Referred to, p. 264.

If the rule of perpetuity, which restrains executory interests' within a life or lives in being and twenty-one years afterwards, be, as is sometimes contended (a), the only limit to the settlement of real estate by way of remainder, the following limitations would be clearly unobjectionable : - To the use of A., a living unmarried person, for life, with remainder to the use of his first son for life, with remainder to the use of the first son of such first son, born in the lifetime of A., or within twenty-one years after his decease, for life, with remainder to the use of the first and other sons of such first son of such first son of A., born in the lifetime of A., or within twenty-one years after his decease, successively in tail male, with remainder to the use of the first son of the first son of A., born in his lifetime, or within twenty-one years after his decease, in tail male, with remainder to the use of the second son of such first son of A., born in the lifetime of A., or within twenty-one years after his decease, for life, with remainder to the use of his first and other sons, born in the lifetime of A., or within twenty-one years after his decease, successively in tail male, with remainder to the use of the second son of the first son of A., born in his lifetime, or within twenty-one years after his decease, in tail male, with remainder to the use of the third son of such first son of A., bom in the lifetime of A., or within twenty-one years after his decease, for life, with remainder to the use of his first and other sons, born as before, successively in tail male, with remainder to the use of such third son of the first son of A., born as before, in tail male, with like remainders to the use of the fourth and every other son of such first son of A., born as before, for life respectively, followed by like remainders to the use of their respective first and other sons, born as before, successively in tail male, followed by like remainders to the use of themselves in tail male; with remainder to the use of the first son of A. in tail male, with remainder to the use of the second son of A. for life; with similar remainders to the use of his sons, and sons' sons, born as before; with remainder to the use of such second son of A. in tail male, and so on.

(a) Lewis on Perpetuity, p. 408 et seq.

It is evident that every one of the estates here limited must necessarily arise within a life in being (namely, that of A.) and twenty-one years afterwards. And yet here is a settlement which will in all probability tie up the estate for three generations: for the eldest son of a man's eldest son is very frequently born in his lifetime, or, if not, will most probably be born within twenty-one years after his decease. And great grandchildren, though not often born in the lifetime of their great grandfather, are yet not unusually born within twenty-one years of his death. Now if a settlement such as this were legal, it would, we may fairly presume, have been adopted before now; for conveyancers are frequently instructed to draw settlements containing as strict an entail as possible; and the Court of Chancery has also sometimes had occasion to carry into effect executory trusts for making strict settlements. In these cases it would be the duty of the draftsman, or of the court, to go to the limit of the law in fettering the property in question. But it may be safely asserted that in no single case has a settlement, such as the one suggested, been drawn by any conveyancer, much less sanctioned by the Court of Chancery. The utmost that on these occasions is ever done is, to give life estates to all living persons, with remainder to their firsl and other sons successively in tail male. As, therefore, the best evidence of a man's having had no lawful issue is that none of his family ever heard of any, so the best evidence that such a settlement is illegal is that no conveyancer ever heard of such a draft being drawn.