The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-08-04
BIG CONSIGNMENT
OF BRITISH DUKES

a me only one held b. family OF Swiss
origin For Peter Tnellusson. who
bought RendleSham was born a,
son OF that Isaac The!lusson who ng-
ured as SWISS ambassador at the court
o. Louis XIV
Peter Thellusson came to London in
secured letters OF natnraiila;ton
as an Englishman. embarked in
business, and accumulated a large fcr-
snnt. estimated al some s5.600,OOO, by
successful investments. enterprises a,.d
specuIatons. as well as by the utmost
avar!ce. he seems TO have beer a
most disagreeable old man. with a
"a ~, nara voice. who so icrrorized
ms family that his wife is said 10 nave
oied OF oroken heart: while after
MS death his portrait which stll
figures at Kendlesham Hall was shot
IN III OF ho!es ey his disguised sons
men they found that according TO his
/ VII! neither they nor their children
70 enjoy any OF the vast proper
" which ne had left behind him
me VIII provided that the fortune
shon!a 80 on accumula ting at com
pound interest curing the lives of his
eight sons and OF his grandchiidres,.
nen me entire property was to be
child. on the condition that he AS
sunied the name OF Thellusson. IL he
o!d not already possess II at birth:
ana tnat IN default o: this compliance
I
! thefe being no great grandchild. the
| accumulated fortune should be applied
thFouSh the agency of the sinking
iund to the reduction of the national
Ills motive in making this viii was
parity due 10 malignant ha tired OF his
children and grandchildren and mart
~ TO vanity. anxious as he was that
nearly a century after his deaih his his
name should he perpetuated by the
largest fortune in existence
81 course his testamentary disposi-
t,r9versy, criticism and litigation. md
ied TO the enactment By Parliament or
me Thellussop act. which became A
r am me it land and. IN 1900: and which
| property 10 be tied up for more than
Iwenty-one years after a testator.s
death. But the law was no, retroac-
I've ana the VIII was upheld. by decis-
i ,Sn Oh the House of Lords. in June,
leOo. Litigation continued, however
G!nons me various members OF the
.@Hiliy Tor the following nifty years
yers. Va IA
The last surviving grandchild died
IN February, 1856. and then question
d descena as to whether the Oldest male
seencan; of the eldest son. should in.
merit the property. the matter being
brought 70 conclusion on final an
peal IN 1853. in favor OF the senior
namely, the present and fifth Lord
Rendlesham
It is said that owing to the extra
oGalnary expenses of all the sixty
years of litigation. the fortune which
IN ., us came ito the possession OF Lord
heholesham was only about twice the
size Of the wealth left by old Peter
Thsilusson at the time OF his death.
II Charles Dickens did not immcdi-
ately intend the Thellusson case to BIO
the original OF "Jarndyce versus Jarn-
dyce," he at any rate makes an obvi
Gus reference thereto in the preface
OF OF STEAK House" written in 1853. in
the Following words. There is an
other we'll known suit in chancerv
not yet decided, which was commence:
before the close of the last ce.,turv
and in which fabulous sums have been
swallowed up in costs. If wanted
other authorities for Jarndyce versus
Jarndyce. I could rain them on these
pages"
Copyright 1911. by the Brentwood
Company