eputation. But the matter does not stop there. Not only
does Mrs. Besant entertain those opinions which are reprobated by the
great mass of mankind--whether rightly or wrongly I have no business to
say, though I, of course, think rightly--but she carries those
speculative opinions into practice as regards the education of the child,
and from the moment she does that she brings herself within the lines of
the decisions of Lord Chancellors and eminent judges with reference to
the custody of children by persons holding speculative opinions, and in
those cases it has been held that before giving the custody of a child to
those who entertain such speculative opinions the Court must consider
what effect infusing those opinions as part of its practical education
would have upon the child. That is undoubtedly a matter of the greatest
importance. Upon this point there is no conflict of testimony whatever.
Mrs. Besant herself says that she prohibited the governess from giving
any religious education to the child, and has prevented the child from
obtaining any religious education at all. When the child went to school--
a day school, as I understand--Mrs. Besant prohibited the governess of
that school from imparting any religious education, in the same way that
she had prohibited the former governess, who was a home governess, from
giving any religious education, and Mrs. Besant gave none herself. It is,
therefore, not only the entertaining and publishing these opinions, but
she considers it her duty so to educate the child as to prevent her
having any religious opinions whatever until she attains a proper age. I
have no doubt that Mrs. Besant is conscientious in her opinions upon all
these matters, but I also have a conscientious opinion, and I am bound to
give effect to it. I think such a course of education not only
reprehensible but detestable, and likely to work utter ruin to the child,
and I certainly should upon this ground alone decide that this child
ought not to remain another day under the care of her mother."

As to the publication of the Knowlton pamphlet, Sir George Jessel decided
that that also was a good ground for separating mother and child. He
committed himself to the shameful statement, so strongly condemned by the
Lord Chief Justice, that Dr. Knowlton was in favor of "promiscuous
intercourse without marriage", and then uttered the gross falsehood that
his view "was exactly the same as was entertained by the Lord