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

POOR-LAW.

Mr. FERR AND said he had to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home 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 it 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 purpose 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
being the case, the dictum was precisely the converse.
He (Sir J. Graham) had it from one of the Jadges 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 o f 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 Hon.
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 had 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.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND.

Captain BERNAL begged to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, of which he would have given notice
had he thought that there would be any difficulty in
answering it. It would be in the recollection of the
House, that the Noble Lord the Secretary for the
Colonies had made a quotation on a previous
night from a letter of the Irish Attorney-Gene-
ral, in which be charged the counsel for the
traversers with having made a systematic attempt
to excite him to commit a breach of the peace. He
wished to 3 know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had
any objection to lay on the table a copy of the letter in
question ?
Sir J. GRAHAM—Most certainly. The letter was
not within his control. It was a private letter, addressed
to his Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland. But he
felt great pleasure, however, in informing the Hon. and
Gallant Officer that he hoped, in eight-and-thirty hours,
to see the Attorney7General for Ireland in his place.
Capt. BERNAL gave notice that he would shortly
draw the attention of the House to the subject.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., inquired whether it was the
. .

intention of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham)
to introduce, in this present session, a Bill for the better
division of parishes in Scotland ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said his Learned Friend
the Lord Advocate would certainly introduce a measure
on that subject.
In reply to a question from an Hort. MEMIIEB, whose
name we could not learn,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that, in consequence of some communication which had
passed between himself and the authorities of Man•
chester, a Bill would shortly be introduced for the bond-
ing of goods for home consumption, and to that Bill he
should give his support, on the condition that Man-
chester should bear the expense.
THE FISHERIES.

Captain PECHELL wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury,
with respect to the fisheries. In the year 1839, a con-
vention was entered into between this country and
France, which ended in the preparation of certain regu-
lations, which were to be submitted to the Governments
of both countries. An Act of Parliament had passed
the Legislature, of this country confirming those regu-
lations, and he wished to know what course had been
taken on the part of France, in order that our fishermen
in the English Channel might know in what position they
were now placed. _ _

Sir ROBERT PEEL said he should be very glad to
give to the Gallant Officer every information in his
power. The Hon. and Gallant Officer would recollect

that the Governments of France and England were
in a different position at the time when the Convention
between the two countries was agreed upon. At
that time the Paliament of this country was sitting,
whilst the legislative bodies of France had closed their
proceedings. Therefore, it was impossible for the
French Government at that time to ' propose a
law for giving effect to the provisions contained
in the convention. The French Government had
certainly another power, which was not recognised in
this country—the power of issuing ordinances during
the period when the Chambers were not sitting ; but
even this power was not sufficient to give a full and en-
tire effect to the stipulations agreed upon. He was happy,
however, to say that he had been advised, on authority,
that a projet de loi had been prepared by a Committee
to be submitted to the French Chambers, and that there
was every reason to hope that no unnecessary delay
would occur in obtaining the requisite legislative sanc-
tion in France to the provisions of the Convention.
Captain PECHELL would be glad to know, supposing
it was found that the provisions of the Convention were
not sanctioned by the French Chambers, whether the
Right Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would lay the
entire matter before the House in such state as it might
then happen to be ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL was certainly of opinion that
the subjects of this country, in such an event,: would
have a right to every information connected with the
subject.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) COM-