might have that justification for expending money in elections. They expend money in returning a member in a particular interest, and they believe that in so doing they are consulting the interests of the inhabitants of the town. That is what the Irish Society say they have a right to do; and I ask whether that is not a gross misapplication of the property of those companies? and whether it is not, as such, a breach of trust? no matter even if they had the reason which they state; but the reason they give is directly opposite to the object of King James the First in granting the charter: but I apprehend it is a gross breach of trust in another way.

Mr. KNIGHT.-My learned friend, Sir W. Follett, has read some documents in the course of his speech, but of course I do not understand him as opening the evidence in this case: when he has closed, I shall call upon him to read proof of all the assertions which he has been instructed to make.

Sir W. FOLLETT.-I have no objection to any course which my learned friend wishes; I have read some of the documents. Mr. KNIGHT.-My learned friend has read only parts of documents, and has omitted other parts. Those Acts which my learned friend has stated, have not been stated in what appears to us to be a correct manner; and of course the answer must be read to support those statements.

Sir W. FOLLETT.-With respect to this payment of money for the election at Coleraine, I say that they do admit the payment of that money; I say they have justified it by their answer, upon the ground that they were giving effect to the charter of King James to the borough of Coleraine,—that is the view I take of it. Now, with respect to the other expenditure, they have given their accounts. If my learned friend wishes me, I will read those passages of the answer.

Mr. KNIGHT. I do not consider you now as opening any evidence. I only, to guard myself against being misunderstood, say, that I consider you as opening the case, and therefore I have abstained from interrupting you; but I shall call for proof of every one of those statements, because they reflect very much upon my clients.

Sir W. FOLLETT.-Then I will give my learned friend proof

from their own answer. In folio 59 in the Answer to the Amended Bill, they say, "In or about the year 1831, when said Irish Society consisted of Members of said twelve Companies, an application was made on behalf of the persons claiming a right to be admitted freemen of Coleraine to said Society for assistance against the corporation of Coleraine, which have by degrees become a close, self-elected corporation; and contrary to law and to the charter granted to said town, had excluded divers persons, entitled as inhabitants, to be admitted as freemen of said borough from being so admitted, and had usurped the right of electing a burgess to serve in parliament for the said borough." My Lords, I did not use language quite so strong, but in substance pretty much the same: "that the persons so entitled caused the defendant, Mr. Thorpe, to be nominated as a candidate to represent them in parliament, without his knowledge or concurrence, and without the concurrence of said Society; and that said Society, so constituted as aforesaid, considered it to be their duty to protect the interests of the inhabitants of such borough under their said charter; and accordingly, as soon as they were apprized by said inhabitants of such nomination, in order to try the question as to such usurpation as aforesaid, caused a petition to be presented in the name of their said Governor, to the Commons House of Parliament, in the sessions of 1831, against the return of Sir John Head Brydges, who was returned by the mayor as the member elected for said. borough, and in the prosecution of such petition expended a sum of 6831. 2s. 2d., but were ultimately compelled to withdraw said petition, in consequence of a difficulty as to proving the application of the freemen to be admitted to have been in due manner and form.

Mr. KNIGHT.-You mean to stop there?

Sir W. FOLLETT.-I will read on. They say, that when the Society was remodelled at the election which took place in February, 1832, and the majority no longer consisted of members of said twelve Companies, said Society found themselves compelled to pay the debt incurred by such Society, but did not think it right to take any further proceedings in respect of

the rights of said freemen, which would entail expense on said Society however, they say they furnished William Taylor Copeland, Esq. one of the aldermen of the City of London, with the information obtained by said Society, in the prosecution of said contest; and said Alderman Copeland, at his own expense, became a candidate at an election which took place for the next Parliament; and having a majority of votes (if said parties claiming to be admitted as freemen were entitled to vote, but not otherwise,) also, at his own expense, petitioned against the return of Sir John Poer Beresford, who was returned by the said mayor of Coleraine; and it was decided by the Committee of the House of Commons, to whom such petition was referred, that said Alderman Copeland was duly elected the burgess for said borough; and he has ever since represented the same in Parliament, and as in manner aforesaid established the rights of said parties claiming to be admitted freemen under said charter; and, save as aforesaid, defendants deny that said Society, in the year 1831 or 1832, or at any other time, advanced or paid large or any sum or sums of money, in or about the election of such burgesses or members to serve in Parliament, as in said bill mentioned, or in promoting the election of Members of Parliament for the city of Londonderry, or the town of Coleraine, or of any member for the time being of said Society, or of any person; and they admit that the aforesaid sum of 6831. 2s. 2d. was derived from the rents and profits of said ferries, fisheries, and town land." Then I put it to your lordships, whether I at all overstated, I think I understated, what they state in their answer.

Mr. KNIGHT.-The fact is that you were members of the Society.

Sir W. FOLLETT.-Aye, we shall come to that by and by; that is to say, the members of the Irish Society had been elected by the Common Council, and they had elected from the members of the Common Council generally, who were members of the twelve Companies; and that is one strong ground to show they were persons acting on behalf of the Companies; but does it follow that individual members of the Corporation of London, who are elected into the Society to

be trustees of the Companies, that they have a right to be expending the money of the Companies in elections? I say that it is a gross breach of trust admitted by them. It is a breach of trust taking place no longer ago than 1831, after the time when they ceased to pay the dividends to the Companies.

But that is not all: I say that the funds of this Society have been wasted and misapplied; they have set out their account for eight years, up to the year 1832; they have set out the accounts at length. I charge this Society, which is constituted, as your lordships have heard, by the Common Council of London, and who would no doubt, for the purpose of protecting their interests, be as much as possible persons connected with the Corporation;-I charge them, when they have become members of that Society, instead of attending to the interests of the Companies whom they ought to represent, that they have been guilty of a breach of trust towards those Companies.

This is a part of the accounts; here are the receipts and expenditure for eight years, taken from the accounts ending 1832. The average of the receipts for the indivisible property, from 1824 to 1832, was 10,863l. 8s. 6d. The average annual expenditure for managing this property is 5,0347. 9s. 11d. I do not wonder at my learned friend being astonished. It does seem startling. The receipt is 10,000l., and 5,000l. is expended in some way connected with the management of the property. Now I will give my learned friend the heads for the whole eight years. Salaries in Ireland, 4,6077. 11s. 3d.; salaries and gratuities in England, 5,9731. 16s. 9d.; surveying expenses, 187. 12s.; law expenses, 8,0397. 10s. 5d.; incidental expenses, Ireland, 3,837. 2s. 8d.; incidental expenses in England (I do not know what these can be), 2,7291.; deputation ditto, 3,0257. 13s.; tavern expenses (it does not state whether in England or in Ireland), 3,7997. 2s. 3d.; allowance to members (that is, the members of the Society themselves), 3,4137. 10s. Every time they meet it appears that they receive a certain sum, and that amounts in eight years to 3,4137. Irish chambers expenses, 4,7697.; taking the average of that it comes to 5,034l. 9s. 11d. Now I think these come strictly under the head of management: whatever other disbursements they

have made within that time, these at least are the expenses of managing the estate; and I apprehend that your lordships would say that an estate of 10,0007. a year must be mismanaged if the expense of that management is half the rental.

My Lords, if the Society have been in the habit, or have advanced any sums towards any public purpose whatever connected with the benefit of the north of Ireland, I state on the part I believe of the Companies generally, and certainly on the part of the Company that I represent, that there is not, and there never was, any wish to control the expenditure. I mean not to find fault with any expenditure for the advantage of Ireland; but when we find those expenses to consist of salaries to officers, and fees to members, and portraits, and tavern expenses, and pieces of plate, and expenses of dinners, running away with half the income, it becomes the duty of the parties interested in this property to inquire into it.

My Lords, these facts alone will satisfy your lordships, that there has been mismanagement of this property. Then, I submit that this Society having no possible means of repaying the Companies of London, having no funds whatever, your lordships will interfere to protect this property. If your lordships are satisfied, as I apprehend that you must be, that they are trustees, this management will satisfy your lordships that we are entitled to have this motion. It is gross mismanagement; it is a breach of trust; it is a refusal to account to the Companies; it is expending money in a way not connected with the benefit of the Companies, and in a way which, as trustees, they have no right to do.

My Lords, I understand it is said, that some part of the money they have expended has always been applied to public purposes in Ireland, in connexion with the promotion of the Protestant Church; and so on. I have looked through the books, and I can find no trace of any expenditure of the Irish Society, down to the year 1682. Then it appears that certain advances were made to the city of Derry; and in 1682, there was a payment to Bennet for some service he rendered. Then there were the grants to the city of Londonderry. We can find only two sums that have been advanced towards the Pro