Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/514

said balance; and his Grace having refused to pay the same, the respondents, in Easter term 1718, exhibited their bill in the Court of Exchequer against the Duke and Sir John Vanbrugh, stating the several matters aforesaid, and praying, that his Grace might be decreed to pay the said balance of £7314 16s. 4d.

To this bill the Duke put in an answer, and thereby denied, that he ever intended to erect the house and building at his own charge, or desired the Lord Treasurer Godolphin to act therein on his behalf; but said, that whatever was directed by his Lordship relative to the building, was not done in his private capacity, or by his the Duke's orders; but in his public capacity, as Lord High Treasurer, and by her late Majesty's commands: and he insisted, that he was not, nor ought to be bound by the instrument made by Sir John Vanbrugh; and denied that Sir John's agreement with the plaintiffs was made by his the Duke's direction, or with his approbation; or that the materials found, or work done, were done for him, or on his credit; or that he ever had, or inspected the bills of the workmen.

The Duke also filed a cross bill against the plaintiffs, praying a perpetual injunction to stay their proceedings against him, for a satisfaction of any of their demands.

On the 19th, 20th, and 21st of February 1721, both these causes came on to be heard, when the court declared, that his Grace the Duke of Marlborough was bound by the instrument signed by the Earl of Godolphin on his Grace's behalf, appointing Sir John Vanbrugh surveyor of the works and buildings at Woodstock, and impowering him to make contracts with artificers and workmen to be employed about the said building; and also by a contract made by the said Sir John Vanbrugh with the plaintiffs in pursuance thereof; and ought to pay what remained due to them for the work done, and materials found by them at Woodstock, by virtue of the said contract: and therefore decreed, that his Grace should account with and satisfy the plaintiffs for what remained due to them, for the works by them done, and the materials by them furnished, for the said building at [179] Woodstock, pursuant to the said contract; and referred it to the Deputy Remembrancer to take such account, and gave the usual directions for that purpose.

From this decree the Duke appealed, and on his behalf it was argued, (T. Reeve, C. Talbot) that the several acts of Parliament which had been passed relative to the building, had declared in the most express terms, that it was begun and carried on at the expence of her late Majesty, till the 1st of June 1712, and had made the like provision out of her civil list fund, for payment of the debts incurred on that account, as was made for her Majesty's other debts. That the building was designed, and so it appeared to be from the tenor of those acts, as a monument of, and a reward for, the Duke of Marlborough's services; if therefore the charge of this building was to be fixed as a debt upon the Duke, the consequence would be, obliging him to erect a monument of his own services, and to reward himself at his own expence; than which, it was apprehended, nothing could be more absurd. That the whole money advanced for carrying on the building till June 1712, had been issued from the Treasury; and the respondents were so far from considering the Duke as their paymaster, that (as was admitted by their answer to the cross bill) they never made any application to him for payment of their bills, till after: the building was stopped in June 1712; and afterwards in January 1715, they accepted a third part of their demands out of the money issued from the Treasury to Mr. Travers, and gave him a receipt for the same, as so much received of him out of the arrears of her late Majesty's revenue. That since the Duke had carried on the building at his own expence, the prices of the work were lower, in some instances one third, in others more, than they were before; the reason of which was given by the respondents' own witnesses, viz. that the workmen were since more certain of their pay; and this was conceived to be an evidence beyond contradiction, that the work done before June 1712, was upon the credit of the Crown. That accordingly, some of those witnesses had, under their own hands, made a distinction between the debt due on account of the building, before and since 1712; by declaring the debt due before, to be the debt of the government, and that due since, to be the Duke's own debt. That the Queen having begun and carried on the building at her own expence, and all the money for that purpose having been issued from the Treasury, without any demand being ever made upon the