The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-13 00:00:00

LEGACY DUTX.

Mr. J.IUME moved his usual annual return of the
amount of legacy duty received during tho past year.—
Ordered.

POOR-LAW.

Mr. FERR AND said he had to put a question to the
Right lion. Baronet, the Secretary for the Ilome Depart-
ment, which referred to a judgment lately delivered by Lord
Denman. The question being on the paper he should
not read it. The Hon. Gentleman's question is as follows:
—" That as Lord Chief Justice Denman has declared it
to be the unanimous opinion of the Judges of the Court
of Queen's Bench, that there are some cases in which
it is necessary to break in upon an Act of Parliament,
and upon that which may have existed from all time ;'
and has also declared that it is the mother who is the
proper party to have the custody of all her children
under seven years of age, and that is not
'for the benefit of the mother, but for the protection of
the children;' and that he thinks that ' the Judges ought
to crush the first attempt to depart from that principle,
and that it is of the highest importance that it should be
considered the undoubted law of the land,'—whether the
Government intend to insert a clause in the new Poor-
law Bill, for the purpoie of prohibiting the separation of
mother and child, if they should become the inmates of
a workhouse?"

Sir J. GRAHAM said he was much obliged to the
Hon. Gentleman for putting his question in such a man-
ner as to render it impossible to doubt as to the nature of
it ; it having been printed for several days, every Hon.
Gentleman must be acquainted with it. He was sure
that the Hon. Gentleman had exercised a commendable
caution in framing this question ; but he would allow
him to say that he had been inadvertently led into a
serious mistake. The Hon. Gentleman set forth in his
question what purported to be a dictum of Lord Chief
Justice Denman, and his question referred to a great
grievance he said existed in the workhouse system, with
respect to the separation of mothers from their children
under seven years of age. Now the question referred to
a matter of fact which had no existence, and recited a
dictum of Lord Denman's which was never pronounced.
He would first deal with the matter of fact. By a gene-
ral order which had received the sanction of the Secre-
tary of State, which was therefore equivalent to a legal
enactment, at this moment throughout England,
children under seven years of age, if in the
workhouse, were not separated from their mothers.
In the general order of the Secretary of State, to which
he referred, it is expressly stated that under seven years
of age children of mothers confined in a workhouse
should be placed in the same ward with their parents,
and should have the usual allowance ; and to prevent
any possibility of doubt with respect to what was meant
by " usual allowance," there was an explanation
in the order given by the Poor-law Com-
missioners, which he would read to the House:
—" The Commissioners have only to remark upon
this proviso—that so long as any mother shall have her
child she is to have access to that child at all times except
when at work ; and that the child shall not be placed
beyond the mother's reach." With respect to the-dictum
of Lord Chief Justice Denman, the House would
see that in referring to the notes the Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) stated it to be " the
unanimous opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench
that there were some cases in which it is necessary to
break in upon an Act of Parliament, and upon that
which may have existed from all time." The Hon.
Gentleman believed that to have been the dictum of
Lord Chief Justice Denman. Now, so far from that
heir', the case, the dictum was precisely the converse.
He (Sir J. Graham) had it from one of the Judges of
the Court, and he had it from the Law Journal Report.
In that Report the Lord Chief Justice stated that
" cases have arisen where, in order to give effect
to the express words of an Act of Parliament, it has been
necessary to break in upon established principles."—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) So far, therefore, from
stating that there were cases in which it was necessary
to infringe upon any Act of Parliament, Lord Chief
Justice Denman said no such thing, but precisely the
converse. He (Sir J. Graham) hoped that the answer
he had given to the Hon. Gentleman was satisfactory.
He begged further to state that he did not purpose
inserting in the Poor-law Amendment Bill any such
provision as that to which the Hon. Gentleman's question
referred.

Mr. FERRAND begged to ask the Right lion.
Baronet whether he intended to introduce into the Bill
a provision, giving to mothers the custody of their
children until they were seven years old ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied that he bad at pre-
sent no such intention.
Mr. FERRAND said that after that announcement
he begged to give notice that he should himself propose
a clause to that effect.