The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-29 00:00:00

Zbtand

LONDON,
TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 29, 1834.

In the House of Lords last night a long and inte-
resting discussion arose on the bastardy clause in the
.Poor Laws' Amendment Bill. The Bishop of
EXETER moved an amendment to the effect, ,4 that
the illegitimate child shall be maintained at the mu-
tual expense of the father and mother, and that no
parish shall be bound to support such child while either
parent is able to do so." On a division, there was only
a majority of ono in favour of the original clause, and
we are not at all surprised at it, for the difference
between the amendment and the clause, as altered in
the Commons, is so trifling, that Noble Lords must
have had some difficulty in making their choice. Ac-
cording to the Bill, as it now stands, the mother is
compelled to maintain the child, if she have the means,
with the power, as at present on her part, or on the
part of her parents, of bringing an action for seduction
or loss of services. If she is not able, then on ap-
plication to the parish, she can compel the father
to make provision for it. The only difference, in
fact, is rather in principle than in practice, for in 99
cases out of 100 the mother has not the means to
support the child, and the expense, therefore, must
ultimately fall on the father or the parish. In prin-
ciple the proposition of the Bishop of EXETER is by
far the most just and consistent. The other, namely,
that which imputed all the blame, and threw all the
expense on the mother, could be palliated only
on the ground of expediency, and as the more
likely means of checking immorality. That, however,
is only a matter of opinion, and when opinions are so
balanced as in a case of this kind, that decision is the
safest which leans to the side of justice. If the law
exonerates the father of all responsibility for the main-
tenance of the child, it is as clear as any problem de-
monstrated in EUCLID, that it thereby holds out an
encouragement to vice on the part of the man, and
throws all the hardship and all the suffering on the
woman, under the mistaken notion that these will
be sufficient to prevent her from yielding to her
seducer. Women of this description are not
much influenced by the dictates of prudence,
and will be led astray, as they have hitherto
been, by promises- of marriage, or hopes of protec-
tion, while they know that by the law of the land
their children cannot be left to starve. As a question
of mere expediency, we should therefore doubt the effi-
cacy of the principle ; but as to its injustice, there can
be•not the slightest doubt. By the universal law of nature
both parents, guided either by reason or instinct, pro-
tect and support their offspring. By law the husband
must provide for his children, and with what justice,
'then, in a case of bastardy, can one of the parties be
made the only sufferer while both are equally to blame ?
The mind naturally revolts at the principle. Every man
with a particle of feeling and any sentiments of justice
considers himself as much bound to support his illegiti-
mate as his legitimate offspring—nay, many consider the
claims of the former still stronger, because, through in-
discretion and immorality, they have been the means
of bringing into the world children on whom., without
any fault of theirs, a stigma remains through life, and
for whom, whatever may be the wealth or rank
of the parent, provision can be claimed from
the estate only sufficient to save them from
starvation. As a matter of justice—of mercy, and even
of expediency, we contend that the seducer should be
made to suffer for his crime, and we are convinced that
if the abstract principle, as originally proposed, had
been passed into an Act, there would have been one
universal feeling of disapprobation against a law
which would have entailed all the shame—all the suf-
fering, and all the expence on the woman, while her
heartless seducer would have been left comparatively
unpunished. It is only justice, however, to say that
the amendthent carried by Mr. MILES in the Com-
mons has gone far to remedy the evil.

The speech of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE in the
House of Lords last night, on bringing up the report
of the Committee on the Bribery Bill, will be hailed
throughout the country as opening a prospect of the
adoption of a system of legislation in accordance with
the necessities and the spirit of the times in which we
live. The prosecution of inquiries into the extent and
enormity of a crime, which is the more disgraceful for
branding with th© infamy of slaves all those who are
guilty of it, will 'no longer be taken up as a party