City Companies." Now, how is that? There were four viewers sent to view this colony: by whom were they sent? They are called by my friend surveyors of the City Companies. They were never sent by the Companies; there is no pretence for saying that they were. Your lordships will find that they were sent by an Act of the Common Council. I will not trouble your lordships with reading all those Acts of Common Council again; but that is the fact. Again, though perhaps it is not very material, I observe one of those viewers was not even a member of one of the twelve Companies, but a painter stainer. A great deal has been said of the twelve principal Companies, yet one of those sent as viewer was not a member of any one of those twelve principal Companies. The viewers came back and made a report, and upon that report a committee was appointed to consider of the best mode of carrying into effect the arrangement with the king. That committee proposed the establishment of the Irish Society in the manner your lordships have heard; the committee was not appointed by the Companies, but by the City, whose authority your lordships will find exercised throughout in the course of this transaction; and therefore the second representation I complain of is, of this being represented as having emanated from the City Companies.

Then Sir William Follett says, that the Society was constituted out of persons selected by the twelve Companies of London. Now certainly a more inaccurate representation of the fact cannot be conceived; there is not the slightest pretence for saying that the parties were selected by the twelve Companies of London; they were selected by the Court of Common Council, that Court consisting of members of every Company in London, and consisting of persons who need not necessarily be members of any of those Companies at all. Then my learned friend, Sir William Follett, states the articles of agreement between the City of London and the Crown. could hardly see whether he intended your lordships to consider what he stated as virtually the agreement, or as part of his speech, but he alleged that the articles were made between the king and certain persons representing those who advanced the

I

money;—it was, I believe, a part of his speech, but that was the way in which it was introduced to your lordships' attention. There is no pretence for saying that these persons did represent the Companies. Then Sir William Follett read the articles of agreement, omitting those relating to the Vice-Admiralty and the Customs; and then he read a statement out of the "Concise View," but stopped, very curiously, at the part which describes the powers of the Society—a very material point, as bearing upon this case, his object being to represent them as mere conduit-pipes or trustees; and he felt that mere conduit pipes or trustees cannot have any authority over the estate of their cestuique trust. Then there was another very curious representation as to the mode in which the money was raisedI have the expression. He says, "I forgot to state the manner in which the Companies raised this money, and that is, the Companies pointed out that it should be raised by a general rate; and that was agreed to." Can any thing be more entirely at variance from that statement than the account of the transaction set out in the Answer, and in all the documents referred to in the Answer? Your lordships find that the Court of Common Council directed the raising of this money; they taxed the Companies, although it was intended, if the attempt should succeed, to do something by way of repayment; and they determined that the minor Companies should be "spared,” that was the expression,-an expression very singular in regard to a voluntary gift; and that was felt by my learned friend Mr. Lloyd, for he let slip the word "burthened," or "rather" (he added,) "it was a voluntary contribution," which struck me at the time as showing how he was embarrassed by a word which caught his eye, but which he did not read.

Mr. LLOYD.-Yes; I did indeed.

Mr. WOOD.-No; not about the minor Companies being "spared," that was carefully kept back. These are the material points in which, as I stated to your lordships, the opening of this case differs upon one of the most material circumstances of the case as it now stands before your lordships, namely, the advancing the money. Listening only to these statements of my learned friends, without any thing to assist your lordships

in the elucidation of them, it would be impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that the whole of these transactions were on behalf of the Companies;-that they advanced the money, and that merely the name of the City was used, for what purpose no one can conceive; perhaps for the purpose of giving a lustre to the transaction. But your lordships will not be led to suppose that the money was advanced by the Companies, and that all the propositions made regarding the government of the plantation, and every other transaction with regard to it, arose from the suggestion of the Companies, or that all was voluntarily done by them on the mere statement of my learned friends?

I shall be exceedingly brief upon the question-what was the real state of the case? It appears, in fact, that this application was made by King James to the City of London, and to the City of London alone. The Crown has never, from the beginning to the end, dealt with any other parties than the City of London, and the Society appointed by and emanating from the City of London; the Crown dealt with them, and desired them to undertake this plantation, and I dare say some degree of force, such as frequently attended matters of this kind in those days, was used. The City of London then apply, in the first instance, to know whether the Companies will voluntarily come forward to assist in the matter. The Companies do not intrust any persons with sufficient powers, and then the City commence a compulsory process. They first sent out their precepts, ordering the Companies to bring their principal members together, and then they sent out viewers: three or four hundred pounds were expended in sending over viewers; that expense they paid out of the Corporation chest, by their chamberlain. They then considered the best mode of raising the money. A Committee of the Common Council report (and they adopt that report,) that it will be the best way to raise it by a corn tax, the Companies to pay by the poll. Now, supposing that tax to be levied on the Companies out of their own goods and chattels supposing there existed goods in the hands of the Companies to be taken for the purposes of this plantation, can it be said that monies raised in this manner create a resulting

trust, when you see that it is not money voluntarily raised by the Companies themselves; are not you under the necessity of inquiring what has been the nature of the authority exercised by the City over the Companies, and the usage between them; and whether the City, having power to tax, had not the incidental power of directing how the money should be applied? and then does not that leave us to the question of usage? and do we not come at once to the transactions of the last two centuries, instead of trying the question of a resulting trust? But it does not rest here; for these are not monies advanced by the Companies, though Sir William Follett threw out an observation that the Companies had property distinct from the Corporation of London: it was money raised by a tax on the Companies by the poll, each individual in the Companies being called on to contribute to that tax; and if that be a resulting trust, if we are to go into that, it must be a resulting trust for the representatives, wherever they can be found of those parties thus taxed by the poll. This is at once conclusive against any question of resulting trust, and leaves us at once to the question of usage. My learned friend Mr. Lloyd says, it is clear, if the money was raised by a corn tax, the application of the money must be the same as that of the corn tax, and that that money was always considered as held in trust for the Companies,—that is to say, that the City considered themselves trustees of the money which they raised by contribution from the Companies who collected it. But this appears very much at variance with the principle of the Haberdashers' case, cited by Mr. Knight, and which, I believe, was borne out by all the evidence in the case, though that evidence is not reported. The Haberdashers (being one of those twelve Companies,) stated by their Answer, "that in the year 1646, and for some time previously and subsequently thereto, it was the custom in the City of London to provide against scarcity by requiring each of the chartered Companies to keep in store a certain quantity of corn, which was to be renewed from time to time, and, when required for that purpose, to be produced in the market for sale at such times and prices, and in such quantities, as the Lord Mayor or the Court of Common Council should direct; that this custom

was a heavy burthen, and occasioned great expense and loss to the Companies, for that in seasons of scarcity precepts were issued by the Lord Mayor to the Companies, requiring them, under penalties, to provide and store up large quantities of corn, not for any purpose of charitable distribution, but in order to supply the demand by sale in the corn market; that upon such occasions the market price was fixed by the Lord Mayor, without regard to the sum which the corn had cost; that it was frequently necessary to exact large money contributions from the different Companies, and from the freemen and members thereof, in order to provide funds for the purchase of such corn." That, therefore, was the mode in which the City dealt with the corn; they conceived, when they raised a corn rate, that they had the power which they had been in the habit of exercising, of directing how that corn rate should be disposed of. Corn was first ordered to be bought, and when bought they immediately disposed of it according to the powers they possessed; they afterwards paid over any money which remained to the Companies. They, as a governing body, did not go the length of taxing the Companies beyond what the nature of the case required, but as far as the necessity extended they went. The present is a case standing in precisely a similar situation. The money is directed to be raised by a tax for a great and important public purpose-the planting of this colony, which had been represented as of great consequence for the protection of the Protestant religion in the north of Ireland, and which was also to be made beneficial to the trade of the City of London by giving them a variety of privileges to be confirmed by charter, such as the trading to that district as to a free port, for instance. The City, for the purpose of obtaining those advantages, thought fit to levy a tax on the Companies; and when they had so done, they did (as in other cases they were entitled to do,) dispose of the property purchased, as they had disposed of the corn, in the manner they thought most for the benefit of the City; and when the City, and afterwards the Society that emanated from the City, had done that which they considered fit and proper for the public benefit, with the contribution raised by poll in the Companies,