The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-12-19 00:00:00

L.l3' INTELLIGENCE.

vier.Cli ANC C LLOR'S COURT, LiNcou's

FRIDAY, DECEMBER Is.

DEMURRER—THE BLENHEIM ESTATE.
111 F. ATTO7.NLY-GENERAT., at the relation ry' the
Marquis of BLANDFORD aid the Hon. AGAR
iLLis v. his Grace the Duke of maausnaouais.

Mr. Hastiosr, the Junior Counsel fur the
Noble Delentlio:t, !dated that this was • bill
fi!rd by the I'l •ii.tiff-, praying that the Noble
I)4enolonit nt•:; i h.• ordered to account for the
',induce oit coat tiers which he hail cut
day:ii its Blenheim Perk end disposed of ; and
that he •hould be restrained by injunction born
atiir4 down timber, and from committing waste
on the Blenheim estate. The bill stated some pro.
cerdings which took place in Parliament in the
reign of the 311 and 4th of Queen Anne, when
the House of Commons, on account of the emi-
nent military services and valorous exploits of
the then Duke of Marlborough, particularly that
of his victors• at Blenheim, presented an Address
to her Majesty Quo en Anne, in which they ex-
pressed their gratitude for his service•, and hoped,
as her Majesty was the fountain of honour, that
she would grant his Grace some reward to iwrpetu-
ate his name and services. A sirnillor address was pre.
sewed to her Majesty by the House of Loyd.. Her
Mojesty, no answer, expressed her ready acquiescence
to forward the wishes of both Houses of Parliament.
An Act of Parliament then passed, griming Ile
NVooolstrock estates, in Oxfordshire, to his G ace,
coukuuing 1,g94 acres. It was afterward% thought
necessary by her Majesty, and approved of by Par-
liament and his Grace, that the estates should go
;dotal.; with the title. '[he same Act empowered her
Majesty to raise a certain sum to erect a splendid
mansion, to be called Blenheim House, that pus-
wry might know of the gratitude of the country,
sad that it might stand as a public monument of
his Groce's achievements. An Act of Parliament
afterward. passed in the first year of the reign of
George the First, winch, after reciting the provisions
of the Acts of Queen Alone, set forth that the
erection of the mansion, gardens, and grouoids had
been carried on at the expense of Queen Atone, out
of the revenue granted to her by Parliament for that
purpose. It was, therefore, enacted, that all tle.
'rands and claims of tradesmen prior to the year
171% should be diaehorged by the Crowoo.
The bill complained that the Noble Dr.
lentlant had cut dowu several trees of coot-
siderable value in Blenheim Park, which were
no; only highly ornamental, but useful as a pro-
tection to the property ; and that he had also
cut down a number of towline at an unseason-
able period of the year, which he lied sold, rod
that he had contracted to furnish several timber
merchants with timber from the Park. The bill
then alleged, it the Court did not interfere and pre-
vent him Irian doing so, the Plaintiffs would be
deprived of the protection which Parliament intend-
ed to clothe them with, as the heirs awl descendants
of the great Doke. To this bill the Noble De.
!rodent had put in a general demurrer—first, that
no such wane had been committed as the bill
charged ; and, secondly, that the discovery sought
by the bill could not be of any service to the
_ _ .

_ .....
Mr. BELL, leading Counsel for the Noble De.
fendant, stilted, that the intention of the grant was
to vest the estate in fee simple in the Doke and his
successors, for which reason there was no reversion
vested in the Crown; therefore, his Majesty's At-
torney-General was improperly introduced as a
party in the ;peseta suit.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR-44 I take it that the
Duke Troubled reversionary in fee, because the
second Act of Queen Anne could never deprive
him of the- fee he had taken by the first Act."
Mr. BELL said, that was precisely the case, and
it co. firmed his argument, because the second Act
of Queen Atom limited the estates to go with the
title, granting at the same time to the Duke and
Iris successors certain privileges, but preventing
them Nan alienation. There were two questions,
there fore, to he argued—first, what had been the
doctrine of Cowls of Equity in cases of eqnitable
waste, so far as tenants fur life were concerned ;
secondly, whether there was any thing in the
castor the Duke of Marlborough that should tuake
it be oreeeted in a different manner from others.
Before he entered on the argument, he would oh.
serve, that when the injunction was moved for
before Lord Chancellor Eldon, his Lordship felt
some difficulty in granting it, he not having in his
recollection, in the course of his long experience,
any care precisely similar, except that of Lord
Shrewsbury, and he granted it on the specific CUII.
ditto's that notice should he forthwith served on the
Noble Defendsted. By the practice of the common
I,w, persons, except guardians, who were te-
nants not for life, had full power to cut down
timber. The first statute to prevent the commit-
tin;; of waste, was that of Marbridge. Lord Coke,
in his Secand Institutes, '199, epeakilig of that eta.
tote, sap, " It punishes tenants its dower, tenants
by courtesy, amid guardians, but not tenants for
hie; for it says, if these commit waste, it must
be owing to the negligence of the donors, in
not making a proper provision against waste."
The 2d statute was that of Gloucester, which gave
triple &twee' for waste committed. The next
*us the 2d of Westminster, which not only gave the
same damages, but gave them retrospectively. In
the cease of Vane and Lord Barwird, iii the year
1716, whies was fee son injeitertion to restrain the
Defendurit Irmo willing down a inomiois.house,
the Court 1...1.1 it was contrary to the meaning of
Ale donor, and it restrained limn. The case of
Abrams and Budd, as reported in 2d Freeman, 53,
which was for felling trees, Lord Chancellor
Nuttinglimn Is. lel he could not restrane the De-
frodoist ; beet if lie went to pull down houses,
the Court would restrain him. The Learned
Counsel stated several other cases to the same
effect, and «a.teilded, that the fee was rested in
the great I liike and his successors, under the
Airet Act or Duren Anne ; and whoever was 111
possession iu tail, lied the right to cut down the
timber and dispose of it. Tile by the
present proceeding. were trying to deprive the No-
-Me Defendant of his common how eight. lie
would ask, pould it not be too moll' in deprive the
Miller of the ...state and his heirs irom making any
alteration it; Abe impralieSpeiltb 2 Su vvvbc the trees