410 JONES v. STOCKETT.— 2 BLAND.

however, not only has the power, by habeas corpus, to discharge
any one from illegal confinement, but he has had delegated to him,
as representing the State in its capacity of parens patriae, the
power to provide, according to law, for the safety and proper
treatment of iai'aiits who are unable to take care of themselves.

Wellesley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 10; 2 Fonl. 226. It
was only as to the extent of this large parental authority of the Court
that 1 had entertained some doubts. 2 Land. Jurist, 66. My first
impression was, when this case was opened before me, that this
Court could not, for any purpose however apparently landable, de-
prive a father of the care and custody of his infant children;
thrown upon him by the law, not for his gratification, but on ac-
count of his duties to them, with reference to the public welfare,
and place them against his wrill in the hands of another. St. John
v. St. John, 11 Ves. 531.

But, upon a more careful investigation, I find, that although it
is admitted to be always a delicate thing for the Court to inter-
fere against the parental authority, yet that it will do so when it
becomes necessary for the safety, protection, and obvious benefit
of the infant. The Court founding its judgment in such cases, as
in those between husband and wife, upon an admission that the tie
which binds them together cannot be severed by it; but, yet that
a partial or a temporary separation has become necessary for the
protection of the weaker or defenceless party; and thus, so far,
allowing a stronger policy to over-rule a weaker one. Wextmeath
v. Westmeath, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 1162. The Court will not per-
mit the color of parental authority to work the ruin of the
child, or suffer the child to be sacrificed in any way to the views
of the father. Butler v. Freeman, Amb. 302; Creuzc v. Hunter, 2

Cox, 242; Lyons v. Blenkin, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 110. And therefore,
where the father was infamously profligate and vicious in his habits,
and course of conduct: or had attempted to associate his infant
children with a lewd woman he had brought into his house; or was
guilty of gross ill treatment and cruelty towards them, they were
removed from his custody. Ex parte Warner, 4 Bro. C. C. 101;
Skinner v. Warner, 2 Dick. 779; De Manneville v. De Manneville, 10

Fes. 61; Whitefield v. Hales, 12 Ves. 492; Ball v. Ball, 2 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 299; Wellesley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Cha. Rep. 1; The King v. De-
Manneviile, 5 East, 221. (e) But the father has no right to the custody

(e) PRATT v. PRATT.—William Pratt, an infant of eleven years of age, by
Christopher Cross Eouth, his uncle and next friend, on the 6th of February,
1773, filed his petition in this Court, in which he stated, that John Pratt, his
father, had married Mary Buck, by whom he had issue, the petitioner his
eldest son, and several other children; that she afterwards died seized in fee
of divers lands, leaving the petitioner her eldest son and heir-at-law; that
the petitioner's father afterwards married Elizabeth Griffith; and on the
31st of November, 1770, made his last will, in which, among other things,