The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-12-19 00:00:00

To THE EDITOR or ins STa.
. Stn,—Fair play is a jewel, and your Paper, distin.
geished for its support of the cause of justice,
wilt
readily admit, I doubt not, a justification of Sir F.
BURDETT'S conduct sgainst the attacks of Mr. COR-
BETT. It is imputed, in last Saturday's Register, to
Sir F. Botterrr, that he has, convinced by the irre-
sistible arguments of Mr. Canaan., twisted round
to the opinion of Universal Suffrage from the more
limited principle of Moderate Reform, restricting
the right of Suffrage to householders. Now let us only
advert to the" reply" of Sir FaA Nell. when he moved
sone Resolutions on Reform in the Hams of Coat-
MOM, the 2d of Jone, 1818. In sddressing blame
to Mr. BROUGHAM he made use of the following
words, to he fouutl in his printed speech:—" It was
a great mistake to suppose that he(Slr FISANCIS) bad
ever been otherwise than e defender of the principle
of the most extended Suffrage. it was true. that he
had proposed and defended' mere limited Suffrage
than--IW-tuvw offered to the consideration of the
:House. Convince& as he wes that princi-
ple enyirlding land unberartieg, dui( would bog no
reason, or take into account the feelings of, aths's,
became thereby impracticable, however correct, in
argnmear, he had always been willing, as he *ill
ass, to stop short of the utmost event to which the
priocipte Wlght be car 441 ; but he was ow ..fiew
cesspit to the ihsik of the principle' itself.'*.p.o.
Ti its ins cb tor.stltif change of opinion, (yr
whleb
F/AAISCIS 410., severely censored. Move
things, it limit Such. 4iithalga
Abash) be made by Mr. Coser.vr, the ilvetui-
-4
APO of whose opinions and priociples hare rendered
jest melees the maichlen productions of bis pan,
and unhapviily made alkorahtic attaining to tumid
to the forcible remittals" and irresistible appeals
by which he exposes sn 'public abuses. Should Too
he inclined to admit- into your Paper illustrations of
Mr. Coasares versatility and ettateodiums of opi-
nion, too shall bear frogs 81110008. It is of • ise.
portance to tie Public that the obaracter of Sir
FRANCIS should wolbe misrepresented ; it les sort of
public proPirty, and, themtfose, deemed' °stattfinden..
XXX.

0

war '

•

-
•y

LAW INTE t ENGB.
VICE:CIIANCELLOR*6 COURT. Vic. 18.
THR ATTORNEY GENERAL. AT Till RELATIox THE
MARQUI6 or SLANDIORD. AND THE HOW. AGAR
ELLIS AND OTHEIts, V. His CMLAGE THE Di.;lli. or
MARLBOROUGH.
Mr. Haststar, as junior Counsel for the Noble
Defendant, stated.this to be a bill filed by the Plebe-
tiffs, praying that the Defeatist), might be ordered to
account for the produce of certain trees which had
been cot dew, in Blenheim Palk and disposed 4:
and further, that be &lieutd be restrained by th4t
Coort from cutting down any more timber, or from
committing any other waste en the Blenheim estate.
The bill set forth some proceedings in Psrliscnent,
which took place in the 3d and 4th of Queen Aline,
when the House of Commons, on account of the sig-
nal services and high exploits, particularly the mili.
tory achievements, of the first Duke of Marlborough
in his victory at Blenheim, pleseeted an Address tre
to her Majesty the Queen, in which they eepressed
their gratitude for those services, sud trtistsultthat her
Majesty, us the fountain of honour,. wuggl great
some means of perpetuating his renown ,44110 y
The Address of the C notions was fol(owtli by a
corresponding Address of the Loads, and the Queen
espressed her perfect readiness to concur is the de•
sire of both 11-uses. At. Act of Parliament was
then made granting the Woodstock estates, militia.
ing 1894 acres, in Osfordshisr. It was allegorised.
found ess edient by the Queen and Parliement, sod
approved of by the Duke, that the e•lates should go
'down, *loll with the title, to his Grace's posterity:
By the Geese Art, her Majesty was empoeeted to
raise a cestain sum for the 'recline of a splendid
mansion, which eras to be named Blenheim-house,
in odder that posterity should be acquarnted *lin the
!loose of gratitude with which the nation had been
actuated; and that ute building s•relf tosght steed a.
permanent monement of his Grace's exploits. A.
subsequeet Act of Parliament, in the reign of
George 1., after reciting the prov;siiins of toe Misfit
Queen Ales., set (mirth, that tie erection of the
the mare.iser of I3tetthritn, the order's,' grounds, Ste.
had beets at the expels: 1i of the Queeo, out of the re,
venue granted to her by Parliament' for that very
purpose. ft was ntenriliiigly reseeded, that all de,
Instill.: and clain.s of trasletenen print to 171 t, ahotijd
he dhi barged by the Crown. The 'bill then ci.m.
plainest that the Noble Defends nt had cot down .every
trees of con.iderable value at Ilteithrim Patk, which
were not only highly ornanien:a, hut direful as a
protection to the property. lie had also owl down a.
great number of saplings at an unseasonable part cf.
the year, which he had sold, and had contracted to
furnish cement timber.merchants with timber from
the Park. Ti e bill went en to 'liege, that lithe Court
did not interfere and prevent bim, the Plaintiffs
would be deprived of the protection si hich Perth'.
me.nt had provided for them, us the heirs and de.
Icentianis of the great Duke of Marlborough. To
this bill the Defeudanehad put in a general demorrec
—first, that Ito such waste as the hill stated bad
been committed ; secondly, that the discovery sought
by the bill could be of no service to the Plaintiffs.
Mr. BELL, for the Noble Defendant, maintained
that the intention of the grout was to vest the estate
fie.iitopli in the Doke mud his seccessors, for
•Isich reason there was no reversion vested in the
Clown; therefore the King's Attorney-General was
improperly introduced as a potty to the present suit.
Tie VIOE•CIIANCELLOO said, he conceived that the
Duke remained reverstottery in fee, because the ed
of Queen Anne could never deprive him of the fee he
had obtained by the first Act.
Mr.. Him. moil, that was 'sadly the case ; end it
confirmed his argument, because the 2d of Queen
Astor, limited the estates that wet e to go with the title,
granting, at the same time, to the Duke and his sec-
Ceases' certain priviieges, bat Nesmith); them front
alienation. There were two questions then to be
considered; first, what had been the doctrine of the
Courts of Equity in cases of equitable waste, so far
as tenants fur life were concerned ? Secondly, whe-
ther there »as, in the case of the Noble Duke, any
thing that should require *different mode of proceed.
ing from others ? Before he should go further into
the question, he would observe, that when the In-
junction was moved before Lord Chancellor Eldon,
his Lordship felt some difficelty in granting it, not
finding, in his recollection, any case precisely similar,
except that of Lord Shrewsbury's; and he granted it
on the special condition, that notice should forth-
with be served on the Noble Defendant. In Common
Law, all persons, except guerdisos, who ere not
tenants for life, had fell power to cot down trees.—
The first Statute preventing the making waste was
that of Marbridge. Lord Coke, in his 2d Institute,
t 99, speaking of the estate, says, "It furnishes
teusuts in dower.tenants by courtesy and guardians,
bet not tenants for life ;" for it says of such waste,
tt it anal be owing to the negligence of donors in not
making a proper provision." The 'ld Statute was
that of Gloucester, which gave triple damages for
waste committed. The, nest was the lel of Westmin•
ster, which besides the same damages. gave them also
retrospectively. In the case of " Vaue and ,Lord
Barnard," in 1716, which was for an InjanctiOn to
restrain the Defendant from pulling down a ;mullion.
hoes., the Court held it contrary to the montane of
the donor, and restrained him accordingly. The
case of " Abrams and Budd," which was for felling
trees, Lord Chancellor Nottingham thought he could
not restrain, the Defendant ; but that if he went to
pull down houses, the Court would interpose. The
Learned Counsel stated other cases to the sameeffect,
and concluded, that the fee was vested in the great
Duke and his successors, under the first of Queen
Anne, and whoever was in possession entail, had the
right to cut down timber, tied dispose of it. The
Plaitoilfs, by the present proceeding, *ere trying to
deprive ;the Noble Defendant of his Common Law
right. Would the Counsel, said the Learned Gen-
tleman, pretend to say, the estate ought to stand pre-
cisely in the same slats as when it was first granted
by Queen Anne ?
The VICE-CuANGELLott said they most so atone,
for the meaning of the deed of gift was, that Bless-
heim was to remain in the same state as it was whets
possessed by the first Duke of Marlborough.
Mr. BELL then said they must. contend that the
Noble Defendant had. not the right of making any
improvement on the premises. It was well known
that a change had taken place in the legion of ca