Lords Sitting of 12 March 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Lord Keane's Annuity.—Read a third time;—Tithe Composition (Ireland); Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Richmond, from Gaolers, and subordinate Officers of Gaols in England, for Pensions when old age rendered them incapable of performing their Duties.—By Lord Hill, from Ellesmere, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of Mountcashell, from Londonderry, and by Lord Wharncliffe, from a Presbytery in Ireland, for the Abolition of Church Patronage in Scotland.—Dy the Earl of Hardwicke, from the Board of Guardians of the Caxton and Amington Union, Cambridge, against the Poor-law Continuance Bill.

MR. KERR
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he had a petition to present from a gentleman with whom he was not acquainted, and therefore could not answer for the correctness of the circumstances which he was about to state. Feeling, however, that his case was one of importance, and his complaint of a serious nature, he had asked the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, to communicate with one of his colleagues in that House, as to the truth of the statement. The petition was from a gentleman of the name of James Kerr, a barrister of the Inner Temple, and formerly judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, Lower Canada. He had held the situation for forty years, but had been deprived of it without any trial, or any opportunity being given him of making any defence. He, therefore, hoped the noble Marquess would state the cause of the gentleman's dismissal.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he had not communicated with the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, on the subject. He was really sorry, however, that the gentleman in question had been so ill-advised as to bring the matter again before their Lordships. He was aware that he was a person very respectably connected, and he believed that he had acquired the good will of a large portion of the people of Lower Canada. At the same time, as the petition had been presented, it was impossible for him to pass over in silence the allegation that he had been dismissed without trial. He would state to their Lordships what had occurred. Mr. Kerr was judge of the Admiralty Court, Lower Canada. In the year 1815, a sum of money, amounting, he believed, to about 1,500 l., was placed in the hands of the registrar of that court,

139
which, in the course of law, became the property of the Crown. Mr. Kerr, on going to England, transferred this money to his own agent in London, and up to the year 1834 made no account of it, but kept it at his own disposal. Sundry letters at that period passed on the subject, and about the commencement of 1834, the money was repaid. The circumstances, however, came to the knowledge of the Admiralty, and the result of their examination into the case was, that Mr. Kerr was dismissed. The transaction was also made known to his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle), who was at that time Secretary for the Colonies, and he had felt it his duty to dismiss Mr. Kerr from the office of judge, which he held in the Court of Queen's Bench, Montreal. In 1839, Mr. Kerr transmitted, through Sir John Colborne, an application, in the nature of an appeal to the favour of the Government, but he (the Marquess of Normanby) could see no reason whatever for disturbing the decision that had been come to. Under these circumstances, he regretted that the gentleman had been advised to petition their Lordships, and that he had been obliged, in consequence, to state the facts of the case.

CANADA—ST. SULPICE.
The Marquess of Normanbylaid on the Table a copy of the charter granted to the seminary of St. Nicolet, Lower Canada.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to know whether the noble Marquess had looked into the report of Chief Justice Stuart, in regard to the legal right of the seminary of St. Sulpice, and whether or not it was to be laid on the Table?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had looked into the report, but he found that there was that objection to the production of it which he stated yesterday. Strictly speaking, the report was the opinion of one of the law officers of the Crown, and, according to the general custom, was to be considered as confidential, and ought not to be given to Parliament. On examining the report, he did not see any special circumstances to induce their Lordships to depart from the usual custom. Supposing that it was produced, he did not think that it would help the rev. Prelate at all in making out his case. He admitted, however, that the opinion was against the legal right being in the Crown; but he hoped, when the discussion came
140
on, that he should be able to convince their Lordships, that the rev. Prelate had no case whatever.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that he would not press for the production of the paper, but he submitted to their Lordships if it would not have been fairer on the part of the noble Marquess, if he had, on his own responsibility, refused at once to produce the report, than to have said, that there was nothing in it which would support his case. He did not think that a correct mode of proceeding. The despatch of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Ripon) would completely answer his purpose, and enable him to sustain the position which he meant to maintain before their Lordships.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the accusation of unfairness was so often made by the rev. Prelate, that it now lost much of its force. He would remind their Lordships that he had made the admission that the legal opinion was, that the right was not in the Crown, and that therefore, the report could not assist the argument of the right rev. Prelate. Under these circumstances, the right rev. Prelate had asked for that opinion—
The Bishop of Exeter: No, no, no. I asked for the special report of Mr. Stuart, because I understood it dealt with the legal question. The noble Marquess says that the report would not support my argument. Why did he withhold the report, and yet attempt to produce an impression that it was unfavourable.
The Earl of Mintorose to order. The right rev. Prelate had interrupted his noble Friend, and was now making a speech himself.
The Bishop of Exeterthought that the noble Marquess had finished.
The Marquess of Normanbycould not conceive how the right rev. Prelate could have thought that he had finished, for when he interrupted him, he was in the middle of a sentence. The right rev. Prelate said, that he had asked for the special report of Mr. Stuart, and in answer he (the Marquess of Normanby) told him that he considered the report as the opinion of the law-officer of the Crown, and therefore, could not consent to its being laid on the Table. At the same time, he volunteered the admission that he did not think it would be useful to the right rev. Prelate's case, even if produced, because the law-officer in question had stated it

141
as his opinion that the legal right was not in the Crown.
The Bishop of Exeterregretted that the noble Marquess had ever mentioned that the opinion of the law-officer was unfavourable to his argument. He also regretted that the noble Marquess had thought proper to say, that he (the Bishop of Exeter) was in the habit of throwing out insinuations of unfairness. He never did so without giving the parties an opportunity of meeting the charge. He was also sorry to add, that the spirit so frequently manifested of late on that side of the House sometimes provoked him to use such expressions.
Subject at an end.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION (IRELAND).
The Earl of Glengall The Earl of Glengall moved that a clerk in the office of the Poor-law commissioners of Ireland, and Mr. D. Phelan, an assistant-commissioner, be ordered to attend at the bar of their Lordships' House on Tuesday next.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he had no objection to the inquiry being extended, but he thought it would be better if the noble Lord postponed his motion till after the examination of Mr. Stanley. At present, when the annual election of guardians was taking place in Ireland, it would be exceedingly inconvenient for Mr. Phelan to leave that country. If the noble Earl pressed the other part of his motion, he had no objection to the clerk in the office of the commissioners being ordered to attend.
The Earl of Glengallthought that the presence of the gentleman to whom he had referred would be so very necessary, that he should consider himself bound to persist in his motion.
After some further discussion, it was agreed that the Marquess of Normanby should write by post to desire the attendance of the clerk, and that the attendance of Mr. Phelan, the assistant commissioner, should be deterred until it appeared that his presence was absolutely necessary.
Upon this understanding, the Earl of Glengall consented to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Adjourned.