the curteſy[1]; and not in tenant for life or years[2]. And the reaſon of the diverſity was, that the eſtate of the three former was created by the act of the law itſelf, which therefore gave a remedy againſt them: but tenant for life, or for years, came in by the demiſe and leaſe of the owner of the fee, and therefore he might have provided againſt the committing of waſte by his leſſee; and if he did not, it was his own default. But, in favour of the owners of the inheritance, the ſtatutes of Marlbridge[3] and Gloceſter[4] provided, that the writ of waſte ſhall not only lie againſt tenants by the law of England, (or curteſy) and thoſe in dower, but againſt any farmer or other that holds in any manner for life or years. So that, for above five hundred years paſt, all tenants for life or for any leſs eſtate, have been puniſhable or liable to be impeached for waſte, both voluntary and permiſſive; unleſs their leaſes be made, as ſometimes they are, without impeachment of waſte, abſque impetitione vaſti; that is, with a proviſion or protection that no man ſhall impetere, or ſue him, for waſte committed.
The puniſhment for waſte committed was, by common law and the ſtatute of Marlbridge, only ſingle damages[5]; except in the caſe of a guardian, who alſo forfeited his wardſhip[6] by the proviſions of the great charter[7]: but the ſtatute of Gloceſter directs, that the other four ſpecies of tenants ſhall loſe and forfeit the place wherein the waſte is committed, and alſo treble damages, to him that hath the inheritance. The expreſſion of the ſtatute is, "he ſhall forfeit the thing which he hath waſted;" and it hath been determined, that under theſe words the place is alſo included[8]. And if waſte be done ſparſim, or here and there, all over a wood, the whole wood ſhall be recovered; or if in ſeveral rooms of a houſe, the whole houſe ſhall be forfeited[9]; becauſe it is impracticable for the reverſioner to enjoy only the identical places waſted,
