212 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, ties, — that which condemns or which sanctions such a scheme? " Professor Gray condemns the construction which supports Christ's Hospital V. Granger and In re Tyler, whilst I find that Mr. Jabez Fox sanctions it. In the sixth volume of the Harvard Law Review, page 195, Mr. Fox thinks: — The Rule against Perpetuities is only aimed at preventing the non-alienation of property. In the seventh volume of the same REVIEW, page 406, Pro- fessor Gray, on the contrary, says : — The true object of the rule is to restrain the creation of future conditional interests. In other words, Mr. Fox is of the opinion that the rule does not apply to inalienable interests, whilst Professor Gray feels quite confident that it does so apply. The issue here is clearly defined, and it ought not to be difficult to determine who is right. Professor Gray cites Vice-Chancellor Stuart, in Avern v. Lloyd,^ and Mr. Justice Fry in Birmingham Coal Co. v. Cartwright,^ as rendering decisions which support Mr, Fox; but he adds, that " these two cases are instances where two exceptionally able judges have been misled by the incomplete form in which former courts had declared a doctrine, and in consequence making decisions which had to be overruled," the first in terms, in In re Har- greaves,^ and the second expressly, in London & S. W. R, R. Co. V. Go mm,* The question upon which Mr, Fox and Professor Gray, have very courteously " agreed to disagree," is involved in a gift to charity, that is, Is the true doctrine in the Rule against Perpetui- ties set forth in Christ's Hospital v. Granger?^ In this case, Lord Cottenham held that a limitation over from one charity to another charity is good, without regard to its remoteness. He said : " These rules are to prevent property from being * inalienable ' beyond a certain period," and that this eff"ect is not produced by the transfer, in a certain event, of property from one charity to another. Mr. Fox thinks that Lord Cottenham used the word " inalienable " in its narrowest possible sense, and hence Mr. Fox is enabled, very naturally, to deduce the following as the true province of the rule : to prevent property from being so disposed of that it cannot. 1 L. R 5 Eq. .-,83. 8 43 Ch. D. 401. 6 i McN. & G. 460. 2 11 Ch D. 421. 4 20 Ch. I). 562.
