r 
 
 i 
 
 ri 
 
 r 
 m 
 o 
 
 z 
 
 I 
 
tatam^mmmiw ■iiiiLJiLiiicMMHMii ii,._ jm lli_»^ O — Ci /=i — i^' - - 
 
 LENTEEED AT STATIONEJ; ■ ^""^ 
 
 } 
 
 Justice Perverted! 
 
 BY 
 
 
 LORD ST. lEONAKDS. 
 
 '■ Will time ever purge Fraud ? Never while I sit here ! Every delay adds to the injustice and 
 raultiplies the oppression ; and no wrong is without a remedy."' — Lord North. 
 
 L— The Address. III.— The Petition. 
 
 IL— The History. IV.— The Appeal. 
 
 ROBEllT DAVEY, TICHBOKNE COUET, HIGH HOLBOJiy 
 
 LO^^DON, AV.C. 
 
 
 )) 1861. V-"^ 
 
 i 1^ y^ .^^ir*^ 
 
JUSTICE PEKVERTED ! 
 
 BY 
 
 LORD ST. LEONARDS, 
 
 Will time ever purge Fraud ? Ne^r while I sit here ! Every delay adds to the injustice an4 
 multiplies the oppression ; and no wrong is without a rewecZy/'-— Lord North, 
 
 I.— The address. 
 11— The history. 
 
 III.— The petition, 
 IV.— The appeal, 
 
^^5onf5 
 
 ROBERT DAVET, PRINTER, 
 
 TICHBOBNE COURT, HIGH HOLBOBN, LONDON. 
 
ilt^ ^Ur\u, 
 
 1861 
 
 To THE Profession : — 
 
 There is no order in the community more contemptible than that of those prac- 
 titioners in the law, who, without one liberal principle of justice or equity, possess 
 a skill in little else but quibbles, and in those points by which Chicanery is taught 
 to proceed with impunity— Cunning enabled to elude the spirit by misrepresenting 
 the letter— and Truth perplexed, obscured, and lost in the mazes of mystification. 
 
 It is indeed surprising that many who call themselves men of honour, and who 
 profess to have had a liberal education, should allow themselves, even in the practice 
 of their profession, to assert palpable falsehood,— to confound the clearest evidence,— 
 and defend, with all the appearance of sincere conviction, what they know to be 
 altogether indefensible. It is not an admissible apology to assert that their pro- 
 fession requires such an abasement ; for a similar justification might be offered by 
 the sharper or the highwayman. There are, undoubtedly, certain laws of honour 
 and truth established in the heart of every honest man, of which no regard for lucre 
 or Jesuitical pretence of necessity can justify the infringement. 
 
 There seems, indeed, to be a very unfortunate error, in many— among the students 
 of the law— who value abilities and technical knowledge at a higli rate, but entertain 
 no great esteem for goodness of heart and integrity of conduct. While the world 
 allows them abilities and knowledge, they depend, with security, on tergivisation and 
 mal-administration. Indeed, we have had living examples to prove, that however 
 bad the morals of a man, if the impudence and eloquence of the lawyer are approved 
 he may have what briefs he pleases — and even be advanced to the dignity of a Lord 
 Chancellor ! In whose court Law is to be corrected by Equity and where the Con- 
 science of the Judge has the chief control. 
 
 Whatever be the abilities of a man, yet, if he be notoriously irregular and intem- 
 perate—in violation of those laws which are prior to all human laws— he ought 
 not to be promoted to any offices of trust or honour, — particularly in the law. 
 
 Though, therefore, the student in the law may see such men advanced and en- 
 couraged, let him not be deluded; if he is wise, he will still give his greatest atten- 
 tion to the cultivation of a pure and honest heart— this will engender more satisfac- 
 tion than was ever derived — to a bad man — from the insignia and emoluments of 
 office and the fees bestowed by popular favour. Whatever practice or preferment 
 can be acquired consistently with this accept with gratitude ; but if the public or 
 the rulers of a nation still prefer the bold pretender, whose appearance and abili- 
 ties arise from that audacity which accompanies a bad and unfeeling heart, despise 
 all that they can bestow. Remember ! that this fife is short, and that there M 
 
IV, addr:ess. 
 
 another^ that this world is a place of probation, the next of reward ; that a pure 
 heart, a clean conscience, an independent spirit, and a soul that spurns the lucre 
 which is to be gained by unmanly and time-serving servility, are infinitely superior 
 to the possession of the. Seals with their usual appendages, — a Peerage ! and a 
 Pension ! ! 
 
 With respect to the modes Cf preparation for this profession, I see, with regret, 
 that an illiberal method prevails, in many instances, by confining the future advocate 
 to the desk of some practising lawyer and teaching him the ordinary routine 
 business, where he sits and copies dry formalities which tend to contract instead of 
 expanding his mind ; and which, without he possess a remarkable dulness of dispo- 
 sition, he cannot attend to, and by these means he acquires a narrow and confined 
 mode of thinking which a liberal mind would despise. He then becomes, as it were, 
 a spider, spinning foul cobwebs in the dark recesses of the heart and endeavouring 
 to entrap those diminutive objects which a more generous animal would not deign 
 to ensnare. 
 
 The true method of arriving at an eligible species of eminence in the study of 
 the law is to enlarge the capacity of the mind by a comprehensive and classical 
 education ; the study of humanity ; and a general and enlarged philosophy — moral, 
 national, and theological ; these ought to form the firm basis of the superstructure. 
 To this should be added ancient and modern History, general jurisprudence, and a 
 thorough acquaintance with the spirit of the law in all the civilized nations of anti- 
 quity. Long and accurate observation of men and manners ought to be added, and 
 the virtues of exemplary benevolence and humanity should complete the fabric. Such 
 should be the preparation. "What it is we have already seen ! ! 
 
 Whoever has read the works of Cicero will remember how great a share of learning 
 he requires in his orator, — who was, indeed, a pleader and advocate ; but not such 
 a pleader or advocate as many who have disgraced our modern courts of Judicature, 
 The great statesmen of Rome supported the character of lawyers with a peculiar 
 dignity unknown to modern institutions. Adorned with philosophy as well as law 
 they descended into the courts to defend their clients, — not with the hope of a paltry 
 fee, but induced by the pure motives of friendship and humanity, with a desire of 
 doing good and a regard for justice. Men, it is true, must live by their professions, 
 and, therefore, the disinterestedness of the ancients, who had other resources, can- 
 not be universally imitated. But, surely, in an age that pretends to peculiar illumi- 
 nation and philantrophy, and among people who have long professed a most humane 
 religion, it is wonderful to find men who assume so important a profession, ready to 
 defend any side for pay, — which not only tends to harden the heart and deaden the 
 feelings of humanity but stifles all the sentiments of true honour and integrity. 
 
 AUCTORITAS. 
 
 London, July 1861. 
 
i;h^ PJstor|. 
 
 
 
 'JSr THE Thirteenth of May, One thousand Eight Hundred and 
 Thirty-three I made an assignment of my Hotel and property (of the value 
 of <£8,000) in trust to my creditors for the purpose of securing the dehts 
 then owing by me to them ; Trustees were appointed, viz., James White, 
 Eobert Courtney, and George Kernan. The terms of the trust deed were 
 to allow me five years and eight months from the date of the same, to 
 carry on my business on the same premises, without arrest or attachment 
 against my person or estate^ and at the expiration of the term, my debts 
 being duly discharged, a re-assignment of the property was to be made to 
 me, and it was further provided, that in the event of the creditors acting 
 contrary to the deed, their debts were also to be forfeited, and the Trustees 
 were to 'pay all expenses of the deed out of the first profits of the business. 
 
 In the face of this covenant they set their solicitor, John Knight 
 Boswell, to sue me in the King's Bench for the costs of preparing the 
 Trust Deed, (about <£80) and for which I was arrested. 
 
 There was a further provision in the Deed, that nothing therein 
 contained should in any way be construed so as to interfere with my 
 situation as Messman to the Guards in the Royal Barracks. 
 
 Yet in spite of this, James White, the acting Trustee, went to the 
 Barracks and so grossly misrepresented me to Colonel Aitchison, that he 
 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 for an aUeged breach of 
 covenant on my part, ahhough I had committed none, neither had the 
 Trustees power to sell under the Deed had they acted honestly. 
 
 Shortly after date of Deed, George Milliken (brother of Thomas Read 
 Milliken, my landlord, and in family connected with James White the 
 acting Trustee) then about 20 years of age, got married, and wishing to 
 provide a home and business for him by the ruin of my family, it was 
 carried into effect by the facilities then afforded by the Irish Court of 
 Chancery as hereinafter shewn. 
 
 * See Sir Edward Blakelej's Deposition/pa^* 18. 
 
^ht $ttiim. 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Session 1861. 
 
 Kotice of Motion to be given on the subject following : — 
 
 Extract from Sixteenth Eeport of the Select Committee on Public Petitions. 
 
 " TOMMEY, HENRY.— For Inquiry. 
 
 " 11,267, April 23. Henry Tommey the elder, of No. 12, Hemlock Court, Carey Street, in the 
 county of Middlesex, Gentleman, formerly the proprietor of the hotel in Upper 
 Sackville Street, in the city of Dublin, known as 'Tommey's Hotel,' (Mr. Brady)." 
 
 " The Petitioner states that in 1848, he appealed to the House of Lords from a Decree of * 
 ** the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, of 1836. The said Appeal came on for hearing in 1850, 
 •' when, no Respondents appearing, the said Decree was reversed ; the Bill of the Respondents 
 ** dismissed with costs ; and the cause remitted back to the said Court of Chancery. In the same 
 " year the Respondents prayed that the appeal might be re-heard, but the House decided they could 
 " not grant a re-hearing unless by authority of an Act of Parliament ; and subsequently in 1852, 
 " the Respondents presented a second petition for re-hearing, and the proceedings arising out of 
 *' the Order of the House of Lords were stayed ; in 1853, the second petition for re-hearing came 
 " on for hearing, and the previous orders made in the case were discharged ; he alleges that undue 
 " means were employed in this matter, and complains of having sustained losses to the extent of 
 "£150,000 ; and prays for inquiry into his case and circumstances, and that he may have justice." 
 
 Sir, — May I respectfully call your attention to the abstract of the petition quoted 
 above, and ask you to read the petition in extenso, whereby you will be made fully acquainted 
 with the ruin that has been entailed on the petitioner, whose only hope is redress by means of a 
 Committee of Inquiry ; having no support but 9d. per day, for services rendered his country 
 many years since. 
 
 It may be said that the House of Commons cannot have anything to do with this case, 
 as it was a case in the Lords ; the answer to this is ready and simple. The judicial branch of 
 the legislature has done a wrong to the petitioner. Mr. Barber got compensation for a wrong 
 by the Executive, and Col. Keogh now seeks by petition presented by Whiteside, 13th March 
 last, compensation for a wrong by a Court of Justice in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Brady, the M.P. for Lei trim, has presented the petition, and is truly anxious to 
 assist herein ; but requests the co-operation and support of other members. May I therefore 
 ask your support and assistance herein. Yours respectfully, 
 
 G. HETHERINGTON, 
 2, Manchester Buildings, Westminster. Agent for Petitioner. 
 
 To the Illegal E-eadeb : 
 
 A simplification of the following mystification will be found at pages twenty-three 
 and twenty-four of this pamphlet. 
 
 PETITION. 
 
 On the 9th day of April, 1834, James White, Eobert Courtney, and 
 George Kernan, then severally of the City of Dublin, (trustees named 
 in a certain indenture of trust bearing date the 13th day of May, 1833, 
 and executed by me) exhibited their Bill of Complaint in her Majesty's 
 High Court of Chancery, in Ireland, against me and one Thomas Read 
 Millikin ; amongst other things, setting forth the said indenture of trust, 
 and praying that a sale might be had of the property and term demised 
 by said indenture of trust, and that an account might be taken ; and that 
 they the said trustees might be put into the immediate possession of, or 
 that a receiver or manasrer might be appointed over the premises in said 
 
Deed and said Bill of Complaint mentioned, of which said premises I 
 was and am owner, and absolutely entitled thereto notwithstanding any 
 deed or act whatsoever made or done by me in relation to the said 
 premises. 
 
 On the 25th April following the trustees, by means of fraud, collusion, 
 and misrepresentation in the said Court of Chancery, obtained, exparte, an 
 order for the appointment of a receiver over my property, the subject 
 matter of the trusts in said Deed contained, which fraud was afterwards 
 shown on Appeal to the House of Lords. 
 
 George Millikin (who was related to James White, acting trustee, 
 and brother of Thomas Read Milliken) was appointed receiver, and 
 in conjunction with said trustees, obtained by surprise, (upon an affidavit 
 containing wilful and corrupt perjury made by him) and without me 
 being heard, an order for the dispossessal of me and my family by means 
 of a Writ of Assistance, thereby carrying into immediate effect the 
 object which the trustees and said Millikins had in view, that is to say, 
 to deprive me and my family of all we were possessed, and turn us out 
 of house and home before I could resist their fraudulent efforts, which 
 resistance I was prevented from making, by means of the aforesaid fraud 
 and collusion, and which said fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation were 
 aided and participated in hy several officers of the said Court of Chancery, 
 who were Jor years continued in office in said Court ; and have since been 
 permitted to retire upon a pension granted out of the accumulated Suitor's 
 Fee Fund of said Court of Chancery, 
 
 The aforesaid fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation in the said Irish 
 Court of Chancery, and the said dispossessal were a breach and violation 
 of the covenants in said Trust Deed contained, and which gave me full 
 and absolute liberty, power, and license to continue and carry on my 
 business in the said trust premises for a term of five years and eight 
 months from the date of said indenture, without any arrest, attachment, 
 impediment or molestation whatsoever, against my person or estate by any 
 of the parties thereto, or by any of their means, procurement, or consent. 
 
 Having filed my answer to said Bill of Complaint and witnesses having 
 been examined on all sides, (pursuant to order made on the 9 th June, 
 1834,) the said cause came on to be heard in Hilary term, 1835, before 
 Sir Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and 
 hereinafter more particularly named. 
 
 The reading of evidence adduced by said trustees and said Millikins, 
 occupied the court nearly two whole days, and I attended the said 
 hearing and was present in said Irish Court of Chancery when the 
 depositions of two witnesses, taken on my behalf, were read by my 
 counsel, and I then distinctly heard the said Sir Edward Sugden, as such 
 Lord Chancellor, declare from the bench—" That the said trustees had wo 
 " right to file said Bill of Complaint, and that he would dismiss it; that 
 " he put little faith in their evidence, and that the meetmg in January, 
 "1834, was a waver of all notices ;" whereupon the court adjourned. 
 
 Notwithstanding this declaration, and notwithstanding also the letter 
 of Hcense granted, as aforesaid, to me by the said indenture of trust, the 
 
8 
 
 hhii Sir Edward Sngden came into Court on the following morning and 
 desired to know '' if the case did not close there,'" — and without going any- 
 further into the case," and having assumed that I was then in receipt of 
 £800 per year from the Hibernian United Service Club, he did, as 
 such Lord Chancellor, on the 30th January, 1835, order and decree that 
 all my property in said deed and said Bill of Complaint described and 
 mentioned (the furniture alone exceeding in value the sum of £8000) 
 should be set up and sold • and after directing certain unnecessary 
 accounts to be taken, ordered a continuance of said receiver or manager, 
 thereby confirming my dispossessal, and the fraud, collusion, and mis- 
 representation aforesaid ; which decree was enrolled in said Court on the 
 20thday of May, 1835. 
 
 Nearly all the property sold under said decree was purchased at an 
 under value by the said receiver, for the purpose of carrying on for his 
 personal benefit the business which I had established, and had carried 
 on with such advantage and profit to myself and family, that it was 
 capable of yielding profit to the amount of £4,000 a year, and upwards ; 
 which, together with other sources of business and profits would have 
 realized me an annual profit of £6,000 and upwards, all of which have 
 been lost to me by the proceedings and acts of said trustees, the said 
 decree, and the orders hereinafter mentioned, bearing date respectively, 
 26th June, 1852, and the 5th April, 1853. 
 
 A decree, upon further directions, was made in the cause, by which 
 the proceeds of said sale amounting only to £2,500 or thereabouts were 
 distributed amongst the said Millikins and the said trustees, their several 
 costs being included among the collusive claims, set up by them as 
 having been incurred in and by the proceedings instituted by them as 
 aforesaid, which decree was not enrolled in the said Court of Chancery 
 until the year 1849. 
 
 I was prevented by want of means, and by imprisonment at the 
 instance of one or more of said colluding parties, from appealing to the 
 House of Lords against the said decree of 30th January, 1835, before 
 two years had elapsed from the enrolment thereof, or in time to stop the 
 progress of sale by an order of the House of Lords. 
 
 In the month of June, 1837, I presented a petition to the late Eight 
 Honourable Lord Plunket, then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, setting 
 forth my grevances and praying restitution of my said property, which 
 I was actuated to do, not having the benefit of professional advice or 
 assistance, and relying upon the declaration of the said last mentioned 
 Lord Chancellor of Ireland made in open court on the 3rd day of June, 
 1836, that is to say " that said trustees had no right to take the law into 
 " their own hands, and that the proceedings so instituted by said trustees 
 " were wrong altogether — that they could not, nor would they standi 
 
 That the late iSir William MacMahon Master of the Eolls in Ireland;, 
 in the year 1836, and every Judge before whom my case was brought 
 (except Mr. Blackburne, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Mr. 
 J. B. C. Smith, the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, hereinafter 
 jseverally named) have expressed themselves in open court to the efiect 
 
9 
 
 that the said proceedings were wrong, that said trustees had no right to 
 a sale or any other relief sought by them, and so fraudulently obtained 
 as herein shown, 
 
 " No rule" was raade upon said petition ; in the month of March 1839, 
 I appealed therefrom to the House of Lords, which appeal was dismissed 
 on the 27th August, 1839, upon the ground, "that the appeal was not 
 "a2:ainst the decree of 1835, but from an order making 'No Rule' upon 
 " the petition aforesaid and that upon such a petition no relief could be 
 " granted against a decree enrolled." 
 
 In^ the year 1844, the said Sir Edward Sugden, having been re- 
 appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland, I forwarded to him a petition for 
 restitution to my property a,2:ainst the decree pronounced by him as 
 aforesaid, when the said Sir Edward Sugden sent direction to me "to 
 " bring my case regularly before him in the said Irish Court of Chancery, 
 " and that he (said Sir Edward Sugden) would give me justice." 
 
 In the month of June, 1844, I filed a Bill of Review and Reversal in 
 the said Irish Court of Chancery, thereby impeaching the said proceed- 
 ings for fraud. 
 
 After some extraordinary orders made on said Bill of Review by ilfr. 
 Blackhurne, then Master of the Rolls in Ireland, (whereby the general 
 order of Court was relaxed in favor of said trustees, and Millikin, to my 
 prejudice. Demurrers for want of Equity were allowed by the said 
 Master of the Rolls on 30th January, 1845, who in pronouncing 
 Judgment expressed his '• regret (in open Court) that he could do 
 "nothing more against me," and upon appeal to said Sir Edward Sugden, 
 the orders allowing said demurrers, were by a decree dated 14th February, 
 1845, affirmed; notwithstanding the undertaking of the latter Judge to 
 do me justice. 
 
 On the 5th day of February, 1846, I appealed to i\iQ House of Lords 
 from said demurrer orders and the decree of said Sir Edward Sugden, on 
 appeal therefrom, and I was advised to include in said appeal the 
 aforesaid decree of 30th January, 1835, but which proceeding was not 
 allowed when the said appeal came on for hearing at the Bar of the 
 House of Lords, for the reason (as expressed by the late Earl Cottenham) 
 " that the decree of January, 1834, was not made in the same cause with 
 " the said demurrer orders and decree thereon in the year 1845." 
 
 The Right Honourable Lord Brougham was present at the Hearing 
 of said second appeal, and concurred in the opinion expressed as aforesaid 
 by said Earl Cottenham as to the irregularity of including the said 
 decree of 30th January, 1835, in an Appeal from sabs^^quent Orders 
 not made in the same Cause with that Decree and in consequence 
 thereof the said decree of 30th January, 1835, was neither reversed nor 
 affirmed by the said House of Lords, nor was the same, then adjudicated 
 upon, but the other orders and decree appealed from by the said second 
 appeal were on the 8th July, 1847, affirmed, and the said appeal was 
 dismissed as being " an appeal against the said orders on demurrer,^! 
 " 30th January, 1845, and the said decree on appeal therefrom ot tne 
 " 14th February, 1845." 
 
10 
 
 In the following Session of Parliament (that is to say, on the 23rd 
 May, 1848) under the foregoing circumstances I obtained leave to 
 present an appeal from the said decree of 3rd June, 1836, and other 
 orders in the said cause, with liberty to apply, if so advised, for leave 
 to extend my last appeal, when the same should be before the House, to 
 the said decree of 30th January, 1835. 
 
 Having in the month of June, 1848, presented my last appeal against 
 the said decree of 3rd June, 1836, as also against the said orders of 25th 
 April, 1834, and 15th May, 1834, and all the proceedings had in the' 
 said cause, thereby praying a reversal of same, and that I should be 
 restored to the possession of my property ; and the order to answer said 
 last mentioned appeal, (which was the third appeal) having been duly 
 served on the said trustees, and said Thomas Read Millikin, (respondents 
 to said appeal), I subsequently presented a petition for leave to extend 
 my said last appeal to the said decree of 30th January, 1835, as having 
 been made in the same cause with subsequent orders appealed from, and 
 on the 2nd September, 1848, I obtained an order for leave to amend my 
 said last appeal by extending same to the said decree of 30th January, 
 1835, which was accordingly done, and by my printed case upon said 
 last appeal set forth the several proceedings appealed from, and the 
 aforesaid fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation in the said Irish Court 
 of Chancery, by means of which such proceedings were had. 
 
 The said last appeal was the first and only time upon which the 
 merits of my case were brought under consideration of the said House of 
 Lords, and the same was duly and regularly brought to a hearing at the 
 bar of the House, and upon the second day of hearing the Right 
 Honourable Lord Brougham (then presiding in the House of Lords) 
 stopped the address of my counsel (Sir John Romilly, now master of the 
 Rolls) by saying " Stop ! Stop ! ! Romilly, for God' s sake stop I ! ! I have 
 " heard sufficient to show that there was something wrong in the Court 
 " helow ; I mean a miscarriage in the proceedings,'' and in giving judg- 
 ment his Lordship's words were, " We are bound to give this poor Man all 
 " the justice we can, had he applied to us sooner, we would have 
 *' stopped the sale of his property. 
 
 On the 2nd July, 1850, it was Ordered and Adjudged by the Lords 
 Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, " That the said decrees 
 ''of the 30th January, 1835, and 3rd June, 1836, and all orders arising 
 " or proceeding out of the said original suit or incidental thereto, be and 
 " the same were thereby reversed, and that the Bill of the said James 
 " White, Robert Courtney, and George Kernan, in the said cause in the 
 "said Court of Chancery in Ireland be and the same was thereby 
 " dismissed with co*^ts, to be paid by the said James White, Robert 
 " Courtney, and George Kernan to me ; and that the costs in the said 
 " cause which had been paid to or received by the said James White, 
 " Robert Courtney, and George Kernan, any or either of them, out of 
 " the funds to the credit of the said cause in the said Court of Chancery 
 *' in Ireland, or otherwise, either under the said decrees thereby reversed 
 " or either of them, or under any order in the said cause and in aU suits 
 
11 
 
 « arising or proceeding out of the said original suit or incidental thereto, 
 "should be repaid by the said James White, llobert Courtney, and 
 " George Kernan to me. ^ And it was further ordered, that the cause be 
 " remitted back to the said Court of Chancery in Ireland, to do therein 
 " as should be just and consistent with this Judgment." 
 
 Although the aforesaid orders of 25th April, 1834, and 15th May, 
 1834, were reversed by the said order of 2Qd July, 1850, yet the LorJs' 
 order of 1850 was silent, as to the effect thereof, with reference to those 
 officers of the said Irish Court of Chancery, who had aided and partici- 
 pated in the fraud and collusion by which the said orders of 1834 had 
 been obtained, the said officers not being parties to said appeal ; and said 
 Lords' order was also silent as to the nature and extent of further relief, 
 which as I am advised and believe would have resulted from said order 
 upon ulterior proceedings being taken by me to carry out the intent 
 of said House of Lords' order, by bringing before the Court all the con- 
 federates of said trustees. 
 
 About three weeks after said last mentioned order was pronounced by 
 the House of Lords, the respondents James White, Robert Courtney, 
 and George Kernan, presented a petition to the House of Lords praying 
 that the said appeal as amended might he re-heard. 
 
 That a report, which I believe to be a true statement of facts, and of 
 which the following is a copy, appeared in the Times Newspaper of 26 th 
 July, 1850, under tlie head of 
 
 APPEALS— HOUSE OF LOEDS. 
 ToMMEY V. White. — Complaint by Lord Brougham. 
 
 " It will be in the recollection of our readers that Lord Brougham, some week or two since, 
 ** gave judgment in this case, overruling the decree of the late Lord Chancellor. Since that 
 ** time a petition has been presented to the House bj the respondents, praying that the Appeal 
 ** may be again heard by Counsel this morning. 
 
 *' Lord Brougham, when the first case was called on, said, (holding up a letter between his 
 " finger and thumb) * I have received this letter, which I shall hand over to Mr. Lefevre ; it is 
 " a most irregular proceeding, and I excuse it only on account of the ignorance of the party. 
 " Mr. White, is he here? ' By-the-bye, no answer was made to this exclamation.) ^ * My Lords, 
 ** this was an exparte case ; there were no respondents appeared at your Lordships' Bar, and 
 ** judgment was pronounced. Mr. White called upon me at my house, but I would not see him ; 
 " and then afterwards he wrote this note, which I now shall hand to Mr. Lefevre. It is most 
 " irregular, it is a most improper proceeding. Similar letters have been written to the learned 
 " Judges — and where they would have had a more hurtful effect than this letter has had in the 
 *' present instance, because, in those other cases, it had been before the judgment had been 
 " delivered that the letters have been sent, but in this particular case it is after the Judgment has 
 " been delivered, and, therefore, it is impossible to undo what has been done , except by Special 
 " Act of Parliament. This was a most improper act on the part of Mr White,' 
 
 " At the end of the Appeals, the Lord Chancellor having taken his seat on the Woolsack, 
 « and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge having taken the oaths and his seat. Lord 
 " Brougham said he understood that Mr White, the respondent in the case of Tommy v. White 
 *' which he had occasion to mention at an earlier part of the day, was m attendance upon their 
 « Lordships. He would, with the permission of the House, move that the gentleman should be 
 « called to the Bar and asked for an explanation of the course he had pursued, and what it 
 ** was that he required. . , v, + v, 
 
 " Mr. White having been called up to the Bar, said, in reply to the question, that wMt ne 
 « wanted was, that he might be heard by counsel at the Bar of their Lordships House, in an- 
 " swer to the case which had been heard on behalf of the appeUant, the fact was, that tno 
 " respondent's case had not been heard at all. 
 
12 
 
 " Lord Brougham explained that the case had been heard exparte for this simple reason, 
 " that although the respondent had lodged his case he had failed to appear at the Bar when the 
 " matter had come on for hearing in the usual order and the usual way. His Lordship then 
 " went into an outline of the case. After some further discussion upon additional explanation 
 '' by Mr. White,— 
 
 " The Lord Chancellor said that there appeared to be no grounds advanced bj the Peti- 
 " tioner to warrant their Lordships in granting the prayer of the petition that the appeal should 
 ** be heard over again. The party had not thought proper to appear when the case had come on 
 *' for argument in the regular order, the Counsel in support of the Appeal had been heard, and 
 ^^ final Judgment had been pronounced hy their Lordships. What had been done, therefore, 
 •' could not he undone, except hy Act of Parliament. 
 
 " Mr. White then withdrew." 
 
 The late Lord Truro was then Lord High Chancellor of England, and 
 the House of Lords fully and unanimously acquiesced in the said last 
 recited decision. 
 
 Now I am advised, and I humhly submit and insist that the aforesaid 
 Judgment of 2nd July, 1850, was final as to all matters thereby adjudi- 
 cated upon, and should not have been disturbed upon any pretence what- 
 soever, without the concurrence and authority of the House of Commons. 
 
 The said order of 2nd July, 1850, was duly received iii the said Irish 
 Court of Chancery, and proceedings were taken to carry the same into 
 effect, which resulied in a decree of the said Court, dated April, 1851, 
 whereby I became entitled to the sum of £1,607 19s. 2d. as against said 
 trustees, being the ascertained amount of costs, directed by said order of 
 the House of Lords to be repaid to me. 
 
 The said trustees used every means in their power to delay and 
 frustrate the progress of said proceedings, to gain time for the purposes 
 hereinafter stated. 
 
 In the month of November, 1851, I presented a petition to the then 
 Lord Chancellor of Ireland against the trustees, and the solicitor and 
 officers of the Irish Court of Chancery who had aided and participated 
 in the fraud and collusion which had been put in force against me in the 
 year 1834, as hereinbefore shown, upon which petition an order was made 
 by his Lordship, directing all parties to attend in Court on the next day 
 for hearing petitions. 
 
 This petition came on to be heard before the Right Honorable 
 T, B. C. Smithy then and now Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and the 
 parties being in attendance, his ILmor dismissed the petitions with costs, 
 upon the alleged ground " that the officers of the said Court had only 
 " done their duty," thereby acquiescing in the fraud and collusion 
 perpetrated by them as aforesaid. 
 
 In open court I objected to the Judgment of said Master of the Rolls, 
 but was prevented from appealing to the said Lord Chancellor by an 
 order of the House of Lords dated 5th April, 1853, as hereinafter shown. 
 
 Pending such proceedings under the said order of 2nd July, 1850, the 
 said triisiees caused to be prepared a certain pamphlet or libellous publi- 
 cation animadverting upon the said Judgment of the House of Lords 
 and grossly misrepresenting the facts of the case and perverting the truth. 
 
 This pamphlet entirely suppressed the fraud, covin, and misrepresenta- 
 tion perpetrated in the Irish Court of Chancery by the trustees and 
 
18 
 
 certain officers of the Court of Chancery acting in collusion with them ; 
 and the same was prepared under the revision, and with the concurrence* 
 approbation, and consent, (as I am informed and believe) of the said 
 Sir Edward Sugden, and was afterwards circulated amongst Members of 
 the said House of Lords. 
 
 Pending also such proceedings, and whilst the pamphlet was in 
 preparation and so circulated, the trustees made fraudulent disposition 
 and transfer of their property to evade the performance of the decree of 
 April, 1851, and thus to defeat the operation and intent of the said 
 House of Lords' order of 2nd July, 1850, and I was driven to file a 
 Cause Petition under the Chancery (Ireland) Regulation Act, 1850, to 
 set aside such fraudulent disposition and transfer of property, and which 
 said Cause Petition was subsequently brought to a hearing in the said 
 Irish Court of Chancery, as hereinafter more particularly shown. 
 
 In the year 1852 the said Sir Edward Sugden was on the change of 
 Her Majesty's Ministers elevated to the peerage by the style and title of 
 Baron St. Leonards, and was then appointed Lord High Chancellor of 
 England. 
 
 Shortly after such appointment, another petition, signed by Charles 
 Edward Jemmett, solicitor (who is brother to the son-inlaw of said 
 Lord St. Leonards), was prepared and presented to the House of Lords 
 on behalf of said trustees, (notwithstanding they had absconded to evade 
 performance of the decree of the Court, and were then actually in 
 France), and by which petition it was, amongst other untruths and 
 misrepresentations stated, that the said decree of 30th July, 1835 had 
 been affirmed by the said Lords' Order of 8th July, 1847, which I here 
 show was not the fact ; and it was by said petition distinctly averred 
 that if the said Judgment of 2nd July, 1850, were carried into effect, it 
 would cause the ruin of all their families ; and the said trustees, by said 
 last mentioned petition, again sought a re-hearing of my said last appeal, 
 and prayed that all proceedings under the said order of 2nd July, 1850, 
 might be stayed. 
 
 Thomas Haughton White, solicitor for said trustees, hereinbefore and 
 hereinafter more particularly named, on the 3 1st May, 1852, served said 
 petition of re-hearing on me in the said Irish Court of Chancery, whilst 
 I was attending the hearing of aforesaid cause petition before the Right 
 Honorable Francis Blackhurne, then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who 
 pronounced a decree in said matter, which decree has had the effect of 
 coi.firming the aforesaid fraudulent disposition and transfer of property 
 by the said trustees ; and I here show that said Francis Blackhurne was 
 Attorney-General for Ireland in Hilary Term, 1835, and had been my 
 counsel at the aforesaid hearing of said original cause before Sir Edward 
 Sugden, and was Master of the Rolls in Ireland in the year 1845,when the 
 orders on demurrer were made by him against me as hereinbefore shown. 
 
 Notwithstanding objection to said petition of re-hearing was taken by 
 me, yet all proceedings taken by me under the said order of 2nd July, 
 1850, were (without my said objection being heard) stayed by an order 
 of the said House of Lords, dated June, 1852, and made while the said 
 
14 
 
 Lord St, Leonards held the custody of the Great Seal of England, and 
 "While acting in his capacity of Lord High Chancellor and Speaker to the 
 House of Lords, and it was by said order Ordered that the matter of 
 said second petition for re-hearing of said last appeal, and the matter also 
 of a certain other petition presented to said House by me (amongst other 
 things praying for " security for costs, and that said trustees might be 
 " directed to lodge with the proper officer of the House of Lords the said 
 "sum of i?l,607 19s. 2d., and also praying that Thomas Haughton White, 
 " solicitor, as aforesaid, and the son of one of the trustees, being also the 
 " Mr, White mentioned in the aforesaid report of the Times Newspaper 
 " of 26th July, 1850, should be called to the Bar of the House to answer 
 "for the contempt therein published") should be argued at the Bar of 
 the said House of Lords by one counsel at a side. 
 
 This petition of re-hearing was, subsequently, (that is to say, early in 
 the Session, 1853) argued at the Bar of the said House of Lords by one 
 counsel on behalf of me, and by two counsel on behalf of said trustees, 
 one of the latter (a hr, Reilly) being another son-in-law to said Lord 
 St. Leonards; while the petition presented by me (mentioned in said 
 order of June, 1852) was not considered by the said House of Lords. 
 
 Lord St, Leonards ceased to be such Lord High Chancellor of 
 England prior to petition of re-hearing being argued, and I caused to be 
 served on the agent for said trustees a notice of my intention of objecting 
 to said Lord St. Leonards taking any part in the decision to be made on 
 said petitions, a copy of which notice was left with the Deputy Clerk of 
 Parliament. 
 
 In consequence of my said objection the said Lord St, Leonards did 
 not attend the House of Lords on the hearing of said second peti- 
 tion of re-hearing, but effect was given to the prayer thereof by Lord 
 Cranworth^ then Lord High Chancellor of England, upon the ground as 
 hereinafter shown, " that if Judgment were given in my favor ^ twenty 
 families (those of the respondents to said appeal) would he ruined" 
 and I declare that this ground of such Judgment must have been 
 suggested by said Lord St. Leonards by extra-judicial communica- 
 tion ; in proof whereof, as evidence of the fact that acts have been 
 committed with reference to the said order of 5th April, 1853, which 
 call for the investigation thereof by Parliament ; I refer to the said 
 hereinbefore recited extract from the averments of the petition of re- 
 hearing, prepared in manner aforesaid by the said Charles Edward 
 Jemmett, such extract having reference to said suggested ruin of families^ 
 and the report of the Times Newspaper of 26th July, 1850, hereinbefore 
 set forth. 
 
 That on the 5th of April, 1853, Lord Cranworth pronounced the 
 Judgment of the House of Lords on said petition of re-hearing when 
 I was present, and I distinctly heard the said Lord Cranworth, while 
 delivering his Judgment, state the following words, that is to say, — 
 " Admitting the decree of 1835 to be wrong, and I know it to be wrong, 
 "yet if we give Judgment in Tommey's favor there will be twenty 
 " families ruined," the said Lord Cranworth also stated " that he was 
 
" satisfied that all notices required for the purposes of said appeal had been 
 '' duly served upon the respondents, save and except only the first notice of 
 " petition for sessional orders, which it was immaterial whether served or 
 " not," and the said Lord Cranworth in pronouncing Judgment, adopted 
 the suggestion contained in said second petition of re-hearing to the 
 efi'ect " that the said decree of 30th January, 1835, had been affirmed by 
 " the said House of Lords' order of 5th July, 1847." 
 
 Notwithstanding the said judgment and decision of the House of 
 Lords on the 25th July, 1850, it was by an order dated 5th April, 1853, 
 " Ordered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, 
 " that the said orders of the 23rd May, 1848, and 2nd September, 1848, 
 " respectively made in the said House in the said cause, upon reports 
 " from the appeal committee, and also the said order of the said House 
 "of the 2nd July, 1^50, ordering and adjudging as therein mentioned 
 " be and the same were thereby discharged. And it was further ordered 
 " that the said Court of Chancery in Ireland do deal with the said cause 
 " remitted back to the said Court by the last mentioned order o f the 
 " 2nd July, 1850 as might be just, having regard to the fact that the 
 " several orders aforesaid had been discharged by the said House by 
 the said (now recited) Order. 
 
 The said orders of 23rd May^ 1848, and 2nd September, 1848, were 
 duly brought under the full, mature, and deliberate consideration of the 
 said House of Lords, whilst the appeal in relation thereto was being 
 argued at the Bar of the said House, and previous to the said Judgment 
 being pronounced on the 2nd July, 1850, and the correctness and 
 regularity of the same were duly shown and admitted by the said House 
 of Lords ; and the said orders of 23rd May, 1848, and 2nd September, 
 1848, having been severally confirmed by the said order of 2nd July, 
 1850, made upon the hearing of said last appeal at the Bar of the House 
 of Lords, I most emphatically insist that it was incompetent to the said 
 House of Lords to discharge either of said orders upon a petition of 
 re-hearing, or in any manner to interfere therewith, unless upon a re- 
 hearing of the appeal itself. 
 
 My extraordinary case was too well known to all the Officers of the said 
 House of Lords^ who were engaged in the judicial business of the House, 
 to admit of any incorrectness or irregularity ever being practised, or to 
 admit of any misrepresentation being made in prosecuting the appeal of 
 1848 before mentioned, even if I or my agent had been inclined to be 
 culpable thereof; and the said ofiicers were, one and all, so cognisant of 
 the facts of this case, and the several appeals theretofore brought by me 
 to that House, that it would have been an utter impossibility for me or 
 my agent, or any other agent, to have misrepresented the same, or to 
 have acquired any unfair or undue advantage, even in the absence of the 
 respondents to said appeal, the said officers having attended the appeal 
 committees, upon whose report the said orders of 23rd May, 1848, and 
 2nd September, 1848, were made. 
 
 The said House of Lords' officers and the said appeal committees made 
 the strictest and most searching inquiry into all the facts and circum- 
 
18 
 
 stances of the case before making the reports upon which the said orders 
 of 23rd May, 184S and 2nd September, 1848, were made, and upon 
 each occasion of appearing before the said appeal committees all the 
 proceedings in the said original cause in the said Irish Court of Chancery- 
 together with the aforesaid House of Lords' order of 5th February, 1846, 
 and 8th July, 1847, and all orders made by the said House of Lords on 
 the two former appeals, and all the House of Lords' reports of the hearing 
 of said appeals were fully brought under the consideration of the said 
 several appeal committees 
 
 The late Earl Cottenham, then Lord High Chancellor of England, 
 moved the Judgment of the said House of Lords on the two former 
 appeals, that is to say, on the 2Tth August, 1839, and 8th July, 1847, 
 respectively, and the said Earl Cottenham was Lord High Chancellor of 
 England at the several and on the several occasions when said appeal 
 committees made the several reports on which the said orders of 23rd 
 May, 1848, and 2nd September, 184S, were respectively made, and his 
 lordship was present at both of said appeal committees, and during the 
 whole of the time the said appeal committees were occupied in relation 
 thereto ; and his lordship had been present also upon all the appeal 
 committees on the two former appeals, and Earl CotPmham having made 
 a searching inquiry into the facts of the case, and circumstances 
 attendant upon the two former appeals and the proceedings in the said 
 Irish Court of Chancery, declared himself perfectly convinced '•'•that the 
 " said decree of Z^th January, 1835, had not been aljudi'-ated upon by the 
 " said House of Lords, and that it was perfectly open to me to appeal 
 " therefrom in the year 1848." 
 
 The late /. W, Currie, Esq,, (now deceased, but who at the time of 
 presenting the appeal of 1848 was Clerk of Parliament) and all the 
 officers of the said House of Lords expressed their concurrence in said 
 opinion, and in the right of me then to appeal from the said decree of 
 30th January, 1835.* 
 
 This said order of 5th April, 1853, is irregular, improper, unconstitu- 
 tional, and illegal, and sets at defiance the established and definitely 
 acknowledged authority of the constituted Government of the realm. 
 
 1'he said order of 5th April, 1853, was obtained by undue means, and 
 was the result, I believe and insist, of the said Lord Qranworth being 
 prejudiced against me by the extra-judicial steps taken as aforesaid by 
 the said Lord S^. Leonards to give eff'ect to the prayer of said second 
 petition of re-hearing, by granting to the parties presenting same an 
 order to which they were not entitled, either according to principles of 
 law or equity; I believe that said Lord St. Leonards has, on the subject 
 of the aforesaid proceedings, held private communications with the said 
 trustees since, if not previously to, the time that he pronounced in the 
 said Irish Court of Chancery the said decree of 30th January, 1835. 
 
 Henry Tommey, junr., my son, was agent for me in the years 1848, 
 1849, and 1850, and conducted my appeal during those years, and was 
 
 * NOTB. — Sir E, Sugden's depree, as Lord High Chancellor, authorising the sale of my property. 
 
17 
 
 in attendance at the Bar of the House of Lords on the first and second: 
 days on which the said second petition of re-hearing was argued in the 
 Session of 1853, and proved the service of ^notices requisite for the 
 purposes of the appeal conducted by him, even though he had then (at 
 the time of such proof) ceased to be my agent ; and notwithstanding 
 such attendances of my son, and several questions put to him by said 
 Lord Cranw^orth, yet he was not examined, although he might have been, 
 as to his conduct of said appeal, and the fact thus ascertained ;whether 
 or not there was any, and, if any, what misreprestation was made use 
 of in obtaining the said orders of 23rd May, 1848; and 2nd September, 
 1848, or in obtaining any order made in the prosecution of the appeal 
 conducted by him while acting as my agent. 
 
 The House of Lords did not, on the said 5th April, 1853, or previous 
 thereto, make any judicial inquiry into the facts hereinbefore shown, 
 which were within the co«:nizance of and means of proof by the Officers 
 of the said House of Lords. 
 
 The House of Lords did not on the said 5th day of April, 1853, con- 
 sider my petition mentioned in the said order of June, 1852, neither did 
 the House call upon the said Thomas Haughton White to answer for his 
 contempt aforesaid, nor did the House at any time make inquiry into the 
 aforesaid acts of the said Thomas Haughton White ; and I rely upon 
 the said hereinbefore recited report in the Times Newspaper of 26th July, 
 1 850, as evidence of the undue means by which the said order of the 5th 
 April, 1853, was obtained, and as a proof that the several decrees and 
 orders in the Irish Court of Chancery obtained by said trustees against 
 me were obtained by the like means and undue influence. 
 
 In the month of July, 1853, I communicated by letter, to said Lord. 
 Cranworth that the Judgment given by the House of Lords in July, 
 1850, was bindino:, and should not have been interfered with in April, 
 1853, and prayed a restitution, notwithstanding the latter Judgment, to 
 which Lord Cranworth replied '' that the case having been decided upon 
 by the House of Lords" (thereby meaning the said order of 5th April, 
 1653) " he could not interfere." 
 
 In the month of January, 1855, I forwarded a memorial to the Queen 
 setting forth my grievances, and praying that Her Majesty might be 
 graciously pleased to order an inquiry into the allegations of that me- 
 morial, and that justice might be done ; and by communication dated 
 3rd February, 1855, from the Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston 
 (then Secretary of State for the Home Department), I was informed that 
 my memorial had been laid before the Queen, but Her Majesty had not 
 been pleased to signify any commands thereon. 
 
 I then addressed a letter to Her Majesiy seeking a reply to said 
 memorial, in answer to which letter I was ordered to attend the Metro- 
 politan Police Court in Bow Street, when the inspector on duty stated 
 ''that unless I desisted from writing to Her Majesty and the Officers of 
 State for justice, I should get myself into prison." 
 
 Me and my family have been utterly ruined by the proceedings afore- 
 said (which caused the premature death of my wife) and we have by such 
 
18 
 
 proeeedings sustained injuries and losses to the amount of at least 
 ,£150,000, and which I am advised and believe I should have ultimately 
 recovered against the said trustees and their confederates, or some of 
 them, under the said order of 2nd July, 1850 ; and the ends of justice 
 have been defeated by the operation of the said order of 5th April, 1853, 
 which has shut me out from immediate and all consequent relief under 
 the said House of Lords' Order of 2nd .Tuly, 1850, after having spent 
 twenty-seven good years of my life in obtaining it. 
 
 Deposition of Sir Edward Blakeley, Bart., K.C.B., as a Witness in 
 the Cause : — 
 
 " This deponent saith he recollects having been sent for by Colonel Aitchison of the Guards, 
 " then at the Eoyal Barracks, Dublin, who knew that this deponent had a great interest in the 
 " defendant Henry Tommey, and who wished that this deponent should hear what the plaintiff 
 *^ James White had to say about him, — and saith, that the said James White then stated, 
 " generally, a detail of the circumstances between him and the said Tommey, the particulars of 
 *^ which this deponent cannot now recollect, but this deponent saith, that from the conversations 
 " and statements then had and made, this deponent's impression was, that the said Henry 
 " Tommy was very badly treated, and saith that in consequence of such representations of the 
 *' said James White, the said Henry Tommey was discontinued as messman to the Guards, 
 " this deponent saith that the loss of such situation did injure the character of the said Tommey, 
 " and did considerable injury to the business of the Hotel in Sackville Street, the OflScers of the 
 " Guards who had been in the habit patronizing and frequenting the said Hotel having ceased to 
 '' go there, after the said Tommey was discontinued their messman, and saith, that in consequence* 
 *' of the representations of the said James White the money due by the Guards to Tommey was 
 " withheld from him, they having been warned not to make any payment to him, and this 
 " deponent saith that the said Tommey was messman to deponent's regiment for a period of 
 *' five years, and during that time very large sums of money passed through his hands and depo- 
 " nent never heard the slightest complaint of him." 
 
 The only prospect of redress I now have is the result of this appeal to the 
 Public. The cause is now fairly before them, and by their expression of opinion — 
 the continual publication of this pamphlet — the generous assistance of the Press 
 and kind support of the benevolent, I hope, by these means, to obtain the co- 
 operation of one of the independent Members of the House of Commons, to bring 
 my Petition fairly before them and obtain for the same a fair and impartial hearing. 
 
 12, Hemlock Court, Carey Street, HENEY TOMMEY, Senr, 
 
 Lincoln's Inn Fields. 
 
 All communications relative to the foregoing Case are respectfully requested to he addressed as above. 
 
19 
 
 OFFICIAL COEEESPONDENCE and OPINIONS of the PEESS. 
 
 MODEL LODGING HOUSE. 
 
 1, George Street, Bloomsbury, 
 TOMMEY V. WHITE. 
 
 Lord Cranworth, 
 My Lord, 
 
 It is now three months and upwards 
 since your Lordship gave judgment in this case. 
 I am sorry to say that that judgment has placed 
 me in a most deplorable condition. I have no 
 prospect before me, but starvation ; and starva- 
 tion, my Lord, I think you will admit, must be 
 the most horrible death a man can die. 
 
 I have been patiently waiting in expectation, 
 that something in the shape of justice would 
 have been done before this. My Lord, you 
 must be aware that the judgment the House 
 gave in my favor in 1850, is binding at the 
 present moment. I have this faith in you, my 
 Lord : had my case been brought disinterestedly 
 before your Lordship, you never would have 
 given judgment against me. I have forwarded 
 to your Lordship a true statement of my grie- 
 vances ; I have also forwarded copies to those 
 persons who, I think, I have more reason to 
 complain of than your Lordship. I have also 
 sent one to Her Majesty. I cannot reconcile 
 myself to be robbed, and turned on the world to 
 starve, that another man may be provided for, 
 and that man a vile perjurer. I shall wait one 
 week from this date for a reply ; if I am gua- 
 ranteed that justice shall be done to me, I shall 
 proceed no further ; otherwise I will never cease 
 appealing to my Sovereign and my Country, for 
 that justice which you must be well aware, my 
 Lord, I am entitled to. My character for up- 
 rightness, honesty, and integrity, is well known 
 to noblemen and gentlemen ; for the truth of 
 which assertion, I can with perfect confidence 
 refer your Lordship to Colonel W. Drummond, 
 107, Sloane-street ; also to Generals Sir Edward 
 Blackeney and Sir George Scovell, both of 
 ■whom I served under ; therefore, my Lord, you 
 will not listen to anything that may be said 
 detrimental to my character, by parties who 
 have lent themselves to destroy me and my family. 
 I am, &c., &c., 
 
 HENRY TOMMEY. 
 26th, July, 1853. 
 
 House of Lords, 28th July, 1853. 
 Sir, — I am directed by the Lord Chancellor 
 to acknowledge the receipt of your letter on the 
 27th instant, and to state that your case having 
 been decided upon by the House of Lords, he 
 cannot interfere ; and, though he regrets your 
 distress, he cannot further assist you. 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 W. C. SPRING RICE. 
 Mr. Henry Tommey. 
 
 28th July, 1853. 
 
 Lord Cranworth, 
 My Lord, 
 
 I have this day received your Lordship's 
 note. You say that, my case having been 
 decided by the House of Lords, you cannot 
 interfere. My case was decided by the House 
 of Lords in 18.50, and the respondents then pe- 
 titioned for are-hearing, when Lord Brougham 
 and Lord Truro, then Lord Chaneellor, stated 
 in the House on that occasion, "That there ap- 
 peared to be no grounds advanced by the 
 petitioner to warrant their Lordship's iu granting 
 the prayer of the petition, that the appeal should 
 be heard over again. The party had not thought 
 proper to appear when the case came on for 
 argument in the regular order ; the counsel in 
 support of the appeal had been heard, and judg- 
 ment had been pronounced by their Lordships. 
 What had been done, therefore, could not be 
 undone, except by Act of Parhament." — {Vide 
 Times, 2Qih July, 'l850.) 
 
 My Lord, you have interfered, and reversed 
 the judgment given in my favour in 1850. I 
 say again, my Lord, that judgment is bindmg to 
 this very moment; if not, it is a downright 
 mockery to call the House of Lords a final 
 Court of appeal or a Court of justice. Justice, 
 my Lord, is all I want; nothing less than jus- 
 tice will satisfy me. Had Sugden never been 
 elevated to the Upper House, justice would 
 never have been defeated. And, my Lord, I 
 conscientiously hold you guiltless : — You say, 
 my Lord, that you regret my distress ; I cannot 
 think your words are sincere ; you caused that 
 distress, and you only, ray Lord, must remove 
 me out of it. You said, in giving your judgment, 
 " I admit the proceedings of the Court below to 
 be wrong; but if we give judgment in Tommey s 
 favour there will be twenty families ruined" 
 Had there been twenty times twenty families 
 ruined, what had that to do with the justice of 
 this case ? I wait your reply, and am. 
 My Lord, etc., etc.. 
 
 HENRY TOMMEY. 
 
 House of Lords, 2nd August, 1853. 
 Mr. Henry Tommey, 
 
 Sir,— I am directed by the Lord Chancellor, 
 to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, of the 
 the 29th inst., and to state again, that, though 
 he regrets your distress, he must decline further 
 correspondence on a matter in which he has no 
 power to give relief. I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 W. C. SPRING RICE. 
 
 Windsor Castle, January 26th, 1855. 
 
 SiR,_I beg to acknowledge the receipt of 
 your letter of yesterday's date, enclosing a Me- 
 morial to Her Majesty the Queen. 
 
 This Memorial arraigns the characters o, 
 judges of different Courts, and it does not come 
 
20 
 
 "W'ithin my province to be the medium of com- 
 munication to Her Majesty upon such subjects. 
 
 Any petition to the Queen upon public 
 matters, should be forwarded to the Secretary 
 of State for presentation to Her Majesty. I 
 have, therefore, herewith returned you the Me- 
 morial, in order, that you may, should you 
 think it desirable, take the proper official course. 
 I am. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient humble Servant, 
 
 Mr. ToMMET. C. B. PHIPPS. 
 
 WiTEHALL, Srd February, 1855. 
 Sir — I am directed by Viscount PalmerstoW 
 to acklowledge the receipt of your letter of the 
 17th ulto., enclosing a petition to the Queen, 
 and other papers relating to your case ; and I 
 am to inform you that your Petition has been 
 laid before the Queen, but Her Majesty has not 
 been pleased to signify any commands thereon. 
 I am. Sir, your obedient Servant, 
 
 H. WADDINGTON. 
 Mr. Henry Tommey. 
 
 From the Daily News, August I6th 1856, 
 
 We have no notion who Mr Tommey is ; and 
 care not whether he be a madman or not. If 
 he be not, he has probably had enough to make 
 him so, having as it appears, gone through a 
 sort of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce experience in the 
 Irish Court of Chancery, and been just cast in 
 an appeal to the House of Lords.* These are 
 not pleasant circumstances in a man's career. 
 Even if they stop short of affecting his brain, 
 they are apt to impart considerable bitterness ot 
 his actions. Gridley, it may be remembered, 
 was not a remarkably smooth spoken man. 
 There was a decided asperity in his temper, and 
 an objectionable abruptness about his manner. 
 
 Whatever may be the case with Mr. Tommey, 
 whether labouring only under the brief madness 
 of anger, or the fixed anger of madness — we are 
 of opinion, as far as the facts at present enable 
 us to judge, that the man's treatment, as dis- 
 closed in our police reports of yesterday, and 
 his own letter published in our impression of 
 to-day, is such as to call for strong and indig- 
 nant comment. Unless we are much mistaken, 
 a very plain principle of justice has been violated 
 in the proceedings to which we refer. The facts 
 are shortly these : On Wednesday evening last, 
 Tommey was hawking about the streets a pam- 
 phlet with the following heading — "Serious 
 Charge of Treason and Conspiracy against Lord 
 Chancellor Cranworth, Sir E. Sugder, alias 
 Lord St. Leonards ; Francis Blackburn, ex- 
 Chancellor of Ireland ; T. B. Smith, Master of 
 the Rolls ; and other Officers of State ; being 
 acts of Treason, Conspiracy, and Confiscation of 
 Property, value 150,000Z." The pamphlet, we 
 find from our reporter's statement, contained 
 charges of conspiracy, forgery, and fraud against 
 all parties — ^judges, counsel, and witnesses — in 
 the case of " Tommey v. White. 
 
 Very gross and indecent this, no doubt — a 
 nuisance which all prompt suppressors of street 
 cries would naturally feel instantaneously moved 
 to put down. A nobleman, whose name is as 
 
 * Note — The Editor has here fallen into error : I 
 was not cast in an appeal ; if I had been there would 
 have been an end to the matter, but my appeal to the 
 Lords was completely successful, and the House gave a 
 Judgment in my favour and expressed themselves very 
 strongly on the injustice of the inferior Courts from 
 which I then appealed. (1850) 
 
 What I complain of in the pamphlet I was selling 
 when arrested was the Unwarrantable Overturn- 
 ing of my Judgment by a single Lord, (Cranworth) in 
 spite of Law, Equity, and Justice, and wholly without 
 precedent. 
 
 yet unknown, but who is stated to be a member 
 of the Army and Navy Club, acting on the spur 
 of this feeling, gave Tommey in charge. The 
 inspector at the Vine Street station could make 
 nothing of it, and recommended that the charge 
 should be withdrawn. The anonymous indi- 
 vidual assented, and offered to compromise the 
 matter by the payment of a sovereign, whiclv 
 was of course refused. Mr. Tommey demanded 
 his name; he declined to give it. The same 
 application was made to the inspector and 
 repeatedly refused, the last refusal being accom- 
 panied with an intimation that the name would 
 not be given up without an order from a 
 magistrate. The next morning, accordingly, 
 Mr. Tommey applied at Marlborough Street.. 
 Mr. Bingham, on hearing his statement, ex- 
 pressed surprise that any difficulty should have 
 been made about the matter, and sent an officer 
 to Vine-street for an explanation, and a request 
 that the name should be given up. Our report 
 of what follows differs in some respect from the 
 statement in Mr. Tommey's letter to Sir George. 
 Grey. According to the report the Vine Street 
 inspector decidedly refused to communicate the 
 name as requested by the magistrate ; according 
 to Mr. Tommey's statement the officer returned 
 with the name which Mr. Bingham, on being 
 made acquainted with it, refused to communicate. 
 The report and the letter both coincide in what 
 followed, viz., that Mr. Bingham declared the 
 matter not to be within his cognisance, and 
 referred the applicant to Sir George Grey. 
 Hence the letter to the Home Secretary in 
 which Mr. Tommey sets forth his case. 
 
 Now upon this statement it is, we think, 
 undeniably clear that the conduct of the police 
 authorities, including the magistrate as well as 
 inspector, has been grossly and indefensibly 
 wrong. TJbi jus ibi remedium is one of the 
 plainest and most familliar principles of our 
 law. "There is no wrong without a remedy," 
 says the law of England. " Yes, but there is,'^ 
 says the law of the Police Courts. *' It is a 
 wrong," says the law, "for any one man to seize 
 upon any other without justifiable cause, and 
 parade him through the streets under the coer- 
 cion of the police as a criminal." "It may be 
 so," say the police authorities, " but we will 
 take care that, as far as lies in our power, it shall 
 be a wrong without a remedy, for we will 
 withhold the name of a wrong doer, and so de- 
 prive the injured party of his means of redress." 
 It is perfectly plain that this sort of thing wont 
 do. A police force becomes one of the most 
 odious weapons of power, unless above all things 
 
21 
 
 It satisfies the two conditions, of absolute 
 publicity and even-handed impartiality. In the 
 present instance both these conditions appear to 
 have been flagrantly violated. The police au- 
 thorities, in order to screen a man of rank from 
 the consequences of an act which the law does 
 not justify, resort to a secrecy which violates 
 not the letter of one law only, but the spirit of 
 all our laws. We have had far too much 
 already of secret agency on the part of the 
 police. People have not yet forgoten the reve- 
 lations which came out in a late trial for crim. 
 con. on the Northern Circuit, as to the extent 
 in which the detective force is secretly employed 
 by private individuals for the confirmation of 
 jealousy, or the gratification of revenge. The 
 less we hear of the same kind of thing in future 
 the better. We cannot understand the refusal 
 of Mr. Bingham to interfere further in the case. 
 As stated in the report, his conduct appears 
 inexplicable ; as related by Mr. Tommey, in- 
 defensible. Why should Sir George Grey 
 have been referred to in the matter at all ? If 
 the inspector refused to give up the name at the 
 bidding of the magistrate, the clear course was 
 to report him to Sir R, Mayne. If, indeed, the 
 magistrate himself, on becoming cognisant of 
 the name, refused to communicate it, a reference 
 to Sir George Grey might be highly advisable — 
 not, indeed, for the purpose of procuring for 
 Mr. Tommey the right which, without such 
 reference, he ought to have obtained at once and 
 as of course, but for the purpose of enabling the 
 Home-office to convey to the magistrate the 
 censure he appears to have deserved. We shall 
 ■watch the further developement of this case 
 with some curiosity, not from any personal 
 sympathy with Mr. Tommey, but because we 
 think it highly important that a close watch 
 . should be kept on all manifestations of arbitrary 
 and overbearing conduct on the part of the police. 
 
 {From the Liverpool Northern Times.) 
 2Srd August, 185li. - 
 
 " It is difficult to understand how the practices 
 of the Superior Courts of Law, of these realms, 
 could have brought them into the universal 
 disrepute which is now attached to their nanaes. 
 Chancery, once the seat of godly conscience, 
 envalves all who approach it, in search of justice, 
 in want and beggary, and those men who under- 
 take the administration of its affairs in a most 
 censurable notoriety. The consistorial tribunals 
 of the land are declaimed against with equal 
 vehemence, and strange things are broadly cited 
 by those who have been injured in reputation 
 and fortune by some of their latest decisions. 
 The House of Lords, as a Court of Appeal, 
 participates in the general outcry against Star 
 Chamber proceedings and Camarilla decisions. 
 The public have, in truth, lost all faith in the 
 "wisdom, if not integrity, of every legal tribunal, 
 from which a jury of honest and true men are 
 excluded. It is freely admitted that there are 
 many instances in which equity must take pre- 
 cedence of law, and that the usages of Chancery 
 require years of study, and profound judgment, 
 in order to give them the force of law, and to 
 xend'^r them strictly; just to all parties. But in 
 
 answer to this, it is urged that a jury of twelve 
 IToZf'f ^".^.<^'^-t--ted men' Je quite as 
 capable of arnvmg at a sound and just verdict 
 m matters relating to the disposal U the pro- 
 perty of widows, orphans, and lunatics, and to 
 make decrees affecting personal and real estate, 
 and the character of those whose conduct is 
 impugned m an Ecclesiastical Court, under the 
 direction of a judge, as they are in a case where 
 hands °* ^ creature is placed in their 
 
 "The present system of dealing with the 
 property and interests of society is based on a 
 palpable and contemptable fiction, for which we 
 are indebted to the craft of lawyers, and the past 
 Ignorance of the community. It is perfectly 
 monstrous to think that the property of the 
 citizen can be swept into the Court of Chancery 
 by any set of desperate knaves, for an indefinite 
 number of years, while all the parties beneficially 
 interested in the issue are left to starve, and find 
 a premature grave in misery and degradation. 
 No want of knowledge of the principles of equity 
 can justify the possibility of such things occuring 
 in this age. Chancery victims are to be found 
 in fa^r greater numbers in 1856 than there were 
 in 1725, a, period well deserving of being remem- 
 bered by those who are responsible for the 
 administration of justice. Thus far the glaring 
 acts of cruelty and oppression which have been 
 perpetrated on equity suitors, and persons who 
 have been openly robbed of their estates behind 
 their backs, have been mixed up with politics 
 and faction interests. But such questions have 
 no connection whatever with politics, except, 
 indeed, that our Chancellors and Ecclesiastical 
 Judges are all the devotees of some, particular 
 party ; but beyond this they cannot be given a 
 shade even of political complexion. The man 
 who would tolerate an abuse of justice in any 
 Court, would be a lawless Conservative, a dan- 
 gerous Whig, and a vile Radical. 
 
 " We have, therefore, to look at the workings 
 of the closed or non-jury Courts purely in a social 
 light, and to ask ourselves how mnch longer the 
 complaints brought before the public by those 
 who have been wronged in these Halls of Justice 
 can pass unnoticed ? We will not give any man 
 who sits behind a curtain to decide in the absence 
 of the public {i.e., a Jury) credit for being wholly 
 above worldly influences, until it is proved that 
 he is so. We will swallow nothing which is not 
 made as savory as the records of truth and justice 
 can make it, when we know that there are mil- 
 lions' worth of property lying between a judge's 
 finger and thumb. It is a wonder that John 
 Sadlier was not high in equity and that James 
 Sadlier was not an Ecclesiastical Judge. If one 
 had presided over the cause of Stubber t>. Wolfe 
 and Tommey v. White, and the other over the 
 Talbot Divorce Trial, the fiction we are asked 
 to accept as common sense, would have suited 
 their purposes admirably. But these three noto- 
 rious cases are quite sufficient to show that there 
 is no safety for the peace, happiness, respectabi- 
 lity, and property of any family or individual in 
 the three kingdoms, whi'le juries are not suffered 
 to hear and give a final decision where the rights 
 
22 
 
 and interests of the subject are corcerned. For 
 upwards of forty long years was one unfortunate 
 Chancery victim imprisoned in the Queen's 
 Bench, where he died a short time since — for 
 nearly thirty years have the heirs to the Stnbber 
 estates been falsely personated and robbed in 
 Chancery, and they are still without redress. 
 The Misses Elizabeth and Ann Shearwood, of 
 Sheffield, have just been released from prison, 
 after fourteen years confinement, which they 
 were doomed to endure because they would not 
 give up the title deeds to their property, that 
 the Court of Chancery might deal with them as 
 it liked. Mr. Henry Tommey, who claims pro- 
 perty worth £150,000, and who obtained a 
 judgment in the House of Lords in his favour, 
 but which has since been illegally and unconsti- 
 tutionally reversed, is an inmate in a model 
 lodging-house. 
 
 " Poor Mrs. Talbot, in the bloom of life, is 
 pining away in Bedlam, after having been treated 
 with the most brutal personal violence in her own 
 house, and has been divorced from her husband 
 and child upon the evidence of a convicted felon, 
 upon whose evidence the Ecclesiastical Court 
 gave its decree, but who was not produced at 
 the bar of the House of Lords. A thousand 
 other cases might be added to this list, but how 
 long, we ask, will the veil of politics be able to 
 
 cover the mass of iniquity which these un-Eng- 
 liah and Arbitrary Courts are inflicting on the 
 country ? Mrs. Talbot's case is an outrage 
 against public law and morality which can never 
 be forgotten or pardoned. If the wretched 
 woman had been a Hindoo, she could not have 
 been treated worse than she has been by those 
 around her hearth, and the authorities who 
 ought to have protected her when she was 
 brought before them as a raving maniac. This 
 was not done. The cruelties she had met with 
 seemed to call forth the worst enormities of 
 injustice. And we should very much like to 
 know what our law reformers propose to de- 
 mand as a safe-guard to society in similar cases, 
 and with regard to Chancery and Ecclesiastical 
 suits and the highest Court of Appeal ? The 
 Talbot divorce business we hold in reserve as 
 one of the most complete illustrations of the 
 frightful law, affecting chastity, under which we 
 live. The other causes we have cited belong to 
 a different category which we shall refer to 
 whenever the Legislature may make further 
 futile attempts to stifle popular discontent, by 
 merely making changes in the practice instead 
 of reforming the constitution of our superior 
 seats of corruption or ignorance, one or other 
 of which they assuredly are, if we are to judge 
 by their decisions." 
 
 At a public MEETING held at St. MAETIN'S HALL, on the 21st Dbcember, 
 1858, — It was Resolved : 
 
 That a Committee be appointed, and the following Statement printed and circulated — 
 
 *' The Committee appointed to act on behalf of 
 Mr. Tommey venture to solicit your aid and 
 sympathy for this poor unfortunate soldier who 
 has faithfully served his country for more than 
 20 years, and who now in his old age is reduced 
 to sorrow and destitution, by the most gross 
 and fraudulent act of injustice ever perpetrated. 
 We beg to state that from papers and documents 
 in our possession, we can with the greatest 
 confidence, refer for his character, to Gen. Sir 
 George Scovell, Sir Edward Blackeney, Lord 
 William Thynne, (under each of whom he has 
 served,) and likewise to Gen. Stanhope, Lord 
 J. Scotts, and Col. W. F. Johnson, late of the 
 Grenadier Guards, 
 
 His youngest son is on active service in India, 
 fighting the battles of a country, whose> legal 
 tribunals have so cruelly and unjustly deprived 
 his father of his house and property, leaving 
 him nothing to depend on for his support but a 
 trifling pension of .9d. per day, 2s. 6d. of which 
 he pays weekly for his lodging, leaving but 
 2s. 9d. to procure food*^nd other necessaries. 
 He is upwards of 75 years of age. consequently 
 past labour, and had it not been for some pecu- 
 niary assistance from time to time afforded by 
 some noblemen and gentlemen, who humanely 
 felt for the distressing position in which he was 
 placed, he would long ere this, have been reduced 
 to the most abject want. We are proud to say, 
 His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, 
 and the Duke of Wellington, have each gener- 
 ously assisted him. 
 
 Previous to the formation of the Committee thejollow- 
 ing Noblemen and Gentlemen had acknowledged 
 the justness of his case hy kindly forwarding him 
 Subscriptions — 
 
 His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridgre, the Duke 
 of WellingjtoQ; Lords : J. Scott, William Thynne, 
 Truro, Brougham, Rokeby, Leigh, and William Paulett ; 
 Generals : Sir E. Blackeney, Sir George Scovell, 
 Stanhope, Barnard, Lindsay, Shaw, Angferstein ; Colo- 
 nels : G. Dixon, Douglas Penant. William Drummond, 
 Cornwall, William Fludyer, William E. Johnstone, 
 Mc'Kinnon, Colville, Lindsay, M.P., G. Drummond, 
 Lascells, Gooch, and Campbell ; the Gents of theGuards 
 Club, Alderman Challis, E. Etherington, Esq., William 
 Hayrick, Esq., Joha Grant, E«q., Thomas Moffard, Esq., 
 and Edward Sturgeon, Esq. 
 
 Committee appointed. 
 Chairman of Committee— John Grant, Esq. 
 
 John Jackman, Esq., John Grant, Esq., Thomas Moffard, 
 Esq., John Richards, Esq., Edward Sturgeon, Esq., 
 Charles Hudson, Esq., William Hayrick, Eaq., Joseph 
 Hay wood, Esq., William Dever, Esq., William Errington, 
 Esq., George Bartholomew, Esq., John Edwards, Esq., 
 Henry Parkinson, Esq., Edward Aldridge,Esi[., William 
 Stephenson, M.D., Denis Desmond, Esq. 
 
 ** We, the Committee, appointed at a Public Meeting 
 at St. Martin's Hall, on the 21st of Decembtr, 1858, 
 most earnestly beg that no one who is desirous of main- 
 taining the administration of justice, in this our country, 
 above reproach, will lightly pass by this statement, 
 deeming it uatrue or in any way exaggerated. 
 
 " Mr. H. Tommey, was in the year 1834, deprived of 
 his property as a hotel-keeper in Dublin, by fraud and 
 collusion, under proceedings taken agamst him, behind 
 his back, in the Irish Court of Chancery, and which 
 
23 
 
 fraud and collusion waa confirmed by a decree, bearing 
 date, January 30th, 1835, made by Sir E. Sugden, then 
 Lord Chancellor of Ireland. After an imperfect hearing 
 of the case, and after having strongly expressed an 
 opinion, that the decree prayed for, ought not to be 
 granted ; yet, though having heard nothing publicly 
 which could have influenced his judgment, he, in an 
 impatient and precipitant manner, issued such decree in 
 opposition to such former opinion expressed only the 
 day previous. 
 
 It is here worthy of remark, that the Court of 
 Chancery had not acquired Jurisdiction over Mr. 
 Tommey's property ; nor could it have interfered had he 
 been defended by a truthful advocate, or had his case 
 been tried by an impartial judge. In proof of which, 
 see the following statement made by Lord Brougham, 
 in the house of Lords, on the merits of the ease. 
 
 Mr. Tommey, feeling confident in the justice of his 
 cause, prosecuted his claim under circumstances of 
 difficulty, which would have driven into the grave or 
 the madhouse an ordinary man, fighting his way inch by 
 inch, poor as he was, and notwithstanding the wealth 
 and influence arrayed against him ; until finding the 
 Irish Courts either could not, or woald not afford him 
 redress, he, on the 2nd of July, 1850, appealed to the 
 House of Lords, who, on hearing the case on its merits, 
 reversed the decision of the Court below, thus replacing 
 the Appellant, as far as the House could do so, in the 
 same position as before the proceedings of 1834. Lord 
 Brougham on hearing the appeal, stopped the address of 
 Sir J. Romilly, applicant's counsel, by saying, " Stop, 
 stop, Romilly, for God's sake, stop I I have heard enough 
 of this case to satisfy me that there was something wrong 
 in the court below." In giving judgment, his Lordship 
 said, "We are bound to give this poor man all the 
 justice we can, had he applied to us sooner, we would 
 have stopped the sale of his property." 
 
 "Three weeks afterwards, the House of Lords was 
 moved by petition for a re-hearing of the case, by the 
 Respondents. Lords Brougham and Truro delivered 
 judgment, by stating, that the case was settled by the 
 decision already given, and that there was no law in 
 existence which could allow the case to be re-heard ; 
 and, that no authority, save that of an Act of Parliament, 
 could set aside what had been done. (See "Times" '26 th 
 July. 1850.) 
 
 *' Now this is the undisputed and indisputable law of 
 
 the case ; but mark what follows : this poor man belier- 
 ing in the irrevocability of this irrevocable decision, 
 patiently awaited the settlement of this affair, but was 
 put off from time to time ; until two years had elapsed, 
 when a change of ministry occurred, and the same Sir 
 E. Sugden, whose decree had been reversed, became 
 Lord High Chancellor of England, under the title of 
 Lord St. Leonards, he had no sooner taken his seat iu 
 the Upper House, than the respondents, in spite of the 
 illegality attending the granting of their request, again 
 petitioned the House, employing as their attorney, Mr. 
 Jemmett, of Kingston-on-Thames, a relation by mar- 
 riage, of Lord St. Leonards. The House, by the mouth 
 of Lord C ran worth, without any other proceeding than 
 the mere receipt of such petition, reversed their decisions 
 of 1850, and on that occasion, Lord Cranworth used 
 these remarkable words :— *'AD>nTTiNG the Decree 
 
 OF 1835 TO BE WRONG, — AND I KNOW IT TO BB 
 
 WRONG ; yet if we give Judgment in Tommey's favor, 
 there will be twenty families ruined." 
 
 '• Englishmen, is this Justice ? Is not, in fact, this case 
 unique in its injustice ? Had Mr. Tommey been rich, 
 so that he could have made the country ring with the 
 truth of his cause,— could he have enlisted the Press ou 
 his side, no power in England would have dared so to 
 have trampled upon Justice, but he is poor, and he has 
 grown grey in the prosecution of his cause. Shall he 
 pass away without any attempt on the part of his fellow 
 men to assist him in the attainment of his right ? Jus- 
 tice cannot be denied to the least of the community 
 without affecting the whole. We therefore call upon all 
 men who would wish to see a great wrong rectified, to 
 afford us means by small contributions, to make it known 
 through the land, by means of the Press, Public Meetings 
 or otherwise, as may be most expedient. 
 
 " We, the Comrailtee, humbly submit, That Mr. 
 Tommey has strong claims on the sympathy of all 
 honorable Englishmen, both for his own services to his 
 countiy, and the services of his son. 
 
 '* If a Judge has power to reverse a decision previously 
 given in any court, more particularly that of the highest 
 court of the realm, because it would suit his interest, or 
 the interest ot his friends ; then, we maintain, there is 
 an end of all confidence in the laws of our country, and 
 we become the victims of the caprice of a power against 
 which we can no more contend than if we lived in the 
 dreariest despotism the world can show.** 
 
 A SUMMAKY OF THE PETITION. 
 
 April 9th, 1834.— Trustees filed Bill in Irish 
 Court of Chancery against Myself and 
 Thomas Read Millikin. 
 
 April 18th, 1834. — Attachment issued against 
 me for want of appearance on account of 
 neglect of ray solicitor (Jas. Robinson,) not 
 entering an appearance in due time. 
 
 April 25th, 1834.— Trustees applied to the Rolls 
 Court for an order for appointment of Receiver 
 over my hotel and property, and, inasmuch 
 as Charles Hogan, Clerk of Court, admitted 
 notice of said motion on my behalf and no 
 one appeared to oppose the application, it 
 was referred to Master Conner to appoint a 
 proper receiver and manager, — George Millikin 
 was so appointed — and James White, acting 
 trustee, and Thomas Read Millikin, my land- 
 lord and co-defendant, were sureties for said 
 George Millikin. 
 
 May 13th, 1834.— George Millikin, receiver, 
 and Thomas Read Millikin, my co-defendant, 
 entered the hotel to take possession of it, and 
 followed" me through the hotel, saying, " Get 
 *' out, get out ! or we will have the police and 
 " turn you out." 
 
 May 14, 1834. — I was arrested and thrown into 
 jail ; though Thomas Read Millikin, ray co- 
 defendart did not answer for a month after- 
 wards, he was not arrested. During the time 
 I was in prison, J, K. Boswell, trustees* 
 solicitor, went to the hotel and told Mrs. 
 Tommey that her husband was in jail and in 
 irons, under an order from the Court of 
 Chancery, and would never be liberated ; 
 (from which fright she never recovered, and 
 ultimately caused her premature death,) and 
 gave directions to servants to obey Mr. 
 Millikin. 
 
 May 15, 1834. — George Millikin made affidavit, 
 swearing, that if I, my wife, or son were 
 allowed to remain in the hotel, or interfere 
 with the management of the business, it would 
 ruined and destroyed. On that affidavit a 
 writ of assistance was obtained behind my 
 back, by which myself, wife, and children, 
 were turned into the streets, without house 
 or home, contrary to all law and justice. 
 
 Hilary Terra, 1835.— Cause heard before Sir 
 Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, who, on the 
 second day of hearing at the rising of the 
 
f 
 
 24 
 
 from the bench " that the 
 no right to file said Bill of 
 
 Court declared 
 " trustees had 
 
 " Complaint, and that he would dismiss it 
 " that he put little faith in their evidence, and 
 " that the meeting in January, 1834, was a 
 " waver of all notices." On the following 
 *' morning, at the sitting of the Court, he 
 " desired to know if the case did not close 
 "there," and without going further into it, 
 Ordered a Sale of my Property ! 
 
 March, 1837.— I filed a Bill of Keview and 
 Reversal and made original plaintiff, and 
 Thomas Read Millikin, and George Millikin, 
 defendants. George Millikin demurred to 
 the Bill and demurrer was allowed against 
 rae, which Bill was dismissed out of Court 
 for want of prosecution. 
 
 In 1844, — Sir E. Sugden was a second time 
 appointed Lord Chancellor for Ireland. I 
 went down to Thames Ditton and presented 
 a Petition to him for restoration of my pro- 
 perty, he sent out word to me by Mr. Senior, 
 his son-in-law, to bring ray case regularly 
 before the Court and he would do me justice. 
 I parted with all I was possessed to enable 
 me to do so, and filed a fresh Bill of Review 
 and Reversal, and defendants James White, 
 Robert Courtney, George Kerman, and 
 Thomas Read Millikin were four months in 
 contempt of Court. They then petitioned the 
 Court, and it was referred to the Master of 
 the Rolls, Mr. Francis Blackburn, for liberty 
 to file a plea that I may get the same relief 
 under the Bill of 1837, as I sought under the 
 Bill of 1844, and the said Mr. Francis Black- 
 burn, Master of the Rolls, allowed them three 
 weeks to file such plea, notwithstanding such 
 Bill of 1837 was dismissed out of Court for 
 my want of means to prosecute it. I pro- 
 duced the order in Court for the dismissal of 
 the Bill of 1837, read it to Mr. Blackburne — 
 he read it — and it is inserted — is in the order 
 he made on the said application as being read 
 — and to which order a reference can be made, 
 and he also restrained me from proceeding 
 with the Bill of 1844, until I had paid the 
 costs of George Millikin incurred by the Bill 
 of 1837, although he (George Millikin) was 
 no party to the Bill of 1844, and had been 
 paid his costs of the Bill of 1837, out of the 
 proceeds of my property ; and expressed him- 
 self from the bench " That he was sorry he 
 ''^ could do nothing more against me" upon 
 which Chief Baron Pigot, who was then my 
 counsel, thus expressed himself, " These are 
 " not the words of a dispassionate Judge.'' 
 
 December, 1851, — I filed a cause Petition upon 
 proofs that James White had disposed of his 
 property to his sons for the purpose of avoid- 
 ing the decree of the Court which had ordered 
 payment to me of the monies found by the 
 Masters' Report to be then due to me ; and 
 which Petition came on to be heard before 
 
 the then Lord Chancellor (Blackburn) of 
 Ireland the 31st of May, 1852, when he 
 dismissed the said Petition with costs against 
 me.* 
 
 February, 1837, — On a motion before the Rolls 
 Court. — The trustees and the Millikins having 
 quarrelled as to the disposal cf my property, 
 and Mr. Litton, trustees counsel, stated in 
 Court that they — the Millikins— ought not to 
 have turned round on the trustees in the 
 manner they did, as they — the trustees — had 
 stuc^ied the Millikins interest only, and " that 
 " at and previous to fling the said Bill they 
 " sailed in the same boat together" when Sir 
 William McMahon, Master of the Rolls, was 
 pleased to express himself from the bench, 
 " The Murder is out ! and all the allegations 
 " of this poor man sitting there {meaning me) 
 " against us and our officers are true." 
 
 July 2, 1850.— Appeal to House of Lords for a 
 Reversal of the Decree made by Sir Edward 
 Sugden, January. 1835, ordering the Sale of 
 my Property — when Lord Brougham stopped 
 the address of ray Counsel by stating, that he 
 was satisfied the proceedings of the Irish 
 Court of Chancery were wrong and had I 
 applied to the House sooner they would have 
 stopped the above sale — and gave judgment 
 in my favour, thereby reversing all the pro- 
 ceedings in the aforesaid Court. Three weeks 
 afterwards the respondents petitioned the 
 House for a re-hearing, when Lords 
 Brougham and Truro declared that such 
 was impossible without a Special Act of 
 Parliament. 
 
 Year 1852.— Sir E. Sugden elevated to the 
 House of Lords under the title of Baron 
 St. Leonards and Lord High Chancellor of 
 England, the respondents a second time 
 petitioned the House for a re-hearing of the 
 appeal, and which petition was got up by a 
 relation of Lord St. Leonards (Mr. Jemmett of 
 Kingston upon Thames) and in this second 
 petition Lord Cranworth thought proper to 
 dissolve the judgment the House gave me in 
 1850 — and which act is both illegal and un- 
 constitutional. 
 
 * Note.— It is necessary here to remark that when. 
 Mr. Blackburn was my counsel in 1835, he compromised 
 my rights ; and in 1834 and 1835, he made the most 
 inconsistent orders against me, this accounts for the 
 manner in which he dismissed my petition and denied 
 me justice. 
 
 Lord St. Leonards has not only sanctioned 
 but confirmed the above proceedings, and all 
 the injustice I have sufi^ered : And for what 
 reason ? — I shall feel happy to receive a reply. 
 
 H. TOMMEY, Senr. 
 12, Hemlock Court, Carey Street, 
 Lincoln's Inn Fields. 
 
 Robert Davey, Printer, Ticiiborxe Court, (279) High Holborn, London. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 19, second column, — "And my Lord I conscientiously hold 
 you guiltless," bead, "And my Lord I cannot conscientiously 
 hold you guiltless." 
 Page 24, in Note.—" ISG4 and 1835," read " 1844 and 1845." 
 „ omitted aa Note.— "What is Law ? What is the meaning of 
 Justice ? if we are to see it dissolved before 
 our eyes l)y such unheard of proceedings. 
 Why did Lord Cr.unvorth so wickedly dis- 
 solve the -Tudgment the IT >use had given 
 me in 1850 ? And why did the grpnt 
 Brougham stantl tamely by and ste hi.<» 
 Judgment overturned." 
 
I;-: .#^^Vn^jA :.,; 
 
 ^'<'^j^. 
 
 -y^; 
 
 .^4 'A 't 
 
 fiSi^M^^^l '^"p^^i^