THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS.
LTO THE EDITOR OF THE n SPECTATOR,"] SIR,—As Lord Lindley frankly admits he does not know the facts of the Carter case, it is surely a little strange for him to say that Mr. Whitbread has failed to realize the importance of the word "wilful" The magistrates who tried the case bad the knowledge which Lord Lindley lacks, and they decided the neglect was "wilful"—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has not the power to decide that point; all they have to do is to place the facts before the justices and abide by their decision. Lord Hugh Cecil says that I mistake the question in discussion. I differ from him. The whole point is (and no religious bare drawn across the trail can lead us astray), has a parent the right so to decide for the child that the child's life shall be ruined, either in the Carter case because of lack of speech, or in another case I gave for lack of sight?
I do not care to follow Lord Hugh in his somewhat irrelevant discussion as to the parent's decision whether his child shall be an atheist, a deist, or a Jew; some of us may yet believe that there is nothing criminal in any religion, whereas actual cruelty, deliberately and wilfully inflicted upon a child by allowing it to suffer fearful and disabling ills when it is in the power of the person responsible for the child's welfare to have the ills removed, is, in the eye of the law, criminal, and, to answer another correspondent, it is as criminal in a castle as in a cottage. It is surely a new theory to put forward that the motive of a wrongdoer is to be considered; it is a dangerous theory to say, for instance, that my motive is good if I kill a man because I feel sure he would be happier in heaven or better in hell. I am afraid the different parties in this discussion have got as near to each other as they can, but I should like to emphasize the point once more that in twenty-eight years of active life the Society has only taken action in seven such cases, and in six of them the children are to-day happy and well, instead of being crippled and pitiable objects for the rest of their lives.
I entirely agree with you, Sir, that honest criticism is good for us all, but most earnestly do I plead with your readers to appreciate some of the difficulties of our work. I doubt if many realize that the Society protected no fewer than 156,000 children last year from every sort of neglect and cruelty which inhuman brutality could invent. It is difficult to do such work and leave no handle for critics, and it can only be done by incessant care and vigilance. That the Society has only had to prosecute in four per cent. of its cases over a series of years, and has succeeded in ninety-seven per cent, of the cases of all sorts brought into the Courts, is, I think, evidence enough to satisfy the most ardent critic that we are not " wilfully " interfering with parents' rights.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
