THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Holland-Hibbert both mistake the question in discussion. No one disputes that children have rights which are and ought to be enforceable against their parents as well as against others. But the question now is whether the rights that parents and children alike have against the State are not impaired by such action as was taken in the case of Alice Carter. It would, perhaps, make the matter clearer to speak of the rights of the family against State control rather than the rights of parents. Neither Mr. Whitbread nor Mr. Holland-Hibbert would, I am certain, deny that the family is, for some limited purposes, autonomous. The question is whether the health of a child ought not to be left in the bands of the family government (that is, the parents) except when that government is acting cruelly or with criminal negligence. And the decision of this question must, of course, have regard to the interests of everyone concerned, and certainly not least of children.
The question cannot be determined by considering particular instances, as Mr. Holland-Hibbert seeks to determine it. Evidently if you leave any matter whatever to be decided by parents, since they are fallible human beings they will sometimes decide wrong, and in every particular case in which they decide wrong it is manifest that something would be gained if the decision were taken out of their hands and made rightly instead of wrongly. For instance, parents have the right of deciding in what religious faith their children shall be brought up. A parent who brings up his child to be an atheist, or a deist, or even a Jew deprives his child of what, according to the vastly preponderating opinion of his fellow-countrymen, are the great advantages of being a Christian. Something would undoubtedly have been gained for the particular children brought up as atheists, deists, or Jews if the State had interfered and had caused them to be educated as Christians. But such interference would not be justified by reason of that gain. The gain would be outbalanced by many losses. The whole economy of the family all over the country would be shaken ; the bond between parents and children would be weakened ; the responsibility which parents feel for their children's well-being would be diminished; the reverence that children feel for their parents would be under- m ined ; a dangerous precedent would be set ; State interference would soon go further ; the State would in time supersede altogether the control of parents over the beliefs of their children. In the end the family would be deeply injured; much distress would be caused to many people, and the interests of true religion would not be found to have profited. Clearly interference with the family and its rights by the State may and does have effects going immensely beyond the immediate result in the particular case. We must judge, therefore, of the rights of the family and of the State accord- ing to general principles.
Nothing in your correspondents' letters suggests that they have even considered at what point you are to draw the boundary line between the rights of the family and those of the State. If we are to be guided by their arguments, the authority of parents may rightly be set aside whenever it is unwisely exercised. But who is to decide when the parent is wise and when unwise ? Are we to believe in the infallibility of the combined judgment of a philanthropic society, a bench of magistrates, and a medical expert ? For the arguments of your correspondents are of general application. They assume not only that the doctor who was consulted in the case of Alice Carter was right, but that all doctors will always be right. They assume not only that the opinion of the father of Alice Carter, although he was an honest and respectable man, was valueless in comparison with that of a doctor, but that the opinion of doctors is always better than the opinion of parents about the health of children. And they pass over without so much as consideration the danger that family life may be weakened and injured by every supersession of parents in the exercise of their natural duties. They set no limit to the right of philanthropists, experts, and magistrates to decide that a parent is wrong and to supersede him. But such a tyranny would be far worse for children than the rare errors of honest parents. I submit that the wise and safe rule is that as long as a parent is acting honestly and in good faith his discretion should not be interfered with in the supposed interests of his children ; that though of course he will sometimes decide wrong and so injure his children, yet that, if you adopt the contrary principle of interference, the State is often as likely to be wrong as the parent, and that the indirect injury inflicted on the family by such interference is a mischief the extent of which cannot easily be measured.
Mr. Whitbread writes also in detail about the point of law. He believes that neglect in its legal sense includes a well- meant error of judgment. He may be right, though I am not aware that the courts have ever so laid it down; but it is surely plain that to treat an omission which is well- intentioned as the same thing as an omission which springs from culpable indifference or selfishness is an unsound piece of legal classification. The distinction that I rely upon is not, as he supposes, the distinction between omission and com- mission, but between wilful or culpable neglect and a well- meant mistake. I doubt if he correctly states the law, but, if he does, I am sure the law ought to be altered.
I note that neither of your correspondents discusses the important question whether, supposing it is right to supersede the authority of parents acting in good faith, a society existing to restrain cruelty and wilful neglect is the proper body to undertake the work. It appears to me to be unfair and unwise to use money and influence derived from the general detesta- tion of cruelty for a purpose certainly different and, in the judgment of many, not justifiable.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
