The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-31 00:00:00

the inspectors of prisons. Whilst he said,ththe
section on those inspect.O.t. W-ould, however, object,
under any Ort...tltistanees, to take away the authority and eon-
br the Local Justices. The Noble Lord concluded by
proposing an amendment to the effect that it should be lawful
for two or more Justices or the Peace aprolnted tinder the
Bill, from time to time, at least three times in every quarter
of the year, to make an inspection of the prisons in their
neighbourhood, and make a report respecting the same at
least once in every quarter to the Secretary of State ; that a
copy of such report should be furnished to the Clerk of the
Peace, to be by him submitted to the Bench at the ensuing
Quarter Sessions; that such Justices should be empowered
at all times to visit such prisons, and, if they discovered any
evil or cause of complaint therein, that it should 10-2 no-
ticed in the next quarterly report to the Secretary of State,
The Marquis of L A NSDO WNE had no objection (as we
understood) to the appointment of an independent tribunal,
nor that persons should be named, as had been suggested, by
the Privy Council.
After a few words from Lord Portman, Lord Brougham,
the Marquis of Salisbury, and the Marquis of Lansdowne, the
further cons;deration of these amendments was adjourned to
Thursday next.
RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS BILL.

Lord HATHERTON moved the second reading of this
Bill, which had been sent up from the House of Commons.
The Bill had been most favourably entertained by the other
House of Parliament, which had extended from sums of 101.,
as it originally stood, to sums of -20/. The Noble Lord then
proceeded to explain the details of the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM—Suppose a question of title to be
raised, would the trial of that question be left to a Justice of
the Peace?
Lard HATHERTON said that there was a provision to
meet that, and the Bill would not have any such effect.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Thursday next.
The Earl of H A DDINGTON postponed his motion re-
specting the appointment of Magistrates in the county of Cro-
marty to Thursday next.
CUSTODY OF INFANTS BILL.

Lord LYNDHURST, seeing the state of the House, was
willing to postpone his motion for the second reading of this
Bill till to-morrow.
Lord BROUGHAM, seeing that most of the Noble and
Learned Lords who would take part in the discussion were
present, thought it better to proceed now with the discussion.
Lord WYNFORD was also desirous to go on.
Lord L YND H U RST then rose, and said that this Bill had
been introduced in the other House of Parliament by a Learned
Friend of his, a gentleman of great eloquence and great at-
tainments. The Bill was in its progress through the other
House of Parliament actively and vigorously opposed by
another Learned Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst), remarkable
for his legal knowledge and the extraordinary acumen of his
mind. Notwithstanding this opposition in every stage of the
measure in the other House of Parliament, the prominent
provisions of the Bill were carried by a very large majority.
It was under this sanction, then, that he had now the honour to
submit a motion to their Lordships for the second reading of
this Bill. As the law now stood the whole controul of
children born in lawful wedlock was vested in the father, and
lie had an uncontrolled and absolute right to exclude the
child's mother from all access to her offspring. The
mother might be the most virtuous, the most amiable, the
best-conducted, and the most intelligent of mothers, and might
be, as was generally the case, greatly attached to her children.
The father, on the contrary, might be the most profligate
and dissolute man, and might be living in adultery with
another, and, notwithstanding, as the law now stood, he would
have a perfect right to prohibit all access of the mother to her
children. But the evil of the law went further, for the fa-
ther, from pecuniary objects, from some wish to influence his
wife into a transfer of her property, might exclude her from
access to her children, and yet, notwithstanding the badness
of the motives by which his conduct was influenced, if he
chose to exclude her he had a right to do so, and the law
gave the Judges no power to interfere. This was the state of
the law so far as legitimate children were concerned; but it
was not the law so far as related to illegitimate children. He
' would now call the attention of their Lordships to cases which
had been quoted upon the introduction of this Bill in the
other House of Parliament by his Learned Friend to whom
he had already alluded. The first case to which he should
call attention was that of Mrs. Mandeville. This lady
married a French emigrant. She was at the time of her
marriage in possession of seven hundred a-year for her own
use, with a certain contingency that her husband should be
paid two thousand pounds, under certain circumstances. This
state of things, however, was not satisfactory to the husband,
and he endeavoured to force the wife to make a will in his fa-
vour. Sho bad the courage to resist his importunities, and he
then threatened to take her out of the country in case she per-
sisted in her refusal. However, there was a provision in the
settlement which provided against such a contingency. The
husband being defeated in his first intention, then took the
child from the mother, and sent it to a hireling nurse. An
application was made to a Court of law, but the Judge de-
cided that lie had no right to interfere. There was no evi-
dence that the child had suffered in health. There was evi-
dence that the father had given it to a nurse, and the Court
decided that they could not interfere. The next case was ene
which had come before his Noble and Learned Friend, when
he was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. It was Mr. Skin-
ner's case. The husband and the a ife were separated, owing
to barbarous usage on the part of the husband. The husband
was, besides, living in a state of adulterous intercourse with a
woman named Delavar. The child, in the first instance, re-
mained with the mother. It was not then more than six years
of age. The father, however, soon after toJk possession of the
child, which he handed over to Mrs. Delavar, with whom he
lived. The father was at this time a prisoner in Horsemonger-
lane Prison. The child was day after day brought there to
him by the woman Delavar. An application was made to
the Court; but they decided that they had no power to
interfere. It appearid that the conduct of the mother was ir-
reproachable, and that she was attached to the child, but still
there was no remedy. The third case was that of Mrs.
M‘Donagh. The parties were separated; it did not appear
from what cause. The child, in the first instance, was left to
the mother. The father afterwards took away the child, and
sent it to a school, where it became affected with a scrofulous
complaint. Two former of their children had died of the
same complaint, and the mother prevailed on the governors
to give up the child to her care, in order that it might
have the benefit of her attention and affection, as well as
the experience she had derived during the illness of the
former children. The father withdrew the child. An ap-
plication was made to the Court, and Chief Justice Patte-
son decided that the Court had no power to interfere.
The next ease he should state was a more recent ease. It
was that of Mrs. Greenall. She had three daughters. The
eldest not six years old, and the youngest under two years of
age. She had occasion to go down to Weymouth for the be-
nefit of her health, and on her return ascertained that during
her absence her husband had been filing in adultery with a
woman named Graham for upwards of a year. Sbe was
greatly shocked at the information, and applied to her mother
and other friends as to how she should act. She was advised
to take proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court and sue for a
divorce, on the ground of adultery. The husband threatened
that if she persevered he would take the children from her.
She did persevere, and the threats were renewed. Proceed-
ings were taken in the King's Bench and also in the Court of
Chancery, and it was decreed to deliver up the children to the
father ; and it was distinctly laid down that it was the hus-
band's undoubted right to bar the mother from all access to her
children. The Vice-Chancellor said, that however bad and
profligate the husband might be, the Court of Chancery had
no right to interfere and that he. therefore, had, he was sorry
to say, no power to en rble Mrs. Grecnall to see her children
as a matter of right. He could adduce other cases were it ne-
cessary to make up his proposition, but he would put it to
their Lordships whether be bad not succeeded in doing so by
the statement he had already made? If their Lordships con-
ceived that he had made out a case, he would ask them whether
they would say that some mitigation ought not to take place in
a law which fell upon children so heavily, and in which there
was something so harsh, and even cruel, and their Lordships
would give him leave to say, su urgent.—(Crics of " Hear,
hear, hear.") It was not for him to describe either the feel-
ings or situation of a woman under such circumstances. The
mother might be pure and spotless—she might be ardently
devoted and attached to her children, but still her husband,
notwithstanding he might be immoral and profligate, could
deprive her of her right to see them, or defeat her applica-

tines for that purpose in the way he had stated. It was not
For him to point out the injustice of this harsh and unfeeling
law—a law which converted all the tender and amiable feel-
ings of a mother into an instrument of indescribable torture.

Under these circumstances, and considering the case in this
point of view, he would ask their Lordships whether they were
not prepared to go thus far with him and say, that an altera-
tion in the law should take place? Wirtt made this law so
harsh and severe was this—Where a woman had an illegiti-
mate child, no person had a right to interfere with her posses-
sion of it ; no, not even the father of the child. Her domi-
nion over it was complete, but he knew that it proceeded
on another rule of law. Now, what was the altera-
tion he proposed ? He thought the only valid objection
that could be made to it was, that the Bill was not an
adequate remedy for the evil. It undoubtedly did not in-
terfere with the claims of the father; on the contrary, all it
said was that the father should not be a judge in his own case
—that he should not be able entirely to exclude the mother
from seeing her offspring at his own will and pleasure, but
that another party, one of the Judges of the land (a proper
tribunal) should decide whether or not the mother ought to
have access to the children, and the degree to which that
indulgence should be extended. Ia this respect the Bill took
away the control of the father ; but, in doing so, it placed
that control in hands where it would not be liable to abuze, in
the hands of independent anti upright Judges, who would only
exercise it with a sound and beneficial discretion as regarded
the children. He believed that it was purely imaginary to sup-
pose that evils would result from the alteration which this Bill
proposed, but as he understood his Noble and Learned Friend
opposite meant to oppose it, he wished to know what the reasons
were on which his Noble and Learned Friend meant to rest his
argument. He might be told that if their Lordships were to pas
this Bill it would lead to litigation. Undoubtedly it might
lead to litigation ; but was that any reason why the Legis-
lature should not interpose ? They could pass no measure
which was not liable to the same objection, and why this Bill
should lead to litigation, more than any other, he had yet to
learn. He had heard it stated, and read in that which had
had been written on the subject, that it would lead to perjury.
In every case undoubtedly where there were conflicting rights,
there was a liability to the crime of perjury ; but why there
should be more perjury because of this Bill than in the law as
it stood, was a matter he was wholly at a loss to conceive.
The Noble and Learned Lord, in conclusion, moved the
second reading cf the Bill, and said that if Ilajr Lordilips