CASE OF THE POST-NATI OF SCOTLAND. 139 



breedeth such differences. But there is little danger 

 of such scandals ; for this is a difference that the law 

 of England never knew. 



The fourth reason of this difference is, that in 

 case of conquest the territory united can never be 

 separated again. But in case of descent, there is a 

 possibility ; if his majesty s line should fail, the king 

 doms may sever again to their respective heirs ; as in 

 the case of 8 Hen. VI. where it is said, that if land 

 descend to a man from the ancestor on the part of 

 his father, and a rent issuing out of it from an 

 ancestor on the part of the mother ; if the party die 

 without issue, the rent is revived. As to this reason, 

 I know well the continuance of the king s line is no 

 less dear to those that allege the reason, than to us 

 that confute it. So as I do not blame the passing 

 of the reason : but it is answered with no great 

 difficulty ; for, first, the law doth never respect 

 remote and foreign possibilities ; as notably appeared 

 in the great case between Sir Hugh Cholmley and 

 Houlford in the exchequer, where one in the re 

 mainder, to the end to bridle tenant in tail from 

 suffering a common recovery, granted his remainder 

 to the king ; and because he would be sure to have 

 it out again without charge or trouble when his turn 

 was served, he limited it to the king during the life 

 of tenant in tail. Question grew, whether this grant 

 of remainder were good, yea or no. And it was 

 said to be frivolous and void, because it could never by 

 any possibility execute ; for tenant in tail cannot 

 surrender ; and if he died, the remainder likewise 



