Swansea and Glamorgan Herald, and South Wales Free Press. — 1865-09-09 (Swansea, West Glamorgan, Wales)

PROTECTION OF INFANT LIFE.  WIIEN we read the severe institutions of the Spartan law-giver, which insisted on the destruction of all deformed and diseased infants, we revolt against the barbarous code as something opposed to nature and humanity; nor have we learned yet to respect the mode which the Chinese adopt for ridding themselves of their surplus population. Of late however, we have become so accustomed to cases of infanticide in our own country, that we dismiss them from our notice one after another as if they were so many ordinary police records common to a general newspaper. Yet there is something very painful in the reflection that in this, one of the most highly-civilized and educated of nations, infant life is almost without protection, and that those who should foster it with the strongest maternal feelings are the destroyers. But such is the fact; mothers murder their own offspring to save themselves from shame and exposure, and juries view the crime leniently, as they cannot forbear looking upon the murderess as a victim herself to man's villainy and deceit. In this lamentable condition of things it may ho asked what can or should be done to check the crying evil ? Shall we content ourselves with denouncing the crime, with crying out for the blood of the slayer, or is it possible that we can provide a remedy by removing the cause or inducement ?  We think the hitter, nor are we alone in this opinion; for a man of all men most qualified to express an opinion on this subject, Mr E. W. Thomas, Secretary to the London Female Preventive and Reformatory Institution, has issnA an address upon the protection of infant lifes embodying a number of practical and humane suggestions, which it would well become legislators to consider. First, Mr Thomas recommends that the affiliation of the child hall be a Colnpulsory act on the part of the mother, within three months after its birth. This would be a very effective provision—it would secure to the mother a responsible father for her child, who would be compelled to maintain it; and it would also be a public record that such child was in existence. The registration of the child would be in the father's surname instead of the mother's, and the cost in the first instance would be paid by the parish in which the child was born, and afterwards repaid by the putative father, who in default should be imprisoned. This mode would certainly remove all cause from the mother to destroy her infant, and as she knew its support would be ensured, she would not seek its death. Instead of the seducer being allowed to escape, he would have to bear his share of the penalty. And why not? the natural duty of the father to support his child, whither legitimate or illegitimate, is the same; and if a married man is sent to prison for the desertion of his oft'spring, so should also the seducer of woman's virtue. The law should make no distinction—the offence is the same, and so are the obligations, and both should be treated with the same rigour. So far Mr Thomas renders the man amenable to the law, but he does not mean that the woman shall go entirely free. Should she neglect to give notice to the registrar of the birth of the child, she would be liable to imprisonment; and when she gives notice, she has to bear the odium attached to her shame. These suggestions of Mr Thomas may not be as complete as we could wish them, but they are a step in the right direction—the first practical consideration of an evil beset with difficulties, and will be sure to lead to a remedy when the Legislature is bold enough to deal with the subject. Hitherto we have been told that infanticide could not be checked by any system that it was possible for man to devise, but Mr Thomas has fairly met the evil in all its bearings ; and should only a portion of his suggestions be adopted, we do not doubt that a large number of infant lives will be spared.