Correspondence of Governor Sharpe. 343

In your Letters of 14. & 19. July you are pleased to Com-
municate to Lord Baltimore the Interruption given to the Sale
of Ann Arundell Manor arising from M^r Calvert's Claim.
His Lordship had received a previous Intimation of this
Obstruction from M^r Jordan w^ch he hopes is in a great
measure removed by Two Letters of 5^th and Sep^r last
addressed in answer by his Lordship and me to that Gentle-
man with whom I had likewise some Conversation upon the
Subject before his Departure. You state very truly the
Invalidity of the Devise as proceeding from the Entail Created
by former settlem^ts but then add that the question has been
asked " If the late Lord could not Devise, because only Tenant
in Tail, By what Limitation or means has the present Lord
an Estate in Fee Simple ; or how does his Power to sell
arise "
I believe your Excellency has been Led into this State of
the Question from M^r Dulany's Letter to you of the 13^th of
July But the Copy of the Settlem^t of 1730 and the accompany-
ing Case sent to M^r Jordan will shew this not to be the true
State For by that Settlem^t the late Lord had reduced himself
to a meer Life Estate with restrained Powers, and had
Transferred the Estate Tail to his Son ; The Question then
will be, Can a bare Tenant for Life Convey a greater Interest
to another than what he holds himself, and can he Defeat his
own Issue, who is a Purchaser for a Valuable Consideration,
or the Widow in respect of her Jointure, by a Voluntary
Devise. For If the Act be Valid as to a part, it would be
equally so as to the whole Interest Settled, had the Devise
extended so far Rectify then the question by the Settlement
and the Objection and Devise must both fall to the ground.
There was a time when the late Lord was Tenant in Tail,
and had he remained so to his Death when his Will took
place, it might have admitted of some Question how far his
Devise should have taken place. But the settlement is an
Absolute bar to any Subsequent Disposition, not deduced
from it, as If there had been a failure of Issue, and the Rever-
sion had Attached, which might have restored his Lordship to
his antient Dominion, but this (Thank Heaven) has not
Proved the Case.
The Question seems to Admit that had the late Lord been
Tenant in Tail he might have Aliened, and as it appears he
was not so at the time of his Will and Death, will you not
allow the same Priviledge to the Son who Stands Confessedly
so under the Settlement now before you. But I hope the
Letters and Papers already sent M^r Jordan have Quieted the
matter. His Lordship was well advised upon the Invalidity
of the Devise before he sent out his Commission, and little