1838.-The Skinners Company v. The Irish Society.

was better to reserve the common property for the general purposes of the plantation, than to make division of its whole income, and resort to taxation and levies to defray the expenses which might from time to time be required.

[*640]

*It is clear that the general operation of the plantation was not completed at the time when the distribution of lands was made to the companies. It was indeed strongly urged in argument, that the general operation, although not then complete, was not long afterwards, or at all events was very long since, completed, and that thereupon, if not before, and in consequence thereof, the Society became mere trustees for the companies but I do not think that this court has jurisdiction to determine the question whether the general operation of the plantation has been completed or not, and if it had, it does not appear to me that there is any satisfactory evidence on the subject, or any thing to show that operations materially affecting many important objects of the plantation and requiring expense may not still have to be performed; and if such should be the case, it does not appear to me that this court has, on the application of the plaintiffs, jurisdiction to inquire or give directions about such operations.

And on the whole, the question is reduced to that which was made on the motion for the payment of money into court, and for a receiver, whether, upon the settlement made in the north of Ireland, by virtue of the charter of King James the First, under which the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine were founded, and a large tract of country granted by the Crown to the Irish Society, the terms of the grant simply constituted the Irish Society ordinary trustees for the benefit of the companies of London, or whether the grant was coupled with certain public purposes and public trusts, independently of the private benefit of the companies.

After having considered the charter of King Charles II., and

the charter of King James I., and the several circum[*641] stances in evidence in this cause, which preceded "and accompanied the grant of the charter of King James, and having read all the documents produced in this cause, to some only of which, though at the expense of so much time, I have

1838. The Skinners Company v. The Irish Society.

but shortly adverted, and having also considered the conduct of the parties under the charter for so long a series of years, I am of opinion that the powers granted to the Society, and the trusts reposed in them, were, in part, of a general and public nature, independent of the private benefit of the companies of London, and were intended by the Crown to benefit Ireland and the city of London, by connecting the city of Londonderry and the town of Coleraine, and a considerable Irish district with the city of London, and to promote the general purposes of the plantation, not only by securing the performance of the conditions imposed on ordinary undertakers, but also by the exercise of powers, and the performance of trusts, not within the scope of those conditions.

The charter of Charles II. expressly recites, that the property not actually divided was retained for the general operation of the plantation; and considering that the powers given to the Irish Society for the general operation of the plantation were of a general and public or political nature, that the property remaining vested in the Society is applicable towards such general operation, and that the companies of London, though interested in any surplus which may remain after the general purposes are answered, are not entitled to control the exercise of the powers which are given for general and public purposes,-I do not think that this court has jurisdiction, upon the application of the companies, to determine upon the propriety of the expenditure which has been made. It must not be inferred that I approve of some of the items of expense which were commented upon in the argument. I express no opinion upon the subject, *think- [*642] ing that the Society have a discretion, which, though controllable elsewhere, and in another manner, is not to be controlled in this court upon such a bill as this.

And upon the whole I think that the bill must be dismissed with costs as against the Irish Society, the city of London, and the Attorney General: without costs as against the other companies, unless it shall appear that any of the companies have opposed the claim of the plaintiffs.