this was conscientious, and but involuntary, to blame it is almost idle, the thing being inevitable. In all that belongs to principle, all that is of "Tipperary" is jingle-headed, and must, I suppose, ever so remain, until the parents of Irish boys shall have a better way of directing their lively minds. The same might be A learned said of this learned gentleman's protest against the "unconsti- protest against tutional" nature of the motion in Mrs. Talbot's case. But on unconstituthis point, while "Tipperary" is most likely quite out of its tionalism. own depth, it ventures to dabble, in its loose way, with that which seriously affects our own rights, and therefore, as it pretends to help to represent us, it should be pulled up for misrepresenting what belong to ourselves.

Where, I should be glad to know, did Mr. Whiteside get his notion, that such complaints before our House are not allowed by the Constitution? "Unconstitutional" is a large word, and more easily pronounced than it is easy to name an Irish lawyer with honesty and courage enough to stand up for what the Constitution says. The judgments of judges cannot be every day subject to cavillings in the people's House. But if the right of the people, out of doors, as stated for us by our Lord Chief Justice, be correct, what becomes of the denial pronounced by jingle-headed "Tipperary," when it says that the people's representatives in-doors, have not the right "stringently and freely to comment and canvass?" The learned and Irish gentleman seems never to have reflected, as of course the English Salaried Judge did, that there may be occasions, in the administration of judges of the people justice, when the injustice done is too outrageous for the people will not be permitted to regard it in silence, and they therefore should be allowed to to commit have their say. Being a member of the people's House, he is yet, perhaps, not aware that that House, in a right state of its own constitution, has for ages maintained, in accordance with the doctrine of Lord Campbell, a standing Committee of Justice," for Commons a the purpose of inquiring into those very matters of grievance, of Justice. the looking into which, now, is so "unconstitutional" in the eyes of Irish lawyers. Much hopes for England, in anything to be gained for her by such learned representatives as this! We have from them no vociferous expressions against parcelling out the House into scores of committees on what is called "private business;" no solemn protests against putting twelve members of or twenty Honourable Members into a separate room, to hatch Parliament a "job," even though the hatching may produce mischief to iniquity. Ireland. Nay, not even when the undertaking or speculation,

felony with impunity.

House of

Committee

Honourable

hatch

resulting m gain to a handful of sharpers, may bring about, in the end, the ruin of thousands of honest men!

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

March, 5, 1856.

SAXON

TO THE PRESIDENT AND ASSEMBLY OF

PATRIOTS.

Mal-prac

tices in the

GENTLEMEN.

In the year 1832, I commenced business as an hotel-keeper, Irish Court at 36, Upper Sackville-street, Dublin, and therein embarked a of Chancery capital of £3000 and upwards. In May, 1833, I made an assignment of my hotel and property-the property then being of the value of £8000 and upwards-in trust to my creditors, for the purpose of securing the debts then owing by me to the said creditors. Trustees were appointed, namely, James White, Robert Courtney, and George Kernan; the terms of the trustdeed were to allow me five years and eight months from the date of the same.-To carry on my business as an hotel-keeper, on the same premises, without any arrest, attachment, execution, impediment, or molestation whatsoever against my person or estate, and in the event of the creditors acting contrary thereto, their debts should be forfeited, and their demands rendered null and void, according to the terms of the said trust-deed. And at the expiration of five years and eight months, my debts being duly discharged, a re-assignment of the property was to be made to me. The trustees were bound to superintend the management of the hotel, to receive all and every sum and sums of money, and out of the first profits to reimburse themselves all costs, charges, and expenses of making out the said deeds: in the face of this covenant, they allowed their solicitor, John Knight Boswell (a man who has stated the grossest falsehoods to my prejudice) to sue me in the Court of King's Bench for the costs of preparing the said trust-deed, and for which I was arrested. There was also a covenant in the trust-deed providing that nothing therein contained should in any way be construed, so as to interfere in any way with my situation as messman to the Guards in the Royal Barracks. In face of this covenant. James White, the principal and acting trustec, went to the

An u'

truthful solicitor.

An atrocious backbiting trustee.

Royal Barracks and grossly misrepresented me to Colonel Egerton, the commanding officer of the Guards, and got the supply of the wines to the officers out of my hands.

On the 18th of December, 1833, the trustees served a notice on me, that in three months they would sell the hotel, in consequence of an alleged breach of covenant on my part; whereas, in fact, no breach of covenant had been committed by me, nor had the trustees power to sell under the deed, had they honestly fulfilled their trust. Shortly after the execution of the said deed, George Milliken, brother of Thomas Read Milliken, my landlord, and in family connected with James White, the principal acting trustee-the said G. Milliken, a young man then about twenty years of age-got married, and there being no way of providing for him but by robbing me, and destroying my family, it was carried into effect under the cloak and colour of proceedings in the Irish Court of Chancery, on the 9th of April, 1834. James White, Robert Courtney, and George Kernan, trustees under the said deed, filed a bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, under the pretence of carrying the trust of the said deed into execution; but in reality to rob me. I was served with a subpoena on that day to appear and answer the said bill of complaint, which subpoena I handed to my then attorney, James Robinson, for the purpose of taking the necessary steps for my defence. On the 18th of April, 1834, Robinson, not having entered appearance for me that day, an attachment issued against me for want of appearance and answer. On the 25th of April, 1831, the trustees as plaintiff's, by counsel and their solicitor, J. K. Boswell, moved the Rolls Court, for an order of reference to one of the Masters to approve of a fit and proper person as receiver or manager over my hotel and property; and inasmuch as Charles Hogan, Six Clerks, admitted notice of said motion on my behalf, and no one appearing to oppose the said application, it was ordered by the Master of the Rolls, that it be referred to Master Connor, to approve of a fit and proper person as such receiver or manager over my hotel and property, George Milliken, brother to Thomas Read Milliken, my co-defendant in the suit, was appointed receiver and manager, a young man who had scarcely ever been inside an hotel. Thomas Read Milliken my said co-defendant, and James White, plaintiff, were sureties for the said George Milliken. On the 13th of May, 1834, the said George Milliken, having perfected his sureties, entered the hotel to take possession thereof,

Legal robbery in the Irish

Court of

Inquisition

Cruel im

ordered by

in company with his brother Thomas Read Milliken, my co-defendant, and followed me from room to room saying "Get out, get out, or I will get the police to turn you out." On the said 13th of May, another attachment issued against me for want of appearance and answer. On the same day Charles Hogan entered an appearance for me and prayed time to answer. Is it possible that John Brennan, Six Clerks, and J. K. Boswell, plaintiffs' solicitor, could come to the knowledge that Charles Hogan, Six Clerks, and James Robinson, solicitor, were employed by me eighteen days before an appearance was entered for me in court, only by a private understanding!

On the 14th of May, 1834, I was arrested for want of answer prisonment and thrown into gaol: the said Robinson, my solicitor, filed my answer, and I was liberated the same day: Thomas Read Inquisition. Milliken, my co-defendant, did not file his answer for a month

the Irish

English and

are a safe refuge for

mercenaries.

afterwards, but he was not arrested. During the time I was in prison, Boswell went to the hotel, and in a cowardly manner insulted Mrs. Tommey, and told her that her husband was in gaol, and in irons, under an order of the Court of Chancery, and would never be liberated. He (Boswell) also gave directions to the servants in the hotel, to obey Mr. Milliken, as he was their master then. On my return to the hotel after my liberation, the receiver, George Milliken, renewed the same system of annoyance, by ordering me out of the hotel, &c.

On the following day, the 15th of May, George Milliken made an affidavit, forgetting all sense of truth and justice, and swore that if either me, my wife, or son, were allowed to remain in Irish Courts the hotel, or interfere with the management thereof, it would of Chancery be ruined and destroyed.-On that affidavit a writ of assistance was obtained behind my back, by which myself, wife, and children, were turned out of house and home into the streets, like dogs, at a moment's notice, and stripped of everything we were possessed of, contrary to all law and justice. The only way to account for such false swearing on the part of George Milliken, is, that he purchased the hotel and property under an unjust of the Irish decree, made in the cause by Sir Edward Sugden, as he George Milliken wanted to carry on the hotel on his own account, which he has since declared on oath. Witnesses were examined on both sides, and the cause came on to be heard before Sir Edward Sugden, the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland. On the 29th, 30th, and 31st of January, 1835, the plaintiffs taking up the whole of the first day of the hearing, and the greater part of

Atrocities

Court of

Chancery.

the second day, and out of 10 depositions on behalf of my defence, only about eight were read; but notwithstanding my defence was barely entered into, my case suppressed, and my rights compromised by my counsel, Mr. Francis Blackburn, Mr. Devonshire Jackson, Mr. Robert Warren, Mr. Barlow, and Mr. Heartless reptiles of Robert Disney, solicitor,-on the rising of the court on the the law. second day of the hearing, Sir Edward Sugden stated from the bench, "he would dismiss the plaintiff's bill, they having no right to file it,-the meeting of creditors in January, 1834, having waived all notices in their bill of complaint, the trustees had neglected their duty, and he put little faith in their evidence." That day the court rose early, there being a levee at the Castle; and there is no doubt the plaintiff, by some means, got to Sir Edward Sugden, and represented to him there would be many ruined by their bill being dismissed, as is evident by the observations of Lord Cranworth in giving his judgment in the House of Lords on the 5th of April, 1853, which is hereafter referred to. On the third day of the hearing of the cause, immediately after Sir Edward Sugden had taken his seat on the bench, he asked, "Does not this case close here?-is Tommey in possession of the United Service Club ?" "Yes," answered Mr. Serjeant Sir Edward Warren, one of my counsel, "and in the receipt of £800 a Sugden's year," and he acknowledged his client had done wrong. And treachery. although Sir Edward Sugden had expressed himself so favourably in my behalf at the rising of the court the day before, yet he decreed a sale of my property. Lord Plunkett, in 1836, made a Lord decree on further directions, when he was pleased to state from Plunkett's the bench, "Recollect, gentlemen, I did not make this decree, (meaning the decree of Sir Edward Sugden,) for your proceedings are wrong altogether; they cannot, nor will they stand: for you had no right to take the law into your own hands, and turn that poor man (meaning me) into the street in the manner you did." George Milliken purchased the hotel and property under the decree, and carried it on for his own benefit.

heartless

decree, &c.

tices of the

officers of

the Irish

Court of
Chancery.

In 1837, I filed a bill of review and reversal, and made the Malprac original plaintiffs, and Thomas Read Milliken and George Milliken, defendants,-George Milliken demurred to the bill, and the demurrer was allowed against me. In 1838, I came to London for the purpose of appealing to the House of Lords against the decree of 1835, which Lord Chancellor Cottenham Lord Chanrefused, it being too late, but allowed me to appeal against an tenham's order of Lord Plunkett's made on a petition presented by me to refusal, &c.