this proviso valid? The question is nearly the same, though not quite, as would have arisen in case Lord Alford had not, within five years after becoming Earl Brownlow, become Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, carrying over the estates to Charles Henry Cust, viz., its validity treating it as a condition subsequent. The question would then have been whether a condition defeating a vested estate, in the case mentioned, was good. I am clearly of opinion that it is. First, it is said, that such a condition is void, for no man can at his own pleasure, or by any exertion of his own, become or cause another to become a Duke or a Marquis; and it is certain that no estate, once vested, can be defeated by a condition that the grantee shall do an impossible act. The fallacy of this argument is in the meaning which it attributes to the word "impossible." The doctrine is confined to acts in the nature of things impossible, and where, therefore, the condition would in effect be repugnant to and nullify the grant. It certainly does not extend to cases which may possibly happen, however improbable they may be. It is not in the nature of things impossible that the Earl Brownlow should be made Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, with the required limitations to particular heirs male of his body. It is not certainly in the power of Earl Brownlow to bring about such a result. If, indeed, the condition had been that the plaintiff should create Earl Brownlow Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, then it would have been void, for by law this cannot be done. Is, then, the condition void as being against public policy-i.e., as tending unduly to in

fluence the Crown in conferring or withholding honours? I think not. There can be no doubt as to the power of the Crown to grant such a dignity; and I think it must be assumed that it will be granted or withheld according to what may seem just and fitting to the Sovereign, without reference to the interests which may be collaterally affected by the grant. Her Majesty must be taken to stand perfectly neuter and indifferent between the heirs of Lord Alford on the one hand, and those of Charles Henry Egerton and others on the other; and I do not see that there is any pressure on the Sovereign to make rather than abstain from making the grant. As to arguments that have been used, that the condition might embarrass the Crown under some possible circumstances, I think it sufficient to say, that if such improbable circumstances should occur, it must be presumed that the Crown would do what was right without any regard to the interests collaterally affected.

The only other ground relied on by the plaintiff was, that the proviso had a direct tendency to induce Lord Alford to use corrupt means for obtaining the proposed object. But this is not so. The object proposed is, that he should become Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater. To hold that this necessarily or naturally imports that he should use corrupt means for attaining the end in view, would be to hold that such means were the necessary or natural steps towards the object in view. Prima facie it must be supposed that such a condition will influence the party affected by it so to act as to merit the favour of the Crown, by rendering eminent services to the State, not by

acting dishonourably. Nothing is more common than to devise a living to a son if he enters holy orders here the natural course to attain such a purpose is, by good moral conduct and competent study to fit himself for the holy office. There is a possibility that he might do it simoniacally, but such a possibility can never surely be contended to affect the validity of the devise. I think, therefore, that, unless the use of corrupt means must necessarily or naturally be understood as those to which the party was intended to resort, the condition is not void, merely because it may induce the party to attempt by unlawful means to obtain what by the condition it was meant he should get by lawful means. I therefore think the proviso is a valid proviso. His Lordship then overruled the demurrers. The effect of this judgment is, to deprive the heirs male of the body of Lord Alford of their rights to these immense estates, unless the present Earl Brownlow shall be created Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, with limitation of the title to the heirs male of his body by his late wife Lady Sophia Egerton. It is said that the case is to be carried to the House of Lords.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, DUBLIN.

December 5, 1851.

BIRCH v. SOMERVILLE, Bart.

This very singular action, besides the notoriety of the parties engaged, and the curious revelations it produced as to the state of Ireland during the last two years, was productive of further consequences of more importance; having been

made use of by the opponents of the Whig Government generally, and in particular in the motion of Lord Naas in the House of Commons, which immediately preceded the resignation of Lord John Russell and his colleagues.

The plaintiff, Mr. Birch, was the proprietor of an Irish newspaper called the World, and the defendant, Sir William Somerville, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The action was brought to recover the sum of 70001. under the usual counts for work and labour done, materials supplied, &c. The defendant brought the question to a point by pleading the general issue-that is, simply denied that he was ever indebted as alleged.

The most eminent counsel of the Irish bar were engaged on either side.

Mr. Whiteside, for the plaintiff, stated that his client was the proprietor and editor of a weekly paper called the World, published in Dublin, and was a man of great talent and tact, extensive knowledge, and thoroughly acquainted with the political bearings of all matters, domestic and foreign, and in especial intimately versed in the feelings, passions, and interests of the Irish people, the intricacies of family policy, and the objects and means of all parties by whom society in Ireland is moved. This gentleman, so qualified, and wielding so powerful an engine as the press, was struck with dismay at the disastrous state of Ireland in 1848, when society was greatly convulsed, and the people seemed on the point of breaking out into a formidable rebellion; he accordingly offered his services to the Irish Government, proposing to devote his talents and influence, by the means of his newspaper, to

the support of law and order, and in resistance to anarchy and confusion. The Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Clarendon, and Mr. Connellan, his secretary at Dublin, gave a favourable audience to this proposition, and Mr. Birch was, as he said, engaged in the defence of law and order, and was to receive certain pecuniary support. Mr. Birch did accordingly use every exertion in his power to support the cause he had undertaken, and had, by means of his own writings, and those of others employed by him, and published in his paper, done very great service in the cause of law and order; and the ill success of Mr. Smith O'Brien's unhappy outbreak, and the speedy and satisfactory manner in which the country had settled down after its suppression, were due in no small degree to the exertions of Mr. Birch. For these services, he had at various times received from the Earl of Clarendon and Sir W. Somerville sums of money amounting in the whole to 37001., being the first reward of his services to that time. This engagement was a still subsisting engagement, and it was for the proper remuneration of the services since rendered that the present action was brought. In the course of the case the learned counsel read letters from Mr. Connellan, the secretary to Lord Clarendon, from Mr. Meredith, Sir William Somerville's secretary, and from other official persons, suggesting to the plaintiff points and subjects on which his articles were to be composed.

The first witness called was the plaintiff himself, who deposed to his interview with Lord Clarendon, who referred him to Sir W. Somerville; that he was engaged to write articles in support of the Government; that he had received

sums of money from Sir W. Somerville, Mr. Connellan, and Mr. Meredith, as payment for his services: he had continued rendering these services to the Government in his paper, from 1848 up to January, 1851; and that he believed the sum of 6500l. was due to him by the defendant.

He was then cross-examined by Mr. Brewster, for the defendant. Plaintiff.-Upon my oath, as an honest man, I think that sum is due to me by Sir William Somerville. I do not charge by the article or by the week, but rather by the year.

What is your charge per annum? Look up, Sir, if you can look up, and answer me: what do you think would be a proper remuneration for your services? Witness.-I think that for the support of such a Government, a very large remuneration should be expected.

Do you mean that for the support of such a bad Government you should be very well paid? Witness.-No, I don't mean that.

Did you think it was a good Government? Witness.-No, I looked upon it as rather a mixed Government.

Did you think it was a Government which merited your support? Witness.-I did.

Did you think there was any baseness or corruption in supporting that Government? Witness. I did not.

Now, tell us how much a year you were to get for what you did? Witness.-I have not ascertained the exact amount.

Upon your oath, how much a year ought you to get for your ser vices? Witness (after some deli beration).-I think 5000l. a year would not be too much. (Laughter.)

Well, that is an extremely moderate charge, and I have no doubt

What is the price of your paper? Witness.-Sixpence for one copy. During the time these arrangements were going on with the Government, you acted, I presume, on the sole responsibility of Sir William Somerville? Witness.I carried it on for the Government.

Did you consider Sir William Somerville as your sole debtor, and the person whom you would be entitled to sue, when you entered into the new arrangement in June, 1848? Witness.-Yes.

Let that answer be taken down; it is very important. Witness.Oh, I consider that I had a claim on Lord Clarendon also.

Did you ask to be appointed Collector-General of Taxes? Witness. I did not, but if I did, I think I ought to get it for my services.

How much did you get altogether from Sir W. Somerville and Lord Clarendon? Did you not receive 17007. in addition to the 2000. you had from his Excellency? Witness.-I did.

And now you swear you are entitled to 6500l. more? Witness. I think I am.

The Earl of Clarendon was next examined. He stated that, having received several communications from Mr. Birch tendering him his services in support of the Government in 1848, he felt that it was his duty at that critical period to accept the services of every man who offered himself in support of law and order; and that he wrote to Sir William Somerville, saying that if Mr. Birch, the editor of the World, should call upon him, he had written in defence of law and order, and that if any persons referred to him in England to inquire whether that was the case, he might say that it was so. He also had said that Sir William might give Birch some money.

Examined for the plaintiff, by Mr. Meagher.-Had Mr. Birch, to your Excellency's knowledge, been supporting the Government before for any considerable time? Lord Clarendon.-Supporting the Government! no, I should say not. I sent for Mr. Birch in consequence of his offers to me to support law and order. He had repeatedly offered to do so during the year 1847, and had sent me his papers, and written me various letters; which were simply acknowledged. I afterwards saw Mr. Birch, and told him that he might write as he offered. I told him at the same time, I wished for no support to the Government; and that, as far as I myself was concerned, he might abuse me as much as he liked, as it was perfectly indifferent to me.

Am I to understand that your Excellency did accept his services on that occasion? Lord Clarendon. Yes, to write in defence of law and order.

Did you see articles in support of law and order in his newspaper

afterwards? Lord Clarendon. Yes, I did occasionally.

Is it not a fact, that up to January, 1851, he continued to publish those articles in defence of "law and order "? Lord Clarendon.I am not aware that "law and order" wanted any defence up to 1851.

Well, in defence of the general policy of the Government? Lord Clarendon. I cannot say that he did; but, in fact, I never read his paper at all.

Did your Excellency make any payment to Mr. Birch for his services in defence of law and order; and might I ask you what sums? Lord Clarendon. He received sums at various times; I could not exactly name the amount which I paid him. The first time I saw him he asked me for money. I told him there were no funds applicable to such purposes. He

then said he did not ask me for it for his own remuneration, but because he should be otherwise unable to procure agents to extend the circulation of the paper. I then offered him 1007. if I remember rightly, for it did not make any great impression on me at the time. He said that would not be sufficient for his purpose; and I think it was then extended to about 3501. This was in the beginning of February, 1848, if I remember correctly.

Did your Excellency know that any further sums of money were paid to Mr. Birch in London? Lord Clarendon.-Yes.

Is your Excellency aware from what fund it came ? Lord Clarendon. From a fund placed at the disposal of Sir William Somerville, at my request.

Out of the public funds, was it? Lord Clarendon.-I could not say it came out of the public funds.

I said it was a fund placed at the disposal of Sir William Somerville at my request.

Allow me to ask your Excellency, whether they were or were not public funds? Lord Clarendon.

Part of what Mr. Birch received was from money applicable to special services, and part was out of my own private pocket. The part which was from the money applicable to special services was advanced at my request and on my own responsibility; and was repaid by myself very long ago.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brewster. Is your Excellency aware that altogether Mr. Birch got 37001.? Lord Clarendon-I am.

Was every farthing of that money from you? Lord Clarendon.-Every farthing.

And not a farthing of it from Sir William Somerville? Lord Clarendon.-Not a farthing.

The moneys he gave the plaintiff were advanced to him by your Excellency? Lord Clarendon.Entirely so, or at my request, and I was responsible for them.

I mean that. Then, throughout the whole transaction Sir William Somerville acted simply as your agent? Lord Clarendon.-Simply as my agent, and solely by my instructions.

Re-examined by Mr. Meagher.Was the 20001. already referred to paid in consequence of an agreement? Lord Clarendon.-It was. Is it in writing? Lord Clarendon.-It is.

Is that in your possession? Lord Clarendon.-Yes, but not actually in my own immediate possession.

Has your Excellency got it in your pocket? Lord Clarendon.— No.

Was that 20001. paid in full liquidation of .१