338 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



to this subject. The question 

 was this — was the Duke of Marl- 

 borough a tenant for life by pro- 

 vision of law ? He was no tenant 

 for life, but he was a tenant in 

 tail, having a descendible estate, 

 and all the legal incidents which 

 belonged to that character. He 

 was, therefore, clearly of opinion, 

 that this Court had no jurisdic- 

 tion to interfere with the legal 

 ownership of the Duke of Marl- 

 borough. It had been said, that 

 this estate, which was a national 

 monument, would, by the exercise 

 of the right insisted on by the 

 defendant, be at the mercy of 

 every successor. Arguments, ab 

 incojivenientif were of importance, 

 when a court was considering the 

 intention of the author of a grant, 

 or when there was any doubt as 

 to the intention of the grantor ; 

 but when there was no doubt, 

 when the words were too plain to 

 be misunderstood, arguments of 

 inconvenience amounted to no- 

 thing. In this case he was of opi- 

 nion the construction of the 

 statutes under which the Dukes 

 of Marlborough enjoyed Blen- 

 heim-house and lands, were clear 

 and distinct, and that the argu- 

 ment of inconvenience ought to 

 have no weight. Among other 

 things, it had been said, that the 

 Duke of Marlborough might to- 

 morrow lay the whole of this 

 estate waste, and reduce this 

 Hoble mansion and spacious do- 

 mains to a barren heath. True, 

 he might do so. He derived an 

 uncontrollable title from the legis- 

 lature ; he might do what he 

 pleased with the property, with 

 the exception of alienating it. 

 "Why did the legislature leave 

 him at liberty to do so ? The 



legislature had undoubtedly re- 

 posed confidence in the illustrious 

 Duke of Marlborough, the first 

 object of its gratitude and bounty, 

 and intended the same confidence 

 should be reposed in all succeed- 

 ing Dukes of Marlborough, that 

 they would deal with the property 

 as became their rank and dignity ; 

 and was it for a court of equity 

 to recall that confidence which 

 the legislature had thought fit to 

 bestow ? Undoubtedly not. In- 

 convenience was an argument 

 often fairly addressed to a court, 

 but the legislature had itself cal- 

 culated on those feelings which 

 belonged to all great and good 

 minds ; they had considered that 

 the future possessors of Blenheim 

 would feel a pride and an honour 

 in maintaining that national mo- 

 nument which was a tribute by 

 the country to their illustrious 

 predecessor, and it could not be 

 supposed that the present Duke 

 of Marlborough would so far for- 

 get what was due to his honour 

 as to deal improperly with this 

 property. — Judgment for the 

 defendant. 



CORNWALL ASSIZES. 



Nisi Prius. 



The King v. Mary Ann Tucker. 

 —This was an indictment against 

 the defendant for a libel pub- 

 lished in a country newspaper 

 called " The West Briton and 

 Cornwall Advertiser," upon the 

 plaintiff, Mr. R. Gurney the 

 younger, vice- warden of the Stan- 

 nary Court in the county of 

 Devon. The cause was no sooner 

 called than the lady appeared in 

 Court as her own advocate, and 



was 



