted the second reading of the bill to their Lordships' consideration. He had always felt it to be incumbent upon a Member of their Lordships' House, when he, proposed any alteration in the existing law of the land, to state most distinctly what the existing law was, what were the evils arising from that state of the law, and what was the remedy he proposed; and feeling that duty to be incumbent on him as a legislator, and as a Member of their Lordships' House, he should, as shortly and distinctly as was possible, state the law as it at present stood, the evils arising from it, and the remedy which by this bill he proposed. He was satisfied the House would go with him in thinking, that the evils were great, and he believed the only point on which a difference of opinion would arise would be as to the adequacy of the remedy. As the law now stood, the father of a chilld born in lawful wedlock was entitled to the entire and absolute control and custody of that child, and to exclude from any share in that control and custody the mother of that child. The mother might be the most virtuous woman that ever lived, amiable in her manners, fond and attached to her children; the father, on the other hand, might be profligate in character, brutal in manner, living in adultery, and yet would have the right under the existing law to the custody of the children of his marriage, to the exclusion of even access to them of his wife, their mother. Further than this, if the father availed himself of the law as it now stood, he might apply it to personal pecuniary objects, to the extortion of unjust concessions from the mother, and still have the right to bar her from all access to her children. Such was the state of the law as far as it related to legitimate children; the law in reference to illegitimate children was however wholly different. Now, in order that he might
774
not be supposed to misstate the law in these respects, he conceived it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to some of the cases which had been quoted in the other House of Parliament by the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom he had already referred; these cases involved no point of a technical character, and being most interesting in their facts, he trusted they would be listened to with indulgence and patience. The first case to which he would refer was that of Mrs. Emanuel. That lady had married a French emigrant. She was before her marriage in possession of about 700 l. a year, which on the marriage was settled to her own use, with certain contingencies. The husband received 2,000 l., but not being satisfied with this settlement of the property, he persecuted his wife to make her will in his favour. She had the firmness to refuse. He then threatened to take her out of the kingdom, but this was barred by a covenant of the settlement. He next threatened to take her child, an infant scarcely five or six months old, out of the kingdom, and he succeeded in tearing the child away from its mother, and placing it in the custody and care of a hireling nurse. Application was made to the court on behalf of the wife for access to the child, and though the Court admitted that nothing could be more infamous or base than the motives by which the father had been actuated, still, as the mother had no right to interfere, as the father had hired a nurse as a substitute for the mother, and as the child was not suffering in health, the court could not interfere and afford the redress sought. The next case was that of Mrs. Skinner. In that case the husband and wife were separated in consequence of the barbarous usage of the husband, who was then living in adultery with a woman of the name of Delaval. The child, only six years of age, had previously been left, and properly left, with the mother; the husband, however, got possession of the child, and on the question being agitated in court (the child having in the mean time been delivered to the mistress of its father, who was then confined in Horseman ger-lane Gaol, where the child was carried to him day by day) the court said, that it had no power to interfere, and thus the child was wholly separated from its mother. That mother was of irreproachable character; her

775
conduct had received no stigma of any kind; she was fondly attached to her child, and he (Lord Lyndhurst) left it to the House to conceive what must have been her sufferings, and to say whether, in contrasting her character and conduct with that of the husband, the law in that case was not harsh, cruel, unjust, and severe. But there was a third case—that of Mrs. M'Lellan. These parties were also separated. The cause of their separation did not appear. The child had been left with the mother, but possession was taken of it by the father, who sent it to school. The child was attacked with a scrofulous complaint, a disease of which two other children had died, and by persuasion of the governess the mother obtained possession of the child, in order to take care of and watch over it as only a mother could. On the application of the father to the court for the child, the court said they had no power to interfere, as the father had a full right to debar the mother from all access to the child. He, however, wished to refer to the language used by the learned judge (Mr. Justice Patteson) on that occasion. He said, "It did not appear that the child had been ill treated." What was the answer of the learned judge? He remarked that "there was a wide difference between the absence of all intentional cruelty and the devoted watchfulness and care of a mother, especially in a case like this, where, from the circumstance of her former children having suffered from the same complaint, the mother may be supposed to have earned the experience of what was best to be done." Such was the feeling of that wise, humane, and charitable judge, and still he was bound by law to restore the child to the person whom the father had named to receive it. Then came the case of "Ball v. Ball," which was a still more recent decision. In that case the father was living in adultery with another woman; the child, however, though left with the mother, was in the habit of visiting its father, and on one of those visits he took possession of it, and sent it to school without any notice to the mother what he had done with it. After a length of time the mother discovered where the child was placed, and made application to the court for its restoration, urging, that the terms of the separation had been, that she should have the custody of the child. That application was unsuccessful, and a second
776
was made to the court in the alternative, that if the law did not permit the restoration of the child, the mother might, at least, have access to it. In answer to that application, what had been the language of the court? The Vice-Chancellor said, "I do not know that I have any authority to interfere. I do not know of any case similar to this, which would authorize my making the order sought in either alternative. If any can be found, I would most gladly adopt it; for, in a moral point of view, I know of no act more harsh or cruel than depriving a mother of proper intercourse with her child." It was clear that the learned judge in that case regretted that he could not accede to one of the two alternatives. Another and more recent case was that of Mrs. Greenhill, and that case was of this description:—She had three daughters, the eldest about six, and the youngest about two years of age. She was living with her children at Weymouth for the benefit of her health, when she received information that her husband was, and had been living in adultery with a female of the name of Graham for upwards of a year; she was astonished at the intelligence, and on consultation with her mother, and her friends, she was advised by them to apply to the Ecclesiastical Court for a divorce. What had then been the conduct of the husband? He sent his attorney to her and threatened that if she went on with the ecclesiastical suit, he would take the children from her. Mrs. Greenhill erroneously supposed that she had a right to retain possession of her children, and went on with her suit for a divorce. Subsequently, proceedings had taken place in the courts of Chancery and King's Bench, and it was there ultimately decided that the wife must not only deliver up the children, but that the husband had a right to debar the wife of all access to them. The judgment of the court was in these terms:—The Vice-Chancellor said, "That however bad and immoral Mr. Greenhill's conduct might he, unless that conduct was brought so under the notice of the children as to render it probable that their minds would be contaminated, the Court of Chancery had no authority to interfere with the common law right of the father, and that he had not the power to order that Mrs. Greenhill should even see her children as a matter of right." Here again was there a complete exclusion of the mother from all access to

777
her offspring, with a manifest expression of regret by the court that it had not power otherwise to act in the matter. He had stated these cases for the purpose of proving the evils of the existing law. Had he succeeded in doing so? Did they not prove that a father, however immoral, profligate, and dissolute, had not only the exclusive right to the custody and possession of his children, but also the right to debar his wife, a woman of virtue and of irreproachable character, from even access to her children? If, then, he had made out a case of cruelty and oppression under the existing law, would their Lordships say, that some mitigation of the law in these respects was not necessary—that some change ought not to follow in order to mitigate its harshness, cruelty, and, he must add, injustice? It was not for him to describe the situation of a woman ardently and devotedly attached to her offspring under such circumstances as those the cases he had cited divulged; it was not for him to point out the harshness and cruelty of the law, which enabled a husband to make use of those very affections as a means of torture, to enable him to extort unjust concessions from his wife. Was the House prepared then, under these circumstances, to say that no alteration of the law in these respects ought to take place? The harshness and severity of the law were increased by the fact, that with the mother of an illegitimate child no person, not even the father, could interfere with her possession of her offspring; and yet the mother of legitimate offspring, the woman of irreproachable conduct and character, was by the law stripped of all control, and even access to her child. That being so, what was the alteration proposed by this bill; He had already said, that he thought the only valid objection to the bill would be, that it did not provide a remedy equal to the evils which existed. The bill did not ask that the child should be handed over to the mother, it did not encroach upon the rights of the father to the possession of the child, it did not interfere with his claims, but all the bill said was, that the father should not be judge in his own case; it did not entirely exclude the mother, but it said, let some judge of the superior courts decide whether or not the mother should be entitled to have access to her child—to what extent, to what degree, and under what circumstances and limits that access should be
778
permitted. The bill, in fact, took the matter out of the hands of the father, and placed it in the hands of the independent judges of the highest tribunals of the country. He understood his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham), whose powers of eloquence he viewed with, respect, intended to oppose this bill, but for what reason he was at a loss to know. He should therefore wait to hear his noble and learned Friend's arguments, as he was at a loss, he confessed, to guess what arguments could be urged with success against the measure. He knew it might be said, that cases of the description he had stated were but few, but even so, he maintained they were such as to call for the interposition of the Legislature. But how was it known that such cases were few in number? for though but few might come before the tribunals of the country, because the law was so clear, so distinct, and so well understood, that every woman would be told by her legal adviser, that it would be useless to apply to the court, for no court had power to relieve, and yet no one could tell how many women there were who now suffered in silence under the oppressions of this harsh and unjust law. Then he had been told, that this bill might lead to litigation; but that was no reason why the House should not interpose for the prevention of cruelty and oppression such as he had pointed out. He had heard and read (because there had been publications on this subject) that the measure would lead to much perjury. Doubtless, in every, case of conflicting rights, the courts were liable to witness the commission of the crime of perjury, but, he contended, that they would not be more so under this bill than by the law as it now stood. It had been said also, that this bill would encourage separation, because the wife was not now inclined to separate, because she might thereby lose the chance of protecting her child; but let the other side of the question be looked at, and then let it be remembered, to what tyranny and oppression, on the part of the husband, the existing law led. But it was idle for him to anticipate the arguments which might be urged against the bill. He had stated the evils, harsh, oppressive, and cruel, as they existed, and he had stated the remedy, the mildest remedy that could by possibility, be applied to evils of that description, By this bill he did not seek an interference with the rights of parties,

779
but he wished for some rightminded, impartial man, to say to what extent a virtuous mother might be allowed to have intercourse with her children when separated from her husband. However scanty the remedy, provided by the bill for existing evils might be thought, still he hoped it would be thought a wise, humane, and necessary measure, He therefore moved their Lordships to agree to the second reading of this bill.
Lord Broughamsaid, that a more painful task could not have fallen to him than that which his sense of duty now urged him to perform—namely, to oppose this bill. He did not say, it was a painful task, because it might be the most unpopular course he could take, for that consideration had never influenced him in the discharge of what he felt to be his duty; nor because the second reading had been proposed by his noble and learned Friend, however much he might approve of the motives and principles upon which he had brought forward the measure; sun because it had been so strongly recommended by one of his high station, who had filled the most eminent place in the law, that therefore he might be supposed to regard everything his noble and learned Friend, said, would deter him from taking an opposite line of conduct; but because of the subject itself, and because he felt the very great difficulty of shutting the ear to such pathetic topics as his noble and learned Friend had urged, and of steeling the bosom to the best and most natural feelings of mankind. He was ready to admit, with his noble and learned Friend, that the law was harsh and cruel in its operation on those cases which had been stated by him, and also, that their small number was no guarantee that many more did not exist which had never seen the light. Another difficulty which he had to contend with, was the prejudice which would naturally arise in route minds against the man who would seem to interfere with the generous purposes of his noble and learned Friend, for whoever did so, would be liable not only to be charged with hardness of heart, but unwillingness of mind to remove the defects and harshness of the existing law. He trusted, however, that he should clear himself from the justice of any such charge as applied to him. He admitted that the bill was passed through the other House with almost unexampled rapidity,
780
and with wonderful majorities in its favour, but at the same time, there was very little legal authority in its support. The bill never had the advantage, which it was natural to expect it would have, of the support of the learned and experienced law officers of the Crown; he did not find that they bore any part in the debates on the bill; but, if they had any objection to it, they ought to have stated it, or if they approved of it, they should have said so. If, then, he could avoid opposing this bill, he had the strongest possible reasons for doing so, apart from the objectionable nature of the bill itself, which, while it professed to remove the existing evils of the law, would not meet them; it would apply itself only to a part of those evils, and it would open the door to such frightful changes in the whole of this country, and in the whole of the principles on which the law of husband and wife was founded—ay, and such innovations on those laws which had been hitherto regarded as the safeguard of families, and as securing the virtuousness of principle on which the education of children should be conducted, that he owned that he would not support it, if, by affording a remedy in instances of rare occurrence, a channel was to be opened through which the floods of immorality would be sure to overflow the character of the institution of marriage. His noble Friend had stated the evils of the present state of the law; he had shown how unjust the law with regard to the treatment and the custody of the offspring of the wife by the husband; he had shown how it had operated harshly on the wife; and he had pointed out instances in which that law might have entailed evil on the children, and then he contended that his bill must be accepted as a ready, because it would be a less evil than the evils pointed out. But there were many evils which the bill did not profess to remedy. Could anything be more harsh or cruel than that the wife's goods and chattels should be at the mercy of the husband, and that she might work and labour, and toil for an nit-kind father to support his family and children, while the husband repaid her with harshness and brutality, he all the time rioting and revelling in extravagance and dissipation, and squandering in the company of guilty paramours the produce of her industry? The law was silent to

781
the complaints of such a woman, or if not silent, all it said was, that in the sweat of her brew she should eat her bread and not only so, but that in the sweat of her brow her husband should eat his bread, and spend the produce of her industry in insulting her by lavishing her property on his paramours. He had colourings and materials enough to make out a very strong case in illustration of the cruelty of the law, if he had the ability and genius of his noble and learned friend to pencill it and fill in the shadows. He knew that there were anomalies and a thousand contradictions in the marriage law; but the existence of those anomalies and contradictions should operate as so many warnings against the introduction of new anomalies and changes in that manage law; for being driven on the shoals of anomaly by the gales of their feelings and the tide of prejudice, they would be in danger of making shipwreck on the rock on which their, predecessors in legislation had split. Adultery was as much a crime in man as in woman; it was denounced by the laws of God in both, and equally reprobated by the laws of the land in principle, though not equally punished. If the wife made a slip and forfeited the allegiance to her husband which she swore when she took her marriage vow, an action for damages against her paramour might be instantly brought, and in that action the character of the woman was at immediate issue, although she was not prosecuted. The consequence not unfrequently was, that the character of a woman was sworn away; instances were known in which, by collusion between the husband and a pretended paramour, the character of the wife had been destroyed. All this could take place, and yet the wife had no defence; she was excluded from Westminster-hall, and, behind her back, by the principles of our jurisprudence her character was tried between the husband and the man called her paramour. But what was the case when the man was the guilty party? What legislation was there in favour of the wife? Did, the Woman feel no pang when she knew, that her husband committed adultery? Was not her pride, supposing her to have no feeling of a higher character, grievously touched? That feeling, he ventured to say, raged more furiously, if he might so speak, than all the pride which raged in the male sex, and made more havoc than
782
among men, ay; a thousand times more than all the sentiments of honour, that ever could grate on man's heart. Was it then just, that in her sufferings she should have no remedy, no sufficient remedy but rather be left to the mockery and insult of her husband? The husband might pursue his course; he might refuse to live with his wife, unless she went to Doctors-commons and demanded a restitution of conjugal rights, which no woman of delicacy could well do. Again, if she wished for separation, she might get a divorce a mensâ et thoro, but she could not marry again. The husband, if he got a verdict in his favour, in the Ecclesiastical Court, would obtain almost as a matter of course a divorce from that House, which enabled him to marry again. Was the wife so treated? A wife had the greatest difficulty to obtain a separation in the case of adultery. There had been two eases only before that House in which shell relief had been granted, the one being a case in which incest had been proved, the present state of the law was such as to bring out a passive resistance on the part of the sex, which felt, that they were not properly represented in the Legislature. Upon the whole it was safer and better for society and the marriage state for the comforts of the parties, and; above all, for their issue, that the father should have uncontrolled care of that issue, than that control should be shared as a matter of right with the mother. Having shown, that the law was not more oppressive to the wife in this than in other cases, he now came to consider whether the remedy proposed for the alleged evil was appropriate, and whether, while calculated only to mitigate that evil in a slight degree, it was not, at the same time, calculated to introduce infinitely greater evils than those which were complained of. In the first place he contended, that the bill under consideration did not apply a remedy to the evil which was complained of. His noble and learned Friend had said, that as the law stood at present, a husband living in adultery, and of the most profligate habits, was entitled to the exclusive possession of, and dominion over, his children; Very well; but did the bill provide any remedy for such a state of things? Nothing of the sort. The bill said, let the husband have undivided dominion over the children, let him take them where he willed, let him contaminate them, by

783
placing them in the society of the worst of persons, taken from the stews or from prisons—welcome to do all this, said the bill; only let the wife, by means of a judge's order, see the children occasionally. But that was no remedy for the evil which was alleged, for the argument of his noble and learned Friend that the children were contaminated by the profligacy of one of the parents, while the other had no means of counteracting the mischief. The bill provided no remedy for that; it provided no remedy for nine-tenths of the evils of the case, and for the remaining tenth they were to have a change in the law which would inevitably lead to the most extensive alterations in the relations of the married state. His noble and learned Friend had not stated quite correctly what the law of the Court of Chancery was in cases of this description, for when that court had the guardianship of children, if there was profligacy on the part of the father, the judge would take care, that the mother should have sufficient opportunities of seeing them. He thought the Chancellor, in the case which had been quoted by his noble and learned Friend, had been misreported, for he was made to say, that unless the child knew of the profligacy of its parent there could be no remedy for the evil which was complained of. But the Chancellor could have said no such thing, for the case of "Branford and Wellesley" and the case of "Westbrook and Shelley" were opposed to such a doctrine. That, however, was immaterial, and the worst part of the evil was untouched by this bill. In passing to the evils to which this bill was calculated to give rise, he felt bound to say a few words on the title of the measure, and anything more fraudulent than that title was, he could not conceive. The bill was entitled, "an act for providing for the more easy access of parents to their children." Their Lordships would observe, that the word used was "parents" not "parent"; but for what reason was the plural used? The father had already free and full access to his children at all times, and the title ought to have been "an act for enabling the wife when living separate from the husband, to have access to her children," for the husband was not considered by the bill. Now keeping in view the fact, that the law in all cases was favourable to the rights of the husband, let their Lordships look what was pro-
784
vided by the bill. It provided, in the first place, that all cases of dispute in regard to children should come, not exclusively before the three equity judges, but that they should also be tried before any of the other fifteen judges.
Lord Lyndhurstproposed to confine the jurisdiction in cases arising under this bill to the three equity judges.
Lord Broughamsaid, that such a limitation took away one of the great objections to the measure. The judges when they were asked their opinions of the bill held up their thirty hands in deprecation of this part of the plan, and certainly the limitation which his noble and learned Friend proposed to make would remove one ground of complaint against the provisions of the measure. But what could their Lordships now think of the authority which his noble and learned Friend had given them in favour of the bill? The noble and learned Lord had stated, that it had gone through all its stages in the other House, with large majorities in its favour, and there had been as great majorities in favour of the jurisdiction of the whole eighteen judges as there had been in favour of any other part of the plan; yet his noble and learned Friend now gave up that portion of the bill as utterly untenable, and proposed to limit the number of judges to the three equity judges. Now, high as his respect was for the authority of the House of Commons, yet, when he found his noble and learned Friend giving up an important part of the measure which that House had sanctioned, he could not but feel that such a proceeding tended to weaken the confidence which he was willing to place in that assembly. Was this a trifling change which his noble and learned Friend proposed to make in the bill? Why, it was a change of the most sweeping description; for his noble and learned Friend proposed to diminish the number of judges before whom cases arising under the provisions of this bill were to be tried from eighteen to three. But what would be the effect of that change? By giving up fifteen judges, and leaving the whole causes to be tried by the leaving equity judges, his noble and learned Friend would introduce a great anomaly into the law, and create an evil of the most serious description. In the first place the three equity judges would have such an addition to their business, that they would be overloaded, and of all

785
causes those relating to family quarrels regarding the custody of children were the longest and most complicated and most violently contested, because it was not money, but feelings that were concerned. Yet all those complicated causes were to be thrown upon the three equity judges. Then again, how did it happen that his noble and learned Friend confined his feelings to London and Westminster? Why did he not go into the provinces? This bill was confined to the mothers in the metropolis, and no consideration was given to Northumberland or to Cornwall, and to other distant parts of the Kingdom, for the alteration proposed would not allow causes relating to children to be tried at the assizes. It was only those mothers who were able to come up to Chancery who were to have a remedy for the evils which they complained of, in being separated from their children, and therefore there ought to have been another change in the title of the bill, and it ought to have been entitled an Act for enabling such wives only to apply to any of the three equity judges for permission to see their children. Again the bill would only allow the wife toties quoties to see her children, for she would have to go before the judge every time she wished to visit her offspring. Now, had their Lordships any idea of the nature of those causes which were tried in relation to the custody of children? They were of the most complicated and difficult kind, and ninety affidavits might be filed before an order was obtained. How was this to work? Could such a plan fail to increase the bitterness which existed, and would not each fresh application to the judge, while it gave rise to vast expense, tend only to embitter the feelings of the parents; But the carelessness with which the bill was framed, was truly remarkable. As it originally stood, a woman living in adultery would have had as easy access to her children as the most virtuous individual. That provision of the bill, however, had been altered, and a clause had been inserted, the provisions of which were not less mischievous, for, as the bill still stood, a woman caught in adultery could claim a right of access to her children; for cases of such a nature might happen, but which might, notwithstanding, be incapable of proof; and if not proved, then the bill would enable her to visit and associate with her children. He knew many cases where the act of adultery was certain, but
786
where legal proof could not be given o the guilt of the wife, yet such a woman was to have a right to see her children by an application to one of the three judges appointed by the bill to take cognizance of cases relating to the custody of children. But what was the nature of the causes which would come before the three equity judges under the provisions of this bill? They were the most complicated and most difficult possible. The judge would have to go into all the previous history of the husband and wife. He would have to listen to all the statements which might be made by both parties; and to read the numerous affidavits which in causes of this description were usually filed, and in this manner go on a long and slippery way before he could arrive at any determination. But even when he had made up his mind on the merits of the case, he would then have to consider how often, at what time, and what place, and under what circumstances, the visits of the mother were to be made. What was to be the security, that the wife would not run away with the children? Would his noble and learned Friend send an officer of the court to be present at the interviews? No, his noble and learned Friend would not do so, because it would be said, that the presence of such an officer would prevent that familiar intercourse which might take place between the mother and child. But if there was to be no person, how would they prevent the mother from alienating the affections of the child from the father, from making representations tending to injure the father in the estimation of the child, and thus sowing the seeds of dissension and misery in the family? But all this complicated form of trial was to be gone through for one interview, and the same long and difficult process was to take place every month perhaps, or at least at every time the mother wished to visit her children. It might be said, however, that a general order should be issued, but that was hardly possible, for the circumstances might change in the interval, and the wife might no longer have a right to visit her children. The bill assumed that the husband wanted exclusive possession of the children, and the consequences of such an assumption would be to create a feeling of exasperation on his part, and they might depend that, on every fresh application, he would resist the application and thus

787
Widen the breach betwixt the parties. The last and most important objection of all which he had to the bill was the inevitable mischiefs it would create, destructive of the comforts, and dangerous to the purity, of marriage life. If there was any one thing which more than another tended to protect the sanctity of the marriage vow, it was the love and affection which women bore to their children; and the question which in reality was raised by the present bill was, whether the mutual consent of both parties, husband and wire, ought to be a valid ground for divorce. It was from the knowledge which those parties had, that they could not easily get rid of each other, that many trifling inconveniences were passed over, which would otherwise assume the shape of the most tormenting evils. What could have a more powerful tendency to make a wife faithful than the knowledge that infidelity on her part would sever her connexion with her offspring? And he knew, that this knowledge did, even in cases where the wife was criminal, operate to postpone her elopement with her paramour. But would not this salutary influence against criminality be removed if the wife should be told, that by the shortsighted and one-sided humanity of their Lordships she might, when living apart from her husband, obtain access to her children? He knew there was a proviso in the bill, which in the case of the wife's elopement with a paramour, and the passing of a verdict against her, would debar her from the privilege of visiting her children; but might she not, without eloping, so conduct herself as to render her husband's life miserable, and thereby make him ready to consent to a separation? It, therefore, became their Lordships' serious duty to consider how far, by passing such a measure as the present, they would be giving encouragement to separations, a state dangerous to the virtue of married women, and how far they would be rendering reconciliations less probable than they were under the present state of the law. If a bill on the subject was to be passed at all, he would rather see a measure which would at once apply the axe to the root of the evil, and be safe from all those evils which he had pointed out as likely to follow from the present bill. Suppose it were enacted, that when the husband was separated from the wife on account of cruelty or adultery by verdict of a court
788
of law, regulation should be made for the proper custody of the children; but, in such a case, he would have no divisum imperium, but he would take the custody of the children entirely from the guilty father, and transfer them to the care of the mother, or to such other person as, under the circumstances of the case, it might seem proper to name for that purpose. It might be matter for consideration whether such a provision should not be enacted. He repeated, that he was really concerned to be unable to meet his noble and learned Friend's complaint of the state of the law as it now stood with some remedy which should be adequate and safe, but he implored their Lordships not to be led away by the natural and laudable feelings to which his noble and learned Friend had appealed, but to consider how dangerous it would be to tamper with one of the most delicate and important principles of our law in one particular part, and with one particular limited and contracted view, without at the same time carrying their regards over the whole portion of their jurisprudence which related to the subject of marriage. Entertaining these objections to the bill, he felt bound to move, that it be read a second time that day three months.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was for their Lordships to consider whether or not the bill, with the alteration which the noble and learned Lord had signified his readiness to make, might not be shaped into a measure which would guard against the abuse of the power which as the law now stood the husband possessed, without at the same time interfering with the relative obligations of husband and wife, or weakening that influence which the love of her offspring had on the conduct of a woman. All that they could give was occasional access to the children under the directions of the court, and with such guards as were necessary to be introduced in order to prevent it from being abused. That would be a great object for a mother to obtain. They were, however, not to consider alone the gratification which it was likely to afford her. They should also consider whether, looking at the course of life she was likely to lead, they were doing her a kindness it, permitting her to see her children. He thought it extremely doubtful. He thought if the husband were to feel that there was a power of control residing somewhere, he

789
would not compel the wife to have recourse to an application for its exercise in her behalf. By the advice of friends and interference of relatives, amicable arrangements would, no doubt, be made, and the influence which love of the children begets would not be diminished. In order, however, to effect this object the power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised. It should not be exercised in cases where there was misconduct upon the part of the wife, but only where she was irreproachable, and where the husband severely and cruelly exercised the power given him by the law. All the cases put forward by his noble and learned Friend were upon one side. Their Lordships should look at the other side—at the case of a wife without reproach, and a brutal husband. Under such circumstances, was it a wholesome state of the law to allow the husband to put his wife in this predicament—either to submit to his brutal cruelty, or for ever to be separated from her husband? To meet such cases, he thought there ought to be a power of control lodged somewhere. It ought, however, as he said before, to be sparingly exercised. Under due restrictions, the exercise of the power would have a beneficial effect upon the husband, and would not interfere with the ordinary relation of husband and wife. It was upon these grounds, but not without great doubt and difficulty, that he had brought himself to support the bill. As he was sure that the power might be given to the judges of the Courts of Equity without incurring the risk of varying practice and conflicting orders, he thought their Lordships might safely allow the bill to be read a second time, having made in it the alteration proposed by his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that his noble and learned Friend, in introducing this measure to their Lordships, had never considered the hardship which it would inflict upon husbands, or the ruin which it would entail upon families. He had contented himself with pointing out the hardships upon the wife. The duty which was cast by law upon the husband of taking care of the children and attending to their education he never could perform if the present bill were allowed to pass into a law, ruining half the families in the kingdom, and corrupting the morals of the young generation. How was it possible for the husband to perform the duty cast
790
upon him, if his efforts were neutralized and counteracted by the influence of the wife? The bill, too, afforded something like an encouragement to adultery. For, in cases where the adultery had not been followed up by conviction, either by a verdict for damages in a court of law, or a judgment in Doctors' Commons, which took place in some of the worst cases of adultery which he (Lord Wynford) had ever known, the wife was empowered by the bill to appeal from judge to judge, and to bring forward charges upon charges, until, ultimately, perhaps, she succeeded in gaining access to her children. By the bill the judges would have a burden thrown upon them which their other duties rendered them wholly unable to bear. The husband, besides, would be kept in a constant state of litigation from one end of the year to the other, the wife contending upon each successive application that the case has assumed a different shape, and that a new state of circumstances had arisen. Where, he (Lord Wynford) would ask, was all the expense to come from? Surely it could not come from the wife, who had no property, but must come ultimately out of the estate of the children. The bill contained no provision on the subject, which was another objection to it. By constant litigation, and the bringing forward of a series of fresh charges, the expenses would wholly swallow up the property, and the children, for whom so much affection was pretended, would be irretrievably ruined. Let the House look at the appeals which the bill gave from judge to judge, and, also, to their Lordships' House. For when their Lordships allowed appeals in matters of 20 l. value, they would not refuse it in such important cases as the custody of children. As all the swearing was to be upon paper, and not face to face, he was sure, that there would be hardly a single case in which perjury would not be committed. There were cases in which the greatest injustice would be done to husbands by the bill. Adultery might be committed in many cases in which the husband would be the only witness, and, therefore, could neither obtain a verdict for damages in a court of law, nor a judgment in Doctors' Commons. Their Lordships would, probably, recollect a case which occurred in Hampshire, in which the husband caught his wife in the arms of a servant. He, of course, could have no remedy, and yet

791
this chaste and virtuous lady, under the provisions of the present bill, would be entitled to make application to a judge for access to her children. He should vote for the amendment, considering the bill to be most imperfect, for he thought it would do a great deal of evil, and, in his opinion, was capable of producing no good.
The House divided: Content 9; Not content 11: Majority 2.
Bill thrown out.
The following protest was entered against the rejection of the Infants' Custody Bill:—
"Dissentient,
"First—Because nature and reason point out the mother as the proper guardian of her infant child, and to enable a profligate, tyrannical, or irritated husband to deny her, at his sole and uncontrolled caprice, all access to her children, seems to me contrary to justice, revolting to humanity, and destructive of those maternal and filial affections which are among the best and surest cements of society.
"Secondly—Because, although it may be true, as alleged in debate, that women are by the governing principle of the law of England subjected in various other matters affecting their property, character, and happiness, to great and unequal hardships, such consideration furnishes, in my judgment, very inconclusive grounds for refusing them relief from a wrong, which the sound discretion of a judge might, without injury to any one, equitably and promptly redress.
"Thirdly—Because, whatever was exceptionable in the time, form, or mode of relief proposed in the bill, might have been corrected in the committee, and I was unwilling, before such correction of supposed anomalies and defects in the details had been attempted, to forego on account of them an object so just, important, and salutary, as the protection of that intercourse which Nature herself seems to enjoin between a parent and her child from all capricious and vindictive interruption.
(Signed) "VASSALL HOLLAND.
"LYNDHURST.
"July 30,1338. "SUTHERLAND."