, 1873-05-25

the most interesting OF modern scientific dis
cussions.
mixed MARRIAGES.
The question which creed shall have the social
and educational charge Of children born Of
marriage between Roman Catholic and b
Protestant, has recently come up in England in
very interesting form, Us it involves many Of
the incest points Of the question. The case
briefly stated, is as follows: On the 17th Of
March, 1864, Thomas Andrews, Roman Catho-
Lie, married one Ellen Fleetcroft, Protestant.
Before the marriage. solemn compact WAS
entered into by the parties, that, if the
brought up in the faith Of the father and the
daughters in that Of the mother. One son and
one daughter were born, and, in pursuance OF the
agreement, the son was baptized in tho Roman
Catnoio faith and the daughter in the Pro:es-
tant, the latter having Protestant sponsors ap-
proved by the father. In tho year 1868, how
ever, the father fell i'll, and disregardng his COM
pact, while lying at tho point Of death ho executed
ton Of both children in the Roman Catholic
faith, aud appointed his brother, Joseph An
drews, also q Roman Catholic, their guardian.
No notice, however, WAS taken Of the document
until the year 1870. Meanwhile the father died,
and the widow married again; and the daughter,
who had been left utterly destitute, WAS for nine
years after her fathers death maintained
and educated by her grandmother in the
Protestant faith. In 1871, the guardian, Joseph
Andrews, claimed possession Of the child in order
that she might be sent to Roman Catholic
school. Tho grandmother naturally disputed
the claim, whereupon the guardian, in February
last, applied to the Court Of Queens Bench for
q writ Of habeas. corpus ordering the grand
be given up to her testamenta1y guardian. The
case was very fully heard, and tho Court in its
decision declared TINT the right Of the father
was paramount and could not bo affected by the
ante-nuptial agreement. Tho Court said: "It
is with great regret that re, therefore, feel our
selves bound to hold that, assuming the validity
Of the guardians appointment, and notwith-
standing the 1ateness OF tho application and tho
apparent harshnoss OF such proceeding to-
wards the grandmother OF the child, We have no
discretion to refuse the writ, and We should be
bound to hand over the child to the custody Of
the guardian IS the only custody legally free
from restraint" The decision closed, however,
with the intimation that, In dealing with ques-
tons Of this nature, the Court Of Chancery, e1-
erting the prerogative Of the Sovereign as par
ems pat,1G, has assumed q more extensive au-
thority than that exercised by the COM
mon-1aw courts. J.. To that prorogative
tile friends Of the child thon made
appeal. After the Judgment OF the Court
Of Queen's Bench, an application WAS made to:
tho Chancellor for an injunction to restrain
the guardian from interfering with the custody
Of the infant, and it Was granted by him. The
order VAS appealed against by the guardian, but
the Vice. Chancel1or's decision was sustained by
the Lords Justices, md tho child WAS given to
her grandparents to be educated as Profess
tant. The three principal points decided by the
Lords Justices were as follows:
/. That an agreement Of the kind made by
Andrews and his wife ia not binding aa legal
contract, and that the father has the right to
determine in what religion the child shall be
educated, and that right cannot be surrendered
by any agreement into which he may enter.
2. That the father may waiye or abandon his
right to have his child educated in his own rolig-
ion by acts which amount to abandonment, and
that the husband waived his right by not telling
his Hife when the girl was born that he wished
her to be baptized rs Catholic, by his not hav-
ing shown any displeasure when she was bap-
tizod as Protestant, aud by having concealed
from his wife the making OF his will. Further
more, that Joseph Andrews, the guardian, lost
his rights under the will. by not asserting his
jected to or opposed the Protestant training Of
the infant until 1871, eight yoarsafter the father
died. ,.
s. Tint when the father has SO far vaiTed or
abandoned his right, the interests OF tho child
arc to bo considered and followed. In fixing
these interests, the Court decided them from the
temporal point Of viow entirely, as her religious
principles had not become fixed to any ouch de-
gree that change would materially affect thom.
In the Judgment it was said that the mothers
relatives lad acquired q strong sahection for the
girl, and the girl for them, and,tas she must DO
educated by charity, 1t was better for her that
she should bo intrusted to those whose kindness
she had already experienced. :
. The decision is an eminently just one. If the
mother had been Catholic, under this decision
the child would hare been educated rs Catho-
lie. There Vas, therefore, no discrimination in
religious point Of view. Tho right Of the
father to dictate the education Of his children
was clearly established, but; under the law, he
had abandoned that right by not: demanding it.
Correct as the Judgment WAS undor the law end
f.oro op ahc{roct 1ara1 roirt of1 1-for- fhara ia