64 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE [xv. 



settlement, the provisions of which were the subject 

 of litigation in Chudleigh's case (1 Co. Rep. 113) 

 was made in the 3rd and 4th Ph. and Mary 

 (1556), and contained limitations of the nature I 

 have explained, and there is no reason for holding 

 that this was by any means the first settlement of 

 the kind. A little research would, I believe, bring 

 earlier instances to light. Settlements of land such 

 as I have described, strict settlements as they are 

 called, possessed manifest advantages over the grants 

 of estates tail which they had superseded. No pro- 

 vision for younger children was compatible with the 

 estate tail, unless we admit that the right of a widow 

 to dower, the right, that is, to one-third of the land for 

 her life, frequently, no doubt, applied to their support, 

 could be so considered. In addition to provision for 

 younger children a settlement can be moulded entirely 

 at the pleasure of the settler ; it may prefer a younger 

 son to an elder, a daughter to a son, it may give 

 to younger children any part or the whole of the 

 estate. In short, the law, in accordance with the 

 genius of the English people, leaves the settler 

 absolutely unfettered with regard to the disposition 

 of his property ; restraining him only by forbidding 

 provisions, which would give an interest in the pro- 

 erty to an unborn person, if that person would 

 not necessarily take the interest during the life of a 

 person in existence at the time of the settlement, or 

 within a period of twenty-one years and a few months 



