I INFLUENCE OF LAND LAWS 13 



The English wealthy man then followed the rule of 

 primogeniture because he approved of it. But the law 

 against perpetuities was not to his taste; he therefore 

 eluded it by the means of strict family settlements. Let 

 me explain. Even after the introduction of common 

 recoveries no tenant for life or in tail could bar the entail, 

 unless he were actually in possession, without the consent 

 of any tenant for life who was in possession, 1 such posses- 

 sion being generally vested in the father, who held the 

 first life interest, and although by levying a fine he could 

 bar his own issue, he could not bar any remainders or 

 reversions. This restraint was shortly after increased by 

 the plan of introducing into all settlements 'trustees to 

 preserve contingent remainders ', whose consent had to 

 be obtained, a custom which was finally devised by 

 Sir Orlando Bridgeman and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, two 

 notable conveyancers during the civil wars ; while by 

 the Act of William IV, 3-4, c. 74, the office of pro- 

 tector of the settlement was introduced for the same 

 purpose, an office generally given to the owners of 

 the estates for life, previous to the estate tail, although 

 other protectors are often added. These expedients, re- 

 sorted to in the first instance to protect the tenants in tail 

 from wrongful acts of preceding tenants, were soon used 

 for the purpose of perpetuating the family settlement. 

 Thus, suppose that an estate has been granted to A for 

 life, remainder to his unborn son X in tail. The estate is 

 thereby tied up until that son is born and has attained the 

 legal age of twenty-one. Without the consent of his 

 father the son can indeed bar his own issue, but cannot 

 bar any remainders, nor the reversion to the heirs of the 

 original grantor. That is to say, he can only grant away 



1 Chudleigh case. 



