useless, to shut our eyes to this fact, or to
shrink from, facing the obstacles which
stand in the way of any scheme for
improving the condition of the destitute
children of London. One of the first of these
obstacles is the difficulty, to speak plainly,
of getting the children away from the
father and mother, who are obviously
unworthy of their sacred trust. Yet in some
instances this would need to be done. In
cases where it could be proved by the
evidence of the clergyman of the parish, of the
doctor, of the police authorities, or even by
the concurrent testimony of neighbours,
that the parents of a certain child, or of
certain children, were, owing to drunken
habits, or criminal propensities, or any other
cause, wholly unfit, and likely to continue
unfit, to hold the destinies of such child
or children in their hands, it would
certainly be desirable to deprive them for a
time of their parental rights and to dis-
parent them—if the coinage of such a word
may be allowed—-just in the same way as
we disfranchise a constituency which has
proved itself unworthy to exercise the
electoral rights which originally belonged to it.

It is better to acknowledge at once that
any attempt to carry out a proposal of this
sort would be met with a considerable
amount of disapproval. We should hear
that we were outraging nature; that we
were attempting to dissolve one of the most
sacred ties that bind human beings
together; that the proper persons to bring
up a child are that child's parents, and a
great deal more to the same purpose. The
answer to all this is, however, very simple.
Undoubtedly the proper persons to bring
up a child are its parents, but if they fail to
do so—what then? The proper person to
live with a wife is her husband, but if he
ill-uses her we forbid him to live with
her, and take her away from him by law.
Why should not the same dissolution of a
tie be possible between parent and child?
Why should not the man who ill-uses his
child have it taken from him?

But it is not necessary that a separation
so complete as that between the divorced
husband and wife should be effected between
the parent and child in the case we suppose.
It might be temporary and it might be
conditional. No legal enactment would or
could alter the fact of the child being the
son or daughter of its parents. All that
the law could do would be to deprive the
parents of the right to direct or influence
the bringing-up of their offspring in cases
where it could be distinctly proved that
such influence was only likely to be used
for the worst purposes.

But even supposing that a law were
enacted which, for a certain time and
under certain circumstances, would
emancipate the child from the misrule of a cruel
or neglectful parent, we should still not be
by any means at the end of our difficulties.
To relieve bad parents altogether of the
expense and trouble of bringing up their
offspring would be a proceeding fraught
with dangerous consequences, would be
releasing this particular class from their
responsibility in an undue degree, and
in some sort offering a premium for the
encouragement of parental neglect. We
should, in fact, be gradually accustoming
the lowest and worst-conducted classes
among us to expect that their children
should be brought up for them at other
people's expense; a state of things which
would be highly agreeable to this particular
section of society, no doubt.

Of course, the simplest way of solving
this difficult question would be to establish
some system of taxation by which the
parent whom, because of his unfitness to
discharge the parental duties, you would
deprive of all control over his child, would
still be compelled to pay for its support.
But it would be necessary that only a
very small sum should be exacted for such
a purpose, because the difference made in
the expenditure of a child's parents by
relieving them of what is called "its keep"
would be, in reality, exceedingly slight.
The cost of bringing up a child when, as
is the case with the class whose ways we
are considering, it is not brought up at all,
but simply allowed to scramble up as it
can, is incredibly little. The parents of
such a child buy scarcely any extra food
on its account. They feed it on scraps.
They do not take in milk on its account,
but give it a sup of muddy beer now and
then, or some of their miserable tea. The
family live in one room. The same amount
of space would be required if the child were
not there, so that nothing extra in the way
of rent is expended on its account. Very
soon it begins to earn, or beg, or steal a
little itself, thereby diminishing still more
the cost of its maintenance.

To expect, then, that a sum, sufficient for
the comfortable and decent maintenance of
a child, can be got from parents who have
never been in the habit of spending a third
or even a fourth part of such sum on its
support, would be entirely irrational and
preposterous. Some system might possibly