The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-12-25 00:00:00

,~..

•
; :,-- • zweltatiti, uctiniihr.., " , -
• .
`..11 1 Vlcli L
iIIAtiCELOR'S COMET, Dia. IL
Tit lilltikolistklikatenar. if. ink Dints or aillietz
lehol7o h.
His Howotti;ba Monday last, Intiinated his di,•
lire that the dietrisitionorthis cab., with a refeiveste
•••• the Acts( Parliament, giVing fibool, i year to the
Dsa oi Matilloitaili& Shield cense so the fires, after
the haring Of Mit *We PethiOns. . AccorAngly the
Celosel for tbi tibetnerel wbie beard at great leagils
'this day.
Mr. But., in ibedience to the wish of the Court,
bad 'prepared to argue the question, as if the Act
just mentioned iris contained in tha bill, and was
taken in by the demurrer. lie thought the point
which the Gentlemen opposed to him would have to
contend for, ea* one of extrethe difficulty. It could
net bedenied, that the power of committing waste
was incidental to all estates in tail. This was a
simple principle, and it would be for them to show,
that there was something in the
.Act to do it away.—
if it was meant that the Act did it by implication, he
denied that it could so be done. The termb shoeid he
clear and unquestionable. He submitted, that if the
Legislature did not intend that the successive Dukes
should be free from impeachment of waste, and that
it was to be left to their own feelings to protect the
estate against destruction, they would have clearly
so expressed it in the Act by limitations to that effect,
or given it to a guardian, as they did in the case of
the Duke of Wellington. They could never mean
that the taste of those days impressed on the estate,
sheold remain until the end of time. But if the are
*argent of the Gentlemen oppwite meant any thine,
it must have amnonteri to this, that the estate and its
ornaments should remlin in the very same position it
was placed in by the original Duke of Marlborough.
They might as well contend, that the Parliament of
Henry 111. could oblige the Barons of those days,
aind their successors, to remain in their castles, with-
lout the power of altering them to this day. But
it was obvious, the Legislature hi the time of
.Queen Anne, could not hate meant an much in effect.
No Duke of Marlborough, if that doctrine were good,
could ever remove what was once placed as an orna-
ment on the estate, however obsolete it might have
become. So that when one part of the trees were so
artanged as to describe the battle of Blenheim, and
another part to describe the twelve signs of the
zodiac, as he had seen done, the Dukerould have no
power to touch these ornaments, however incongruous
and grotesque.
The VicE-Citamcer.r.ott said, that the line of ergo.
silent was addressed to a point which did not then
arise. The point of equitable waste was already dis.
cussed. Supposing the successors of 'the Duke of
Mar Thorough were at liberty to stake alterations,
upon the view of the case under the circumstances of
the estate being subject to thejurisdiction of the Court,
it could interfere, and see whether such alterations
were oon'i,tent with thesheltering and ornamenting
the family mansion of Blenheim, or whether they
tended to its destruction.
Mr. BELL argued, In substance, that taking each
Act connected with the grants to the Marlborough
family separately, and examining them, he could not
find any such thing as an intention on the part of the
Legislature, to restrict the successors to this estate,
beyond the mere power of alienation. If they did
iutebd so, they would have expressed their intention
by ‘ords, or they would have made a guardian to
pretide spinet waste, if they intended tbat the suc-
ceiSors sof the chile shield be restricted from an ab-
solute rillieloten over it. There was an extreme
difficulty' even in the principle contended for on the
other side; namely, that the power of enjoyment
was gratited to the Dukes, without the power of al.
teration ; and this difficulty arose from the uncer-
tainty of ascertaining where the ornaments ceased,
and where the enjoyment began. But the Legisla-
ture implied that the family was the best judge of
what was beneficial toils own character, and it would
be most anxious in preserving it. He would beg to
obserte, that the whole of the Bill only applied to the
timber, and could have no reference to the house.—
So that if the lejunction could prevail as to the house,
the demurrer would still be good as to the woods.
The VICE-Cuauctit.sa said, though the bill did
net mention housiti lilt it was necessarily involved
in the discussion, ileotese the demurrer vindicated
thrrg .neral right to waste. His opinion on the soh-
jeet of equitable white already delivered, would
not allow him to give bit sanction to destructive
4 waste. It was not tistintention of the Legislature, that
Ore obsolete taste of the days of Qseen Anne should
elentilloo as impressed ni this estate to the end of
there. The Duke ioald 'blahs' alterations on the
awe, provided they' were' moistest with the ho-
ohne and digeity Of the faintly. Then the question
*Gold be, if the cutting of the timber was for the tle-
structien of the estate, or fdr the honour and dig-
nity of the family.
Mr. WRAY, for the demurrer, argued, that no in-
ference could be made of a restriction, which, if it
was meant to be laid, was too important not to be
made the subject of an express clause. The first
Act did not give to the Duke the grant'of the estates
to order to be made perpetual to him for the support
of his honour and dignities, for they were vested iu
him in fee,' and be could have sold them the next
day. The eecond Act did not create any further re-
striction open him; neither did the third, nor the
Pension Act, for that was metely a re-grant. The
50001. a year was given originally by Queen Anne
during• her life-time, and the House of Commons
only altered the terms, by rendering it perpeteal.-
I'here was nothing in all this, implying an inten-
tion of the Legislates, to make there estates an es-
ception in soy sooner from the general laws of
estates in tail.
Mr. HAMMON, on the same side, said the Lord
Chancellor decided, that the estate and manor were
alienable to creditors, but that the pension was not ;
and be contended from that, that a pension so dis-
tinct In its limitation could not be given for the sup-
port of the estates.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, after all he had heard
upon the subject, that the impression was still un.
! changed, which he had received from perusing the
1
Act in the first intones. Ile disclaimed all authority
to Construe the terms *flits Act contrary to the in-
tention with which it was drawn' up. The intention
Iwas to be easitected tram the langiage of the Act;
and a necessary implicatitid comtiteterf as stub the