The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-24 00:00:00

was carried by acclamation, with only two dis-
sentients.
Thanks were voted to the Chairman and the
meeting dispersed.

RIPON.
vacancy has been occasioned in the represen- 1
tation of this city by the death 01 Mr. J. A.
Warre. No candidate has yet entered the field,
but several names are spoken of, among the most
prominent being Mr. Reginald Vyner, second son
of Mr. IL Vyner, of Newby-hall, near Ripon, and
Mr. W. E. Forster, of Burley-grange, near Otley,
the unsuccessful candidate at the last election for
the borough of Leeds. Both these gentlemen are
Liberals. There is some talk of a Conservative
candidate, but such a one would have a poor chance
against the De Grey and Ripon interest, although
until within the last few years Ripon always re-
turned two Conservative members. Mr. R. Vyner
is half-cousin to Earl de Grey and Ripon.

LAW INTELLIG.ENC.E—Nov. 23.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN V. HOWSE—THE QUEEN V. HOPKINS.
In this case the Court had granted writs of habeas
corpus directed to John Howse and Rachael Hop-
kins to bring up the body of Charlotte Barford, a
young lady aged 15 years, in order to her being de-
livered up to her father, who obtained the writs.
After some delay, and an apparent attempt on the
part of several parties to evade the jurisdiction of
the Court, the young lady was this day produced,
and the question was then raised as to whether she
was of an age to exercise a discretion as to whether
she would return home to her father, or whether
the father had not an absolute right to have his
child delivered up to him by the order of the Court.
Mr. Sleigh, on the part of the father, moved that
the young lady now in Court should be delivered
up to her father, and read a long affidavit in which
the father stated all the circumstances under which
his daughter had been withdrawn from his roof,
and taken to London by Howse, and sent about to
various places after the writ of habeas corpus was
granted. The affidavit concluded with a statement
that the applicant had always treated his daughter
with the greatest kindness, and that his object was
to save his daughter from the improper hands and
society into which she had fallen.
Mr. Seymour said he had had an opportunity of
answering the affidavit ; and as to the motion
made that the girl should be delivered up, he sub-
mitted she was quite of age to speak for herself.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn then directed that
the girl should be taken into his private room, and
said the counsel on both sides might accompany
her if they wished.
The parties then all withdrew, and were absent
from the court for some time. Upon their Lord-
ships' return,
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said he wished to
hear counsel upon the question of the law, whether
the father was entitled to have the child delivered
up to him.
Mr. Sleigh then referred to the repealed statute,
4th and sth of Phillip and Mary, cap. 8, which
enacted that
"Nobody shall take away any maid or woman child un-
married, being within the age of 16 years, out or from the
possession, custody, or governance, and against the will of
the father of such maid or woman child, or of such persons
to whom the father of such maid or woman child by his
last will and testament, or by any other act in his lifetime,
hath or shall appoint, assign, bequeath, give, or grant the
order, keeping, education, and governance of such maid or
woman child."
That statute was repealed, but it was in substance
re-enacted by the 20th section of the 9th George
IV. cap. 31, now in force, which enacted that,
"If any person shall unlawfully take, or cause to be
taken, any unmarried girl, being under the age of 16, out
of the possession, and against the will of the father or
mother, or of any other person having the lawful care or
charge of her, every such offender shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to
suffer such punishment, by fine or imprisonment, or both,
as the court shall award."
The learned counsel contended that this statute
assumed and recognised the right of the father to
have the custody of his daughter up to 16 years of
age ; but he went further, and contended that,
under the 12th Charles 11., cap. 24, the father had
the right to the custody of his children until they
were of the full age of 21 years. The words of the
statute were :
" That where any person hath or shall have any child or
children under the age of 21 years, and not married at the
time of his death, it shall and may be lawful to and for the
father of such child, or children, whether born at the time
of the decease of the father or that time 'en ventre de sa
mere,' or whether such father be within the age of 21 years
or of full age, by his deed executed in his lifetime, or by his
last will and testament in writing, in the presence of two
or more credible witnesses, to dispose of the custody and
tuition of such child or children for and during such time
as he or they shall respectively remain under the age of 21
years, or any lesser time, to any person or persons in pos-
session, or remainder, other than Popish recusants, &c."
He also referred to the case of " R. v. Greenhill"
(4 A. E., 624).
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the difficulty
was in his fixing an age at which the child was
too young to exercise a choice.
Mr. Justice Hill said the law was now settled
that, though the girl was a consenting party, and
left her father of her own free will, she had no
mind or will of her own that could infringe on her
father's paternal right. His lordship referred to
the case of " Regina v. Mantkelow."
Lord Chief Cockburn said the Court had exa-
mined the person herself, and she had had every
opportunity of explaining; but the result of the
examination was that she could not suggest any
misconduct on the part of her father which would
justify her in leaving his house.
Mr. Justice Hill said the question was whether,
if the girl chose to set her father's authority at de-
fiance, she could do so ?
Mr. Seymour said he appeared for Howse, and
also for Miss Hopkins, and that, if he had the
opportunity, he thought he could answer the
father's affidavit, and show that bis was not the
proper custody.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said that ought to
have been done on the return to the writ, and he
should be very reluctant to give an opportunity of
stating in an affidavit charges which the girl her-
self when examined had not preferred.
Mr. Seymour referred to the authorities, and
contended that the girl was old enough to exercise
her choice, and that the Court would not control
her.

Mr. Justice Blackburn referred to Ratcliffe's
case (3 Co., 39 a) and Fraser's note thereon.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn also referred to the
recent case of "Regina v. Timmins," and, after
consulting with the other judges, said no case had
been made out on the part of those who resisted the
application to the Court that the child should be
delivered up to her father. It was for them to
show that, though entitled in point of law to the
custody of the child, the father ought not, in regard
to the interests of the child, to have that custody.
The question was, therefore, a simple question of
law, whether the father was entitled to the custody
of the child, she being fifteen years of age, when
that daughter, without just cause, desired to with-
draw herself from his control. It was an unhappy
fact that this girl, influenced by evil counsels and
evil examples, Was desirous, without adequate
motive, to withdraw herself from the care and
affectionate control of her father, and cast herself
on those who were likely to lead her to her
ruin, and if the Court could save her from
what her folly would lead her into, they would
rejoice. It had been shown that, though the
father was entitled to the custody of the child up
to 21 years of age, the Courts would not interfere
summarily, by writ of habeas corpus, to withdraw
the child from the custody in which she happened
to be if the child had arrived at the age of discre-
tion at which she could exercise a choice. The
question was, what was the age at which the child
attained that discretion ? He (Lord Chief Justice
Cockburn) wholly repudiated the doctrine that
mental precocity would give it the right, if it had
not arrived at the age of discretion which the law
recognised, for that very precocity might lead a
young girl into misery and danger. The Court
must lay down a general rule as to the age when
the miner might be left to freedom of choice. The
Legislature had thrown light on this subject, by.
which the:Court might be safely guided. The age
of 16 had been pointed out as the age to which the
consent of the child should not justify her with-
drawal from the father's roof without it being
considered a misdemeanour. Up to that period no
encouragement was afforded by the law, any more
than by public opinion, to induce a young woman
to withdraw herself from the parental control. In
the present case there was nothing to justify that
withdrawal, and the result was that the Court
Would order that the girl be delivered up to her
father. His Lordship would also add, that if the
persons who had done their best to baffle the exer-
tions of this Court had been indicted under the
doubt
statute (9th of George IV., cap. 3.), no one could
that they would have been liable to be
convictedi
Court allow
of the
The order, there 15
restored to
the parties. to
should bring thernsce7vree
Lordship concluded by
offence. How, then, could the
irl to remain in their custody ?
her
fc:e would be that she should be
take Lordship ; but his Lordship warned
had not come to this conclusion
con-
sideration, nor without consulting for the future, lest they
themselves within the law. His
that the Court
without great
of the other courts, all of wholmngwweith the judges
in opinion with the judges of this court,
etunanimous
Mr. Sleigh said that, as the child was ordered to
be given up, the father was anxious to withdraw
his application for the attachment of the parties,