Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/563

long leases, which by these statutes are declared to be unreasonable and of very ill consequence, most certainly were so before they were prohibited. For it must be allowed that the original founders intended, that the members for the time being should enjoy only the revenues arising from their benefactions, during their continuance in these colleges, etc. and transmit them to their successors without diminution. And therefore, for the then Dean and Chapter to grant so long a lease, under so small a reserved rent, and to oblige their successors to renew at the end of it for so trifling a fine, seemed not to have been consistent with their trust;^[1] and if the lessees were without remedy at law, it was submitted, whether a Court of Equity ought, in such a case, to give any extraordinary assistance beyond what the rules of law will allow.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, on Saturday the 11th of May 1728, it was ordered, that the Judges should, on Monday next, deliver their opinions seriatim, on the following point; viz. "Whether, consistently with the several restraining statutes insisted on at the bar, any and what obligation lies on the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul, from the covenant now in dispute."

Accordingly, on the 13th all the Judges attended, and having delivered their opinions seriatim, upon the question proposed, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree complained of should be reversed; and that the respondents, the Dean and Chapter, should on the surrender or determination of the present lease in being, dated the 20th of February 1670, make a new lease to the Master, Fellows, and Scholars of Trinity Hall in Cambridge, for forty years, for a fine or £20, and under the ancient rents, with the covenants and conditions in the old lease contained, except the covenant for renewal; which lease for forty years was to be [250] accepted by Trinity-Hall, subject to the same qualified trusts to which the present lease was subject; and that the Court of Chancery should cause this order and judgment to be put in execution accordingly. (Jour. vol. 23. p. 261, 262.)

The respondent was the daughter of Edward Harris, formerly governor of the isle of Jersey, who brought her up in a genteel, sober, and regular manner; but being afterwards greatly reduced by misfortunes, he left her at his death very young, and in a helpless condition.

In May 1717, William, Marquis of Annandale, applied to the respondent to become his housekeeper; which, considering her narrow circumstances, she was the more easily prevailed upon to accept, and for some time behaved herself well and virtuously, but was at length prevailed upon by the Marquis to cohabit with him.

The respondent afterwards proving with child, and the Marquis being very desirous to make some provision for the support and maintenance of the respondent and such child, when the same should be born, and for the longer liver of them; did, of his own free will and offer, procure to be prepared, and on the 15th of September 1718, executed a bond to the respondent, in the penalty of £4000 conditioned for the heirs, executors, or administrators of the Marquis, paying to the respondent £2000 within one month after his death.

And on the same day, the Marquis and the respondent mutually executed a deed or instrument, whereby, after reciting the said bond, the Marquis declared, that as well for divers good causes and considerations, as for and in consideration of the love and affection which he bore to the respondent, and a child already begot by him on her body; and for a provision or maintenance for the respondent and such