apportionment of the surplus rents of the divided lands; that they were the parties to exercise their discretion; and that they did not take the lands as trustees for the Companies, nor do they now hold them as trustees for the Companies.

My Lords, I will take from my learned friends themselves the statement of the claim made on the part of the defendants. The claim that they make is totally inconsistent with their filling the situation of trustees to any extent for the plaintiffs upon this record-it is an utter repudiation of the trust-it is a claim to exercise, to an unlimited extent, their own discretion entirely—And, my Lords, what is it that they claim? Is it that they have received this property as trustees solely and exclusively on the part of the Crown, or on the part of the public? That is not the claim they set up. It is a claim to do what they please with the property, according to their will and pleasure, and give over the surplus. But if they have a right to dispose of the whole of the fund, that is giving to them the absolute disposal; it is not giving it to them as trustees, in which character they are not entitled in any way as regards the Companies, to dispose of the funds. The first view we have to meet is the one I have presented to your lordships, namely, that they are not trustees in any way whatever for the Companies. Now, they say, we are making an application to your lordships in a preliminary stage of the cause, to decide a question that would be better decided upon the hearing. I apprehend that this motion may be decided by your lordships without deciding the cause, and that your lordships, according to the practice of the Court, will grant this motion, being bound, according to precedent, to grant it, upon the facts stated, without deciding the main question in the cause. But if they choose to raise the question now, and say they are not trustees--if they put their resistance to the motion upon that ground, and if all the facts and all the documents are before your lordships, as they are if all the evidence is before your lordships, as it is, and just as they will be upon the hearing, I do not know that it makes any difference, and that the real question between the parties may not be decided by your lordships just as well upon the motion as upon the hearing of the cause. That is the

course they have taken-they have put forward the documentary evidence; and the ground that they take is, that they are not trustees for the Companies.

Now let us see how that is made out. My learned friend, Mr. Knight, says "You admit that this Society once had certain public purposes to perform; when did they cease to have those public purposes to perform? You admit that the King's object was a public one, and that this Society was created for that purpose; when did that cease?" Now I do not admit that. There is a fallacy in my learned friend's argument, and contradiction in that part of the argument, by the view taken on the other side. I do not admit that this Irish Society ever had any public purposes to perform entrusted to them, if by the public purposes my learned friends mean that they had ever any control over the property, under the grant by the Crown, to apply these profits or revenues according to the discretion of the Society. If that is what is meant, I say they never had any such public purpose to perform; and again my learned friend assumes that I have admitted that this Society was created by the King to carry into effect the King's object. I admit no such thing, I believe no such thing; and it is quite inconsistent with the view taken by others of my learned friends, Mr. Kindersley, this morning,-and by themselves, the Irish Society. It was not created by the King to carry into effect his object; it was a Society, as they have said, emanating from the City of London; to use Mr. Kindersley's words, "It was a machine of the City of London; the object was to have a machine to assist the persons contracting to carry on the work;" it was suggested by the Common Council of London, formed by them, and proceeding from the City, and not appointed by the King for any purpose of the King, nor for any public purpose; it was to guard the interests of the settlers in the place, but not to protect the interests of the King in the planting of the North of Ireland.

In order to see this, I must carry your lordships back to the history of the transaction. I am aware you have been wearied by the constant allusion to the older documents in the case; but I think it right to carry back your minds for a moment to

the history of the case. I do not admit what Mr. Knight assumes was admitted, that this Society proceeded from the King, or was founded for public purposes. How did it originate? You remember what was read to the Court at the opening of the motion. The plan of the King was, to grant the forfeited estates in the six northern counties of Ireland to any English or Scotch Protestants willing to settle there. Now one would suppose, from the argument of the whole of my learned friends, that the King's object was confined to granting lands in the county of Londonderry, which the City of London had subsequently taken: but the object of the King was to grant the lands in the six northern counties. The first document was the proposal of the King, which is contained in the first pages of this book, addressed to persons willing to undertake the settlement generally, and not addressed exclusively to the City of London, or confined to the county of Londonderry, but applying to the whole of the six northern counties, and addressed to any of the King's English or Scotch subjects. Now it was the general object of the King to introduce the Protestant religion. That was the great public purpose, to have this part of Ireland planted with English or Scotch subjects. That was the great object, no doubt, to have the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone planted like Londonderry; but I deny that there is any trace in any of these documents that that purpose was not intended to be carried into effect, and was not carried into effect by the grant of the lands to the different settlers, the settlers taking the lands granted upon the terms, and for the objects there stated; those terms being, that they should build their castles upon the estates, and collect their tenants round those castles-that they should erect fortifications, and build houses, and carry into effect the object the King had stated; and these conditions are imposed applicable to the different classes of persons that held the lands. My learned friends have been eloquent upon the introduction of the Protestant religion into the North of Ireland, and the object of the King in so doing: but can they contend that it was confined to the county of Londonderry?—that the great object of the King, in colonizing the North of Ireland,

was confined to that county? The object included the whole six counties, and the documents in the first six pages of this book apply to the undertakers in every county. Will they say that those gentlemen now holding lands in those counties are holding them upon public trusts? I could mention the names of many gentlemen who are holding lands granted to their ancestors at that time, and which have been in their possession without alienation from that time, paying the fee-farm rent. Do my learned friends mean that those gentlemen hold those lands for any public purpose, or that they are bound to contribute, as Mr. Kindersley says, brass ordnance and shrapnel shells? The King's object was carried into full effect when he got Protestant gentlemen to take lands so granted in the North of Ireland. It is distinctly stated that the object of it was to get Protestant settlers there; and when they were there, his object was carried into effect.

Then, my Lords, comes the county of Londonderry. There are certain motives held out to the City of London to undertake the settlement of that particular county, the county of Derry; the advantages are held out, and pointed out specifically to the City-the peculiar situation of the river for trading; and their recollection is called to the fact, that the citizens of Bristol had formerly planted Dublin, which was the most prosperous part of the King's dominions. It would hardly be contended now that the property granted to the citizens of Bristol in Dublin was subject to any public trust. The object was to get them to settle upon those lands, and having got them to settle there, and having brought their tenants about them, the English or Scotch, and prevented the Irish holding them, the object was completed. It cannot be supposed that the King meant to entrust the defence of the county of Londonderry to the City of London, and that they were to find ammunition, and provide troops. The duty that they were to perform is written in plain language. The King stipulates on one side, and they stipulate on the other-it is not left to conjecture; you have the original stipulations, and the original undertaking: it is not left to the lapse of time; you have the written document, and upon that it is the Court, I apprehend, are called to decide. These

motives are communicated to the City of London; -what takes place then? It is said that the City of London were not very willing to undertake it according to the terms proposed. Probably they were not; probably they felt themselves obliged to do it, in consequence of the position they stood in at the Court: they were not very willing to do it. Then they make a pro. position to the twelve Companies to get deputies appointed to consider of it, and to send persons to Ireland to inspect and examine it; and there is a report made by the persons so selected in favour of the settlement of this part of Ireland.

My Lords, we are coming now to the history of this part of the transaction, in order to see whether this Society is, as my learned friends say it is, a society appointed by the Crown to apply the rents and profits of the lands forfeited, which the King was to grant,-not only the lands they now have, but the lands the King was to grant in Derry, to be held in perpetuity, to apply the rents and profits in any way they thought good for the benefit of Ireland; or whether it is not a grant to the Corporation to hold for those Corporations, in the same way as the King had granted to other Corporations or individuals. The twelve Companies agreed to advance the money; and I was much surprised at my learned friend's contending that the twelve Companies had not advanced the money. I apprehend they have advanced every farthing of it. It is true, as the Recorder has stated, that the advance was made by the members of the twelve Companies; and no person could be a freeman of the Corporation unless he was a member of one of the twelve Companies; and therefore, no doubt, there was a most intimate union and connexion between the City of London and the twelve Companies, and that the Corporation of London, as my learned friend has stated, was nothing but an emanation of the twelve Companies: that was my learned friend's statement, and no doubt it was correct. Then they, being so applied to, applied to the twelve Companies, and they agreed to advance the money. I am wishing to avoid confounding the two things regarding the claim of the Crown, and the claim of the City. I am referring to the claim set up by Mr. Knight, that the Irish Society had some trust-that they were consti