But is this enough, and has the parent purchased his repose by such a surrender?  Very far from it.  The law expressly, and very carefully, provides that he shall not:  before he can be secure from the persecution of his children, it requires another and a much more extraordinary condition:  the children are authorized, if they can find that their parent has by his industry, or otherwise, increased the value of his property since their first bill, to bring another, compelling a new account of the value of his estate, in order to a new distribution proportioned to the value of the estate at the time of the new bill preferred.  They may bring such bills, toties quoties, upon every improvement of his fortune, without any sort of limitation of time, or regard to the frequency of such bills, or to the quantity of the increase of the estate, which shall justify the bringing them.  This act expressly provides that he shall have no respite from the persecution of his children, but by totally abandoning all thoughts of improvement and acquisition.

This is going a great way, surely:  but the laws in question have gone much further.  Not satisfied with calling upon children to revolt against their parents, and to possess themselves of their substance, there are cases where the withdrawing of the child from his father’s obedience is not left to the option of the child himself:  for, if the wife of a Roman Catholic should choose to change her religion, from that moment she deprives her husband of all management and direction of his children, and even of all the tender satisfaction which a parent can feel in their society, and which is the only indemnification he can have for all his cares and sorrows; and they are to be torn forever, at the earliest age, from his house and family:  for the Lord Chancellor is not only authorized, but he is strongly required, to take away all his children from such Popish parent, to appoint where, in what manner, and by whom they are to be educated; and the father is compelled to pay, not for the ransom, but for the deprivation of his children, and to furnish such a sum as the Chancellor thinks proper to appoint for their education to the age of eighteen years.  The case is the same, if the husband should be the conformist; though how the law is to operate in this case I do not see:  for the act expressly says, that the child shall be taken from such Popish parent; and whilst such husband and wife cohabit, it will be impossible to put it into execution without taking the child from one as well as from the other; and then the effect of the law will be, that, if either husband or wife becomes Protestant, both are to be deprived of their children.

The paternal power thus being wholly abrogated, it is evident that by the last regulation the power of an husband over his wife is also considerably impaired; because, if it be in her power, whenever she pleases, to subtract the children from his protection and obedience, she herself by that hold inevitably acquires a power and superiority over her husband.