Memorial Of Skinners' Company.
Skinners' Hall,
30th April 1883.
To the Secretary to the City of London Livery
Companies' Commission.
Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 10th of November
last, in which the Commissioners inquire what is the
intention of the Skinners' Company with regard to the
evidence and statements orally given to the Commissioners, and affecting the Companies, it seems to the
Skinners' Company that the return made in 1881 in
answer to the Commissioners' queries was rendered so
fully that it is not necessary to trouble the Commissioners to hear witnesses on their behalf; but they desire
to submit the following observations, which, being
mainly directed to controvert statements made by
various persons taking an unfavourable view of the
constitution, administration, and proprietary rights of
the Company, will, the Company trust, receive at the
hands of the Commissioners attention and publicity at
least equal to what has been accorded to such statements.
The only evidence which appears to affect the
Skinners' Company with reference to the trusts committed to their care is contained in the appendix to
Mr. Lucraft's evidence on the 13th day, viz., 19th July
1882, in reference to the gift of Margaret Audley.
Mr. Lucraft states that the sum of 700l. was given to
be spent in land, and the income to be applied to
charitable purposes. This is not correct. The Company were at liberty to expend the sum of 700l. in
land or otherwise as they might choose, no reference
being made in the bequest to the application of the
income, whether for charitable purposes or otherwise;
but it was made a condition of the acceptance of the
gift that the sum of 35l. was to be paid annually to the
parish of Hackney. The Company at first declined the
gift, but accepted it on being pressed by the parish of
Hackney to do so, and the payment has been annually
made by the Company to the parish ever since, as stated
in their return—Part I.—Letter I., Charities.
But the attention of the Company has been especially
called to the print of evidence given before the Commissioners on the 12th July last, generally with regard
to the nature of the title by which the Livery Companies of London became owners of estates in the
county of Londonderry, Ireland, in the 17th century,
and particulurly with respect to the management by
the Skinners' Company of the Pellipar estate in that
county, and their recent negociations with the tenantry
there.
The important question of ownership, by this and
other Livery Companies, of estates in Londonderry has
been separately dealt with in the accompanying short
historical account of the mode in which those estates
were acquired. It entirely disposes of the assertions
(1) that the Companies are not private owners, but
trustees of the estates for public purposes; and (2) that
what has been called the purchase money was raised by
a tax on the citizens of London.
The recent negociations with the tenantry are
referred to in the minutes of evidence of 12th July
last, questions Nos. 1897 to 1905, and the answers
given by Dr. Todd, a solicitor of Londonderry.
That witness professed to describe from personal
knowledge the mode in which negociations were carried
on between the Company and the tenants, with a view
to fixing a fair rent, instead of having recourse to the
Land Court. His statements are not true, and, if
allowed to pass unchallenged, they will probably be
commented upon hereafter by speakers and writers to
the Company's prejudice.
It may possibly be not out of place to revert to the
question of rent as settled between the Skinners' Company and the tenants some few years ago, in order to
lead up to an adequate description of these negociations
with which Dr. Todd finds so much fault, and for
which the Company do not hesitate to claim some
credit, both as to the principle underlying such negotiations and the method of carrying them into effect.
Without going back to the time when the Pellipar
estate, like many others in Ireland, was let on lease
and managed by the resident lessee, the Company wish
to state that the lease to Mr. Ogilby expired in 1872,
and the Company then took steps to manage the estate
for themselves. As nearly 30 years had elapsed since
the estate was valued, and as no alteration of rent has
been made for a much longer period, notwithstanding
the rise in all agricultural produce in Ireland, it seemed
reasonable, and in accordance with the custom of the
country, that a re-valuation should be made. The
estate was re-valued, and the Company felt satisfied that
the then existing rental might be fairly raised; and
having found that great difficulty would arise in settling
with the tenants individually, the total number being
upwards of a thousand, and because the tenants had
always been dealt with as a whole, it was resolved to
divide the holdings into three classes, and fix a uniform
but classified rate of increase for each class, notifying
the increase of rent of each tenant personally by written
notice, as being necessary in law, and in order that any
tenant who chose might have an opportunity to state
any circumstances which should be a reason for not
agreeing to the alteration.
Such increase did not take effect until the year 1877.
The rental of the estate was then raised from 11,600l. to
13,000l., the Government valuation being 13,200l. The
only special objection made to the increase was by the
lessees of a large grazing farm, who eventually brought
a claim against the Company, but failed; the farm was
shortly afterwards let to another tenant, who came
forward, unsolicited, and offered the rent which the
previous tenants had declined to pay.
It is well known that the seasons following 1877 were
more or less bad, and accompanying these bad seasons
the agitation commenced, which eventually affected
those parts of Ireland which had been hitherto settled
and orderly. It was then that large arrears of rent
began to accrue; and the Company allowed abatements
of rent in the years 1879 and 1880, as was stated before
the Commissioners when Dr. Todd was examined.
In the autumn of the year 1881, after the Land Law
(Ireland) Act had been passed, but before any applications to the Land Court under the Act had been heard,
several memorials from tenants on the Pellipar estate
were forwarded to the Company, praying for large
reductions of rent. The Company saw that, under the
Act, if they and the tenants individually could arrive
at a fair valuation, it might be possible to have all
over the estate a rental fixed upon a basis and by a
mode having the authority and sanction of a legally
constituted court of arbitration.
Accordingly they issued a circular letter to the
tenants, suggesting to those who proposed to apply to
the Land Court, that, before doing so, they should
furnish the Company, through their agent, with the
grounds upon which they individually proposed to show
that their rent should be altered. The Company felt
that there would be very many tenants who would at
once see that if they were ultimately obliged to resort
to the Land Court their cases would be considered
separately there, and that it ought not to prejudice
their claims in Court if they made separate applications
to their landlords first. The result was that some
hundreds of the tenants did individually write letters
to the Company, stating reasons in favour of a reduction
of rent; and the Company took steps to ascertain the
value of each holding, with the view to entering into an
agreement with the tenant as provided by the Act.
They felt that this course might preserve a good feeling
between landlords and tenants, might save expenses,
and relieve the block in the Commissioners' Court,
which, even in the autumn of 1881, threatened to arise,
and so assist in giving effect to the intentions of the
Legislature. Simultaneously with the issue of this
circular letter, some 50 or 60 notices from tenants on
one part of the estate were served upon the Company
for their cases to be heard in court. This was mainly
done at the solicitation of Dr. Todd, who took upon
himself to attempt to dissuade the tenants from settling
their rents amicably with the Company.
Early in 1882 the Company determined to send over
to Ireland a senior member of their governing body
and the clerk of the Company, to ascertain, by personal
interviews with the tenants who had written letters,
whether they would enter into agreements for a judicial
rent for fifteen years under the Act, without having
recourse to legal proceedings.
These gentlemen, having gone over to Dungiven in
March 1882, intimated by messages to such tenants
that they would be glad to receive them at the agent's
office on certain days. The tenants attended as
requested, almost without exception, and were received
in a small room in the office at which they were in the
habit of attending, and with as little ceremeny as
possible. The only persons present who were strangers
to them were the two gentlemen from London. The
resident agent and the surveyor, who have been more
than fifty years on the estate, and against whom no
tenant has ever made complaint, were present; and
Mr. B. H. Lane, a solicitor well known in the district,
who resides at Limavady, and acts as the Company's
legal adviser in regard to the estate, was also there on
most days. In no case was there any semblance of
complaint by a tenant or his neighbours that undue
pressure had been put upon him to agree to a rent.
The visit was an experiment to carry out the clear
intention of the Act of 1881.
On this occasion about 140 tenants were seen, and
agreements made with 53; but subsequently in August,
that is some weeks after Dr. Todd's evidence had been
given in London, and before it had been brought to the
knowledge of the Company, the same two gentlemen
went again to Ireland to continue the work commenced
in March. On this occasion they saw upwards of
200 tenants, and effected agreements with about 125.
It is not true, as stated by Dr. Todd, that the tenant
was "not allowed to have solicitor, counsel, friend,
" neighbour, or anybody with him " during these
negotiations. It is not true that pressure was put upon
any tenant to settle. The conversation was, almost
without exception, carried on between the tenant and
one person representing the Company.
In answer to questions 1903 to 1905, Dr. Todd misrepresents what took place. As a matter of fact, when
a tenant expressed his willingness to agree to the proposed rent, he retired from the room where the conversation had taken place into an outer office full of other
tenants waiting for admission, and signed the statutory
form (as required by the Act) in the presence of a poorlaw guardian or minister, sometimes in the office, sometimes in the witness's house.
The foregoing is a fair description of the negotiations.
Dr. Todd knew nothing personally of what took place.
In making the proposal and in carrying it out, the
Company have neither sought to dissuade any tenant
from litigation who has served any notice under the
Act (but several tenants who had served notices have
come in voluntarily and entered into agreements); nor,
on the other hand, have they put any pressure upon
tenants to agree to the terms which have been suggested
after careful consideration of the provisions of the Act.
The Company trust that before many months have
elapsed the rents of all the agricultural holdings on the
estate will be fixed by the mode which has been
described, unless tenants are solicited to enter the
Land Court in large numbers. There are nearly 1,000
agricultural tenants on the estate. Voluntary agreements are being made as opportunity arises for the
agent to confer with the tenants. At the present time
about 310 tenants have entered into agreements, and
the rents of some 60 others have been recently fixed by
the Land Court.
In Part 4, Return A, already submitted by the Company to the Commissioners, under the head of " Explanatory Notes and Remarks," a general statement is
made as to what has been expended by the Company
for the tenants upon the estate; and it was therefore a
matter of some surprise to the Company to find that
Dr. Todd said, in answer to question 1894, that the
Company had spent in no " single instance a single
sixpence in agricultural improvements, or given the
"slightest benefit to their tenantry." They would here
repeat that they support and repair, as they believe
liberally, all the schools on the estate recognized by the
National Board of Education. They have erected and
repaired school buildings, and make annual grants
towards the salaries of the teachers. They devote, as
occasion requires, the money received from the sale of
the advowsons on the estate under the Irish Church
Act, 1869, towards the purchase of glebes and repairing
and maintaining churches, and towards erecting chapels
and ministers' houses. They make annual grants to the
clergy and ministers of the different religious denominations, and to the medical officers of dispensaries.
They subscribe to various charities and societies, and
make weekly or other allowances to poor persons
connected with the estate who have been left desolate
or have become infirm. They construct foot-bridges
and main drains. They also contribute frequently
towards the repairs of river banks and the making of
turf roads, on the basis of contributing half the estimated cost of any such work, the tenants lending
horses and doing a portion of the labour under the
direction of the surveyor of the estate.
In no case within the Company's knowledge has any
tenant left the estate to become an agricultural occupier
elsewhere in Ireland. In many cases during the last
few years strangers have come from other places to be
tenants on the Pellipar estate.
In the return already sent in reference was made to
the support given by the Company to recent railway
projects. The Company agreed to support these two
undertakings (by guaranteeing 5 per cent. interest upon
sums of 20,000l. in one case, and 5,000l. in the other),
shortly after they had resolved to raise the rental as
already stated, believing that such works would open
up those districts which are at present under a disadvantage for carrying farm produce to market, and that
in many ways they would tend to the prosperity of the
inhabitants, without bringing any pecuniary advantage
to the Company.
Before quitting this subject it may be added with
reference to the statement made by Sir Thomas McClure, M.P., on the 12th July (on which occasion he
assumed that the tenure by the Companies of their
estates in Londonderry was impressed with a trust,
and gave it as his opinion that the Companies would
best fulfil their alleged trusts by selling to their tenants),
that when he himself applied to the Skinners' Company
to sell their estate to him, the Company received
memorials from the tenants then, as well as on other
occasions, asking them not to sell. Indeed, there is
abundant evidence that the tenants have advantages
under the Companies as landlords which a private
owner, buying in order to secure a profit-rent, would
not allow to his tenants; and this fact should be
especially borne in mind when so many hostile statements, frequently untrue, are being made with respect
to the management of the estates, while no allusion
whatever is made to the Companies' many acts of
generosity to the very men who are induced to turn
against them.
The petition of March 1881 to Mr. Gladstone, abounding in misstatements (and which the Company would
forbear to notice, were it not placed upon the proceedings of the Commission on the introduction of Sir
Thomas McClure), is signed by one of the Company's
tenants without authority to write on their behalf, and
is an unfortunate example of the manner in which it is
attempted to misrepresent the facts.
In conclusion, with respect to the contention which
some of the witnesses who have appeared before the
Commission desire to raise with regard to the position
of the Companies as owners of property, viz., that they
were created by the Crown for trade purposes, that
they held and still hold their corporate property on
trust for trade purposes, and that when they ceased to
be composed of trade members, and to exercise trade
functions, they ceased to be entitled to hold property
or to exist, I am desired to state that the Skinners'
Company consider that they have already sufficiently
met this contention, so far as it affects them, in advance,
by the concise history forwarded with their Return to
the Commissioners' queries, which was compiled with
much care from charters, grants, certified copies of
public records, wills, deeds of bequest, and books of
the Company, extending over a period of several
centuries, and which there has been no attempt to
controvert. I am directed, however, to point out to
the Commissioners shortly that, as appears from that
history, the Skinners' Company was an existing body,
owning large property and exercising important func
tions, before the grant of any Royal Charter whatever;
that the earliest charter of the Company, that of
Edward III., recognised those facts, and simply regulated its position in the commercial polity of that day;
that no evidence can be produced which goes to show
that at any time the whole or even a majority of the
members of the Company were trade members, but
that all the evidence proves the contrary; that attempts
actually made by "artesan skinners" to establish a
connection between the Company and the trade always
failed; and that, notwithstanding that the Company
has from the very first dealt with its corporate property
as its own, absolutely and for all purposes, and the
Courts were open to any complainant, the Company has
never been adjudged to hold that property for trade
purposes or subject to any trust whatever, nor has the
Company's control of that property ever been in any
manner limited.
While of opinion that the allegations, general and
special, which affect them, have been fully met (such
allegations appearing to consist mainly of incorrect inferences from incomplete and inaccurate information),
the Skinners' Company will be happy to still further
elucidate any point upon which the Commissioners may
desire additional information.
I have, &c.,
E. Herbert Draper,
Clerk.
A Short Historical Account of the Connection of the Livery Companies of London with
the County of Londonderry, Ireland, having special reference to the Title of the Skinners'
Company to the Manor of Pellipar, in the same County.
One of the witnesses who gave evidence before the City
of London Livery Companies' Commission in July 1882
professes to show, in paragraphs 1 and 2 of a printed
statement handed in by him, the object of the scheme
devised on the confiscation of the estates of the Ulster
Earls; and after quoting a State Paper issued by the
Crown in 1608, intituled " A Collection of such Orders
and Conditions as are to be observed by the Undertakers upon the distribution and plantation of the
escheated Lands in Ulster," asserts that, "these
Orders and Conditions, popularly known as the
'Articles of Plantation,' together with the various
other public declarations of the King and Privy
Council on the subject of the Plantation, are the
bases and limits of the Title by which the Companies
hold their Irish Estates."
This assertion is entirely incorrect, the fact being
that these Articles were issued by the King in reference
to the general scheme of planting the whole of the six
northern counties, Armagh, Tyrone, Coleraine, Donegal,
Fermanagh, and Cavan, and state that " It was thought
convenient to declare to all His Majesty's subjects
the several quantities of the proportions which should
be distributed, the several sorts of Undertakers,
manner of allotments, the estates, the rents, the
tenures, with other articles to be observed, as well
on His Majesty's behalf, as on the behalf of the
Undertakers." They were issued before any proposition was made to the City of London, and were not
addressed to the City or Companies by name, nor were
they in any way applicable to incorporated bodies or to
the work of plantation afterwards undertaken by the
City on behalf of the Companies.
The Crown subsequently proposed to the City to
undertake the plantation of the county of Derry, and
directed to the City a State Paper, intituled, "Motives
and Reasons to induce the City to undertake the
Plantation in the North of Ireland."
This paper did not in any way allude to the beforementioned Articles of Plantation; but, after stating
many matters, as to the products of the country and the
mercantile advantages to be gained by the undertaking,
and suggesting how easily the towns of Derry and
Coleraine might be made almost impregnable, and
proposing the allotment of certain quantities of land
for commons to those towns, it suggested "That the
whole of the territory and county betwixt them,
above twenty miles in length, might be planted with
such Undertakers as the City of London should think
good for their best profit."
The proposal was at first rejected, but upon the
reconsideration of it being pressed by the Crown it was
again communicated to the Companies with a request
to them " to assemble together a competent number of
the gravest and most substantial men of their several
Companies to consider advisedly of the said project,
every Company to nominate four men apiece of their
several Companies, of best experience, to consider
and set down such reasons, orders, demands, and
other circumstances in writing as is fit to be remembered, required, or performed in the undertaking of so worthy and honourable an action."
The Companies having accordingly reconsidered the
proposal, do not, however, appear to have entertained
it favourably; but after further correspondence and
interviews with the Privy Council a Committee representing the Companies went to view the place of the
proposed Plantation. On their return the Committee
presented their report, referring (inter alia) to "a request by them made to the Right Honorable Sir
Arthur Chichester Knight, Lord Deputy of Ireland, to
be resolved of certain doubts for the good of the City
if they shall proceed in the intended Plantation, with
his Lordship's answer under his hand to the same."
A further Committee was appointed to consider all
circumstances and matters concerning the proposed
Plantation, and they reported they had propounded to
themselves four general heads under which they had
handled every particular in its proper place [namely],
1st. What sums of money should be expended.
2ndly. What land and privileges should be demanded.
3rdly. What things should be performed.
4thly. How all should be managed and ruled."
Several further interviews took place between the
representatives of the Companies and the Privy Council;
and, the terms of the former being acceded to, a formal
Agreement was, on the 28th January 1609, entered into
between the Crown and such representatives, by which
the Companies undertook the proposed Plantation.
This Agreement does not make the slightest allusion to
the before-mentioned Articles of Plantation, or motives
and reasons, or mention or suggest any trust for any
person whatever. On the contrary (after providing for
the sites of the towns of Derry and Coleraine and the
lands to be laid thereto, and making provision as to
woods, churches, and glebes), the whole tenor of it is
to secure everything agreed on to the Undertakers in
perpetuity for their sole profit. And, to give the greater
effect to this, it provides that " they should have seven
years to make such other reasonable demands as time
should shew to be needful, but could not presently be
foreseen."
Between the date of this Agreement and the Charter
of 1613 King James the First requested that several
small matters stipulated for by the Undertakers might
be relinquished to the Crown, and the request was conceded; but, except in the matter of these small concessions, the Agreement remained in full force up to the
time of the Charter being granted, and such Agreement
formed the sole contract between the Crown and the
Companies.
The Agreement having been perfected was read at a
Common Council held at the Guildhall on the 30th January 1609, and it was thereupon ordered " That for the
better ordering, directing, and effecting of all things
touching and concerning the said Plantation, and
business thereunto belonging, there should be a Company constituted and established within the City of
London, which Company should consist of one governor, one deputy to the governor, and four and twenty
assistants, and that the governor and five of the said
assistants should be aldermen of the City of London,
and Mr. Recorder of the City should likewise be
one of the same assistants, and the deputy and the
rest of the assistants should be commoners of the
same City."
This Company (better known as "the Irish Society"
carried on the business of the Plantation, receiving
from time to time from the several Companies advances
of money for the purpose, until some time in the year
1610, when it was proposed that the lands should be
divided amongst the Companies; but the proposition
remained in abeyance until December 1613, when it
was resolved to carry it into effect. To acomplish this
it was agreed that all the moneys expended should be
divided into 12 portions; that each of the 12 principal
Companies should represent one portion, having associated with it so many of the inferior Companies as,
according to the sums disbursed by each, would make up
one twelfth portion; and that a survey of the lands and
hereditaments of the Plantation should be made, and a
division thereof effected into 12 like portions, as nearly
as circumstances would permit.
Commissioners were sent to survey the Plantation
accerdingly, and after the lands and premises had been
surveyed, a division of the greatest part thereof was
made into 12 lots, numbered from 1 to 12. These lots
were drawn for by the 12 principal Companies. Lot
No. 12 was drawn by the Skinners' Company as chief,
having associated with it the Stationers', Whitebakers',
and Girdlers' Companies, the sums disbursed by such
four Companies making up a full proportion of onetwelfth of the total moneys expended.
The Skinners' Company took possession of this
twelfth portion (being as is herein-after mentioned
that now known as the Manor of Pellipar), but no
formal grant or conveyance was made of it to the
Company until after the Charter of King James had
been granted.
The residue of the lands and hereditaments, being
principally the towns of Derry and Coleraine and the
ferries and fisheries, were considered incapable of division, and remained vested in the Irish Society for the
benefit of all the subscribing Companies.
On the 29th March 1613, King James the First, by
Charter, created the city of Derry and the lands and
hereditaments thereby granted, into a county by itself,
to be called the county of Londonderry; and for ordering
and governing the said county, constituted "The
Society of The Governor and Assistants, London, of
The New Plantation in Ulster, within the realm of
Ireland," and ordained that the Society should at all
times be able, and in law capable, to receive and possess
lands and hereditaments, and to grant lands and hereditaments by the same name. The Charter then granted
the lands and territories by their special description to
the Society, "to hold and enjoy the same, with all profits, &c., to the aforesaid Society and their successors,
to the only proper use and behoof of the said Society
and their successors for ever."
The Society so constituted by the Charter was the same
body as was created by the City under the name of a
Company, and is generally known as the Irish Society,
as already mentioned.
To enable the before-mentioned resolution for a division of the lands and hereditaments amongst the Companies to be carried into effect, the King, by Letters
Patent dated 30th September 1615, granted the Irish
Society and the Companies a license to hold the lands
in mortmain, "to the end that the Companies might
be encouraged to proceed and finish the Plantation,
and in future tymes reape some gain and benefit of
their great travailles and expenses taken and bestowed
therein."
On the 11th July 1616 the Irish Society, by deed,
created a manor of all the lands, tenements, and hereditaments now held by the Skinners' Company, by the name
of the Manor of Pellipar; and by deed dated the 22nd
March 1617 the Society granted the said Manor of
Pellipar, and all profits arising out of it, to the Skinners'
Company, to hold "to the only use and behoof of the
said maister, wardens, and comunaltie of the
misterie of the Skinners of London, their successors
and assigns for ever," and the grant contains a
covenant on the part of the Society for quiet enjoyment
by the Skinners' Company of the manor, lands, and
hereditaments, and receipt of the rents thereof to the
Company's own use and uses for ever.
During the troublous times in the reign of King
Charles the First, certain proceedings were taken in the
Court of Star Chamber for repealing the above Charter
or Letters Patent, but it becomes unimportant to relate
these in any detail, for two reasons,—first, that by a vote
of the House of Commons of October 1641, it was
resolved that the sentence in the Star Chamber was
unlawful and unjust; and, second, that King Charles
the Second, by Charter dated 10th April 1662 (after a
recital that King Charles the First had given his directions for the restoration to the Irish Society and the
Companies of their lands, &c., originally granted by the
Charter or Letters Patent of 1613, but that his Royal
intention had not taken effect in consequence of the
wars and troubles in Ireland), re-granted to the Irish
Society the lands and hereditaments formerly granted
by the Charter of 1613.
The Irish Society, following the same course as had
been pursued after the Charter of 1613, again executed
a conveyance of the Manor of Pellipar to the Skinners'
Company, dated 5th June 1663.
The above Charters, Letters Patent, and conveyances,
constitute the basis of the Company's title to their Irish
estates, and in no one of them is there any allusion or
reference whatever to "The Articles of Plantations" or
the "motives and reasons" referred to by the witnesses
from Ireland who gave evidence before the Commissioners in July 1882.
In the answer to questions numbered from 1824 to
1955 continuously, reference is made to the "Provisions
of the Charter," and it is asserted that the Companies'
Irish estates are trust estates, and that the moneys
expended upon the Plantation were raised by a tax upon
the citizens.
With regard to the assertion that the estates are trust
estates, the Skinners' Company state with confidence
that there is nothing whatever in any of the documents
under which the Companies derive their title which
could be construed as, either directly or indirectly,
creating any trust. Moreover, the documentary evidence already referred to shows that in return for the
moneys expended by them, the profits were intended to
be derived by the Companies only. It may also be
observed that there is no instance known to the Company of the estate of any individual undertaker who
took, subject to the articles, being held to be subject to
any trust.
With regard to the assertion that the moneys expended on the Plantation were raised by a tax on the
citizens, even if it were true, such fact would not in any
way create a trust for the tenants on the estate, or
militate against the Company's claim to be absolute
owners of the estate. The City, however, in a petition
presented to the House of Commons in 1641, stated (as
is the fact) "that they, the City of London, never
undertook the said Plantation, or, as to the use of the
City, disbursed any money thereabouts, but that
their name was only used for the better transaction
of that business, and only as a means to forward the
Plantation, and raise moneys by and from the several
Companies, which otherwise could never have been
effected."
The money so raised and contributed by the Skinners'
Company was temporarily levied from the members of
the Company in accordance with a recognised custom,
and the books and records of the Company show repayment to members of the several sums advanced by
them.
In conclusion, it may be mentioned that several Companies have, at different times, sold their Irish estates,
and have (as is well known) been advised by eminent
counsel that they were able to give a good title for the
purpose. In like manner the Stationers' and Whitebakers' Companies have, within the last few years (as
already stated in the Company's Return to the Commissioners), sold their interests in the Pellipar estate to
the Skinners' Company, who gave a large consideration
for the same, relying upon the fact that such Companies
were entitled, for their own use, to a share of the rents
and profits of the estate in proportion to their quota of
the contributions made by the four Companies at the
time of the division in the year 1610.