their judgment as to what is necessary for the performance of their public duties, and after they have satisfied those duties, after they have applied to public objects what, in their judgment-in the fair exercise of that judgment—is necessary for those objects, then it is, and then only, that the surplus which remains, subject to their discretion, has been usually paid over to the Companies.

Now it is perfectly clear therefore, in this state of things, that they cannot be considered as trustees for the private benefit of the Companies. If they are public officers, and have in any respect neglected their duty, they are liable to account, but they are not liable to account to the Companies. They may be liable to account to the Crown, they may be liable to account for misconduct to the Corporation of the City of London; they are elected by the City of London; they are half of them removed every year; the City of London can exercise a control over them; if they misconduct themselves they can be restrained and kept in order by the authority of the City of London, or by the authority (if these are public objects) of the Crown; but they are in no respect, as it appears to me, amenable to the private Companies for the manner in which they discharge their duties.

I am of opinion, therefore, that this suit cannot be maintained.

I may state that this is in conformity not merely with the opinion expressed by Lord Langdale in the Judgment which he has delivered, but that it arises out of what was intimated by Lord Cottenham on a former occasion, on an interlocutory application made in the cause of this suit; and I have the authority of that noble and learned lord to state that he retains the opinion which he then formed— imperfectly formed at that time, because the case was not

fully before him-but after hearing this case he was confirmed in the opinion he then entertained.

I therefore move your lordships that this Judgment be affirmed.

Lord CAMPBELL.

Entirely concurring in the view of the case which has been taken by my noble and learned friend, I have hardly a word to add to his most lucid explanation of the case, and it is on account of the magnitude rather than the difficulty of the case that we have taken some time to consider it before we should intimate the opinion which we had then formed upon it. The moment that it came before Lord Cottenham, he with his usual precision seized the question, and he stated the question at once to be, Whether the Irish Society are to be considered as merely private trustees or trustees for public purposes. He then gives his opinion that they were trustees for public purposes. When the case came before Lord Langdale, he, after great deliberation, came to the same conclusion. I concur in the opinion that those eminent judges have pronounced. It seems to me that the object of the Crown was, that public purposes should be attained by the trustees who had the management of these lands; and I am clearly of opinion that the purposes for which the grant was made still continue, and that they are and must ever remain trustees for the public. It is therefore quite clear that this Bill cannot be supported, but that it was properly dismissed; and the Appeal is erroneous. Mr. WOOD.

It is affirmed with costs, I understand your lordship to say. Lord CHANCELLOR.

Yes, with costs.

SPEECH OF SIR M. E. HICKS BEACH, CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND, IN OPPOSITION TO MR. LEWIS'S MOTION AGAINST THE SOCIETY, BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 27TH FEBRUARY, 1877. [Extracted from the "Times," 28th February, 1877.]

Sir M. HICKS BEACH said there would be no question that the constitution and management of the Irish Society were of necessary legitimate subjects of inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons, and he should be reluctant to interpose if sufficient grounds had been shown and if it did not appear that such an inquiry would create far greater mischief than any benefit that would be obtained from it. (Hear, hear.) What was it that was sought? The hon. member for Londonderry asked for a committee to inquire into the constitution, management, and annual expenditure of the Irish Society for London. Now, there was hardly anything upon which the House had already better means of forming a judgment. Its constitution might be found fully described in the judgment of the House of Lords to which allusion had been made, in frequent debates in the House of Commons, and in the reports of Royal Commissions. As to its management and annual expenditure, both had been fairly and openly placed before Parliament and the country by the Irish Society itself (hear); and no further information could be obtained from a Select Committee. It had been said that the trusts of the Irish Society might be more explicitly defined. But no committee, however able their report, could more conclusively state these trusts than they were stated in the lucid judgment of the House

of Lords already mentioned in debate. It had been admitted by the hon. baronet (Sir Sydney Waterlow) that the Society held its property subject to trusts for certain public objects. In a previous debate in this House Baron Dowse stated this as the effect of the decision of the House of Lords" that the Irish Society were declared to be trustees for public objects, and that, after having satisfied these public objects within their discretion, the surplus ought to go to the London Companies." (Hear.) That was the position of the Irish Society. The motion asked for inquiry as to what, if any, changes can be made in the governing body or the mode of administration in order to insure a more economical and advantageous application of the property, or whether such result can be best attained by placing the property in the hands of public trustees resident in Ireland." The language of the hon. member pointed to a conclusion definitely expressed in the motion of which he gave notice last Session, though it was not brought before the House—a conclusion which seemed to have been pressed upon him by many of his constituents—namely, that the property of the Irish Society should be taken away from them and placed in the hands of public trustees, locally resident. Now, before assenting even to inquiry upon a matter of this kind, the House ought to be satisfied how far the Society had fulfilled the public trusts for which they were constituted. He had failed to gather from any previous speaker a statement that the Society had not to the fullest of their power fulfilled those public trusts. The hon. member for Derry himself spoke of the magnificent manner in which the Society were now behaving to Derry and Coleraine. Certainly the hon. member went on to hint that the attacks on the Society which were made or threatened had disposed them to behave more liberally than heretofore. This assertion, however,

was conclusively refuted by a mere glance at the grants made in previous years, long before any attacks of this kind were meditated. In the speech of the hon. member (Mr. R. Smyth), though he was a professor of Magee College, there was no allusion to the liberal contribution in 1850 of £1,000 from the Society to the College, where they also founded a Professorial chair. Then in 1854 the Society made a large contribution to the waterworks of the city of Derry; in 1856 there was the building of those schools in Coleraine which, as the hon. member for that borough informed the House, were, under the National Board, open to children of all denominations. In 1861 the Society gave £10,000 towards the bridge of Derry, and within the last two years grants had been promised by the Society of £1,000 a year for 25 years towards a harbour at Coleraine, and no less than £40,000 towards paying off the debt upon the bridge which had been mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Lewis). He would not trouble the House with any statement as to the administration of the funds in the locality. The Governor of the Society had sufficiently entered into those matters. He only mentioned enough to show that there was no good ground for complaint as to the mode in which the Society administered its revenue in Derry and Coleraine. It had been said by the right hon. and learned member (Mr. Law) that it was a pity the Society could not contribute towards denominational objects, such as Roman Catholic education in the county of Derry. But there were sufficient undenominational objects, such as harbours and bridges, to which the Society could subscribe, and the hon. member (Mr. Lewis) had not hinted that he would desire such an application of their funds. The hon. member referred to misappropriations which had occurred almost centuries ago and seemed to argue that because of these past misappropriations