@oldguardians making this answer a separate post because it’s kind of interesting*!
‘‘I cannot bear to hear that mentioned. Pray do not talk of that odious man. I do think it is the hardest thing in the world, that your estate should be entailed away from your own children; and I am sure if I had been you, I should have tried long ago to do something or other about it.’’
Jane and Elizabeth attempted to explain to her the nature of an entail. They had often attempted it before, but it was a subject on which Mrs. Bennet was beyond the reach of reason; and she continued to rail bitterly against the cruelty of settling an estate away from a family of ve daughters, in favour of a man whom nobody cared anything about.”
(In the interest of not getting bogged down in legal minutiae, I’ll keep this pretty general. Please note that I am vastly oversimplifying some legal concepts here for the sake of explaining the issue clearly. If you’re an attorney/barrister/whatever, don’t @ me - I KNOW it’s all much more nuanced than this.)
Pride & Prejudice is set somewhere around 1811. In the novel, the Bennets’ ownership interest in the family estate is famously said to be “entailed” away from the Bennet girls in favor of their cousin, Mr. Collins. This is specifically explained to be because Mr. Bennet has no sons, and thus his estate reverts back to his closest male relative.
In the real world, entailment could (and usually did) work that way. But there is an enormous, glaring issue: English entailments have long been very VERY easy to defeat** through a remedy called Common Recovery. If Longbourn was truly entailed away from the female descendants, as the novel indicates, Mr. Bennet could have hired an attorney (his brother-in-law?) to start the Common Recovery process at any time. Within a few months, the court would render a judgment giving Mr. Bennet the property outright and free from any entailment, allowing him to leave the property to his daughters upon his death*** and make them independently wealthy women. And this wasn’t just a possibility - it was a very common legal mechanism that would have been almost expected of a gentleman interested in preserving his family’s comfort. There are hundreds of cases in the English Chancery records (featuring many families that were much less wealthy than the Bennets!) invoking this very remedy whenever fathers failed to produce sons.
So entailment makes no sense - it had basically no power over landowners by the Regency Period.
Let’s talk alternatives. In 1811, the primary way of keeping property in the male line was through another estate planning technique called strict settlement. To GREATLY simplify a complicated form of ownership, strict settlement had the present possessor of property always hold a life estate interest (they own it only until their death), with their male primogeniture descendants holding a remainder fee tail interest (read: eventual outright ownership upon their father’s death). Each generation of life estate owner would then force their young male descendants (the fee tail owner) upon their coming of age to give the young descendant’s unknown future male sons the remainder interest, retaining a life estate for themselves (which they would receive upon their father’s death). Thus the ownership system perpetuates down a male line of descendants, each generation demanding the same restrictive ownership system of their own children.
If you followed that - and I don’t blame you if you didn’t, as this is all very deliberately obtuse - you might think “wait okay. That kind of sounds like the Bennets’ situation. Austen called it an entailment but maybe it was actually a strict settlement!” Several academics have tried to argue that, but it also fails for several reasons:
(1) With the Bennets’ seemingly comfortable current income, strict settlement would have provided for significant lifetime income + dowries for Mr. Bennet’s female descendants. But in P&P, it’s made very clear that the girls’ only possible inheritance is a tiny amount from their mother’s side and nothing from their father’s. If they do not marry, they will be destitute. That is extremely unlikely and would be very shameful in strict settlement ownership..
(2) It would have been inconceivable for Mr. Bennet’s father to have forced him to benefit a cousin over his own descendants, even if they were women. One of the fundamental points of strict settlement was to avoid this outcome (aka to avoid the entailment system). People did NOT want a distant male cousin to inherit property simply because there wasn’t a primogeniture male descendant - they knew that if anything, their own female descendants could always produce a male heir in their marriages. Plus, Mr. Bennet’s and Mr. Collin’s fathers apparently hated each other (ref Mr. Collins’ initial letter) - why would Mr. Bennet’s father force his son to benefit the son of a man he himself hates?
(3) For many many other reasons, a strict settlement does not match how the family talks about/treats the estate in the novel. There’s literally a whole law review article on this topic (cited below), and I’ll defer to that for a full discussion.
So we’re left with two possibilities: the land is entailed, and for some reason Mr. Bennet isn’t willing to pay a small amount in attorney’s fees to undo the entailment for the enormous benefit of his daughters (extremely unlikely, robs the story of all its tension), or the land is subject to a bizarre + shameful strict settlement that goes directly against everything that would have been normal at the time, and none of the characters know that (makes no sense in the story).
And then, of course, there’s the truth: the “entailment” is simply a narrative device that does not reflect actual law or historical transfer of property at death, which is perfectly fine. Jane Austen was not writing a law textbook or even a legal drama. And her underlying point remains clear: Regency-era women were often in economically precarious positions and forced to marry to maintain their social and economic standings.
((If you do want a version in your head that works under the law, maybe we imagine that Mr. Collin’s father actually owned the home but was in debt to Mr. Bennet so he gave him some kind of strange lifelong leasehold interest with income from the property included. And then we ignore the passage saying Mr. Bennet having a son would have “avoided” the home passing to Mr. Collins + pretend that the family lied to everybody about the home being entailed to save face))
For additional reading, I highly recommend A FUNHOUSE MIRROR OF LAW: THE ENTAILMENT IN JANE AUSTEN’S PRIDE AND PREJUDICE by Peter A. Appel (linked). His analysis reflects my own reading of Regency inheritance law, and I think his conclusions are generally sound. There is significant other scholarship on this subject, but I find Appel’s work the most persuasive.
—-
* At least to me, who admittedly studies this for a living
** For fun War of the Roses reasons!
*** Or much more likely, to a male relative conservator/trustee for their benefit (probably Mrs. Bennet’s brother, the attorney)
@hamletthedane Not being a lawyer myself and only kind of understanding the Wikipedia article on common recovery when I just read it, I'm curious how the actual inheritance of Longbourn would then be decided after a common recovery? Like assuming it was normally entailed and Mr. Bennet went through this (apparently rather byzantine) process to break the entail, what comes next? Would he then be able to leave it to one daughter in particular (at the expense of the others) or would he leave it to all five w/ the assumption that it could pass in whole to, say, Jane's son eventually? If I'm remembering right from a cursory understanding of coverture, the estate would probably be in a trust rather than directly managed by whichever of the Bennet girls de jure inherited it, yes?
(I know Georgiana Darcy's inheritance is protected in that way, hence Wickham not being able to get his hands on it.) (At which point, if a trust is the default way forward, it presents the problem of who'll actually manage that trust, which is part of the problem Austen is actually highlighting, in the sense that even if the Bennet girls could inherit, they could only do so on a very limited basis with the understanding that either it becomes their husband's property or it's really being overseen by someone else entirely and the inheriting daughter doesn't have actual legal power over it.)
Then there's the fact that Lizzie is just 21 and I think Jane is 22, and iirc 21 was the legal age of majority, so even if he'd broken the entail prior to the novel, there was only a brief window of time wherein he even had a valid, adult heir - presuming here that if the entailment was broken but he died before one of his daughters reached the age of majority, it would either revert to Mr. Collins automatically or be much more vulnerable to Collins suing to get it back or whatever. I know there's plenty of cases where a little boy inherits an estate that's then managed by his father or whatever until he's of age, but I can't imagine the same principle would apply to a girl in the same circumstances.
Depending on how he would have to delineate the question of inheritance after breaking the entail, I think there's an argument for him simply not having done it yet at the time of the book bc none of his daughters are married and he either does not want to risk the younger ones having any sort of official hand in it because that seems like disaster so he'd rather just let the entail bear itself out, or he wants to wait until he knows who his options are vis a vis sons in law so he can decide who inherits. God forbid Jane's kindness should cause her to marry someone deeply foolish and she's the heir.
Someone else in the notes also made the argument about Mr. Bennet being a fundamentally lazy person and not wanting to go through the trouble so he just relied on Mrs. Bennet not knowing it was an option, which is a good argument. Or, frankly, I can also see him relying on the pressure of the entailment to get his daughters to marry sooner so that there'll be a grandson to inherit before he dies, saving everyone the trouble.
I think the question of has he broken it, does he plan to break it, why hasn't he broken it, etc, rest a lot more on the issue of making those decisions about inheritance after it's broken, especially depending how stressful or complicated it would be.
(I can also, from a comedic angle, definitely see him having already broken the entail and just not told his family bc 1) he wasn't speaking to Mr. Collins or his father and I can see him [petty] thinking it'd be really really funny for them to show up expecting to inherit and get Nothing and 2) it's a long con version of the "i don't see why I have to visit the new neighbors" bit from the beginning of the book. It could be in character for him to have remedied this when it became clear they wouldn't have any sons, and by then he was addicted to stressing out his wife for fun so he didn't tell her.)
(I think an argument could also be made for the reader's knowledge of common recovery being taken for granted in the sense that it's supposed to imply things about Mr. Bennet that he hasn't broken the entail. Similar to how the entire argument between the Dashwoods at the start of Sense and Sensibility shows how vulnerable women were to the whims of their male relatives, and whoever might be influencing them, the failure to break the entail may well be meant to compound with Mr. Bennet's never taking them to town or getting them properly educated in terms of showing his laziness and negligence and how severely that could impact their futures. Personally I disagree that this robs the novel of its tension - if anything it adds to it, because if Mr. Bennet is really that negligent, who knows how precarious the girls' futures are in other unnamed ways? And I think it would certainly contribute to Darcy's poor opinion of Mr. Bennet, given we can presume he would definitely know how easy it is to break an entail. It might even be part of his certainty when he proposes to Lizzie initially - of course she'd want to get out from under the dubious care of a gentleman who can't even be fucked to break an entail or go to London for the good of his daughters!)
