Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [11 January 1866]
Title
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [11 January 1866]
Title
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [11 January 1866]
Sender
Frederic Harrison
Recipient
George Eliot
Date(s)
- 1866-01-11
Place
London
Letter Content
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [11 January 1866]
MS: Tinker Collection, Yale. Hitherto unpublished.
New Sq. | Linc: Inn. not Temple.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
You have supplied me with the most interesting piece of professional work which I have had before me for a long time. I have been at work at your [case] with zest, for points of law are so little connected even remotely with the happiness of mankind that I fall with a will upon one which I hope will be.
I did not send you Sugden yesterday as it occurred to me that I had better send you an abstract of it first with a sketch of state of circumstances, and I was preparing to do this when your letter reached me. I think there is no difficulty at all in answering the conditions of the case in which you are interested in a way to stand all the lawyers and conveyancers of Westminster Hall. As I was saying the other night, if the case be one of heirship, it will be necessary to have regard to the law of limitations. The ordinary period was 20 years. This is extended to 40 years when the claimant is under disability i.e. non compos, beyond seas, under age, or in prison etc. Under the old law an even longer period than 40 years under peculiar circumstances was admissible.
But I think it will be better, if it can be managed, to regard the case as one of settlement not of heirship. By this means all the intricate law of limitations will be avoided altogether. Any period may be assumed. It is far more flexible. And it avoids the difficulty of there being no alienations to break the descent. I am afraid this is not very clear but I will put the case, by an example.
The possessor of an estate (who may stand in any relationship or none to those who take from him) makes his will dated we may suppose 1700 and gives his land thus
To A during his life; on his death,
To B and his heirs in tail i.e. right heirs, male or female, of B's body; on failure of B's heirs in tail (or issue),
To C and his heirs in tail.
On the testator's death say in 1701, A (who might be a stranger or his widow) comes into possession and lives in possession some long time. B is then tenant in tail in remainder (that is expectantly). A and B together could by a proper process of law bar the entail, defeat C's prospect, and undo the settlement but neither can separately. So long as A is in possession B can only bar the entail partially, that is can defeat his own issue -- but not C or his issue. This is called creating a base fee. 403 It is a good fee simple estate, so long as B and B's issue remain.
We might conceive this state of things. B may be on bad terms with A and unable to obtain A's concurrence, yet ready and anxious to make something even out of a base fee. This interest being precarious would only be bought at an undervalue yet if B had numerous children it often would find purchasers.
Let us suppose B being needy and estranged from A to create such a base fee and sell his and his children and issue's rights to X. B might then die during A's life, X upon A's death comes in as purchaser and retains the estate lawfully (say in 1720). X might be a member of the family or a stranger and would continue to retain or transmit to his heirs the estate, affecting to have a fee simple, but all the while only possessing a base fee or rights during the survival of B's issue. C and C's issue might be all this while ignorant of B's acts or unable to make their future rights considered, and might have emigrated or fallen out of sight. B's issue continue for any length of time (a century if necessary) and X's issue also continue to hold, enjoy or deal with the estate as absolute owners (consciously or not).
At any period after the original will (say in 1810) B's issue fails -- i.e. all direct heirs male or female of the body of B fail. On this C and his issue find their rights accrue for B could not give to X nor could X or his issue acquire any rights beyond the continuance of B's own direct descendants.
In 1810 then or any other period C's lineal descendant C4 who might be the son of an emigrant or decayed family is informed of his rights to the property now held by X's issue. The difficulties which might meet him would be numerous. He would have to (1)st establish that the true transaction made by B was only the creation of a base fee. He (2)nd would or might have to show that B's issue was totally exhausted; and he would (3rdly) have to show that he was C4 the direct lineal heir of C.
He might fail in carrying this through and leave a daughter C5 under age. She however could and might continue the attempt and eventually succeed. Time (the 20 years) would begin to run upon the accruer of the rights of the Cs and this could be extended if necessary if C were under disability so that C5 might only just establish her full rights within the period when she would have been barred.
By this plan of a settlement (by deed or will) any period of time could be dealt with. A simpler plan for a shorter time would be to give A an interest for life -- which he might sell or mortgage etc. -- and still live for 80 years. B the tenant for life and his descendants would only come into his rights after A's death -- and no possession by X -- a purchaser -- would oust him.
The flexibility of the settlement plan is so great that there is no need to go into the period of limitation at all. I will send you the
Sugden if you still think it desirable to deal with details -- but I have another plan to suggest. Perhaps I may be asking too much; but if you would read to me or recount to me such portions of this family history as involve legal relations, it would be a great pleasure to me to see how a murky corner of our stores of lore could be humanized. The main thing for consideration is to render it legally probable. What is possible in law is of course (as my supposed example is) highly improbable unless with sundry legal provisoes to get over difficulties. I might possibly find in our reports the history of an actual case sufficiently near to be useful if I had the details more before me. But these cases would be in fact and in theory rather dependent on evidence than law, and cases of evidence are hardly ever recorded in the Reports.
I think I ought to recommend you not to read books on special subjects for yourself, as they necessarily state only half the subject. Thus the practical effect of the system of settlements would not be found in any law book.
I think, now that you have a conception of the general principles from Blackstone, that your best plan will be to put a sketch of this history before a lawyer to see if he observes any invraisemblances and can suggest any vraisemblances. I am an interested party however in making this suggestion; for I hope that you will let that lawyer be myself. It would be a real pleasure. I am
Sincerely yours
Frederic Harrison.
MS: Tinker Collection, Yale. Hitherto unpublished.
New Sq. | Linc: Inn. not Temple.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
You have supplied me with the most interesting piece of professional work which I have had before me for a long time. I have been at work at your [case] with zest, for points of law are so little connected even remotely with the happiness of mankind that I fall with a will upon one which I hope will be.
I did not send you Sugden yesterday as it occurred to me that I had better send you an abstract of it first with a sketch of state of circumstances, and I was preparing to do this when your letter reached me. I think there is no difficulty at all in answering the conditions of the case in which you are interested in a way to stand all the lawyers and conveyancers of Westminster Hall. As I was saying the other night, if the case be one of heirship, it will be necessary to have regard to the law of limitations. The ordinary period was 20 years. This is extended to 40 years when the claimant is under disability i.e. non compos, beyond seas, under age, or in prison etc. Under the old law an even longer period than 40 years under peculiar circumstances was admissible.
But I think it will be better, if it can be managed, to regard the case as one of settlement not of heirship. By this means all the intricate law of limitations will be avoided altogether. Any period may be assumed. It is far more flexible. And it avoids the difficulty of there being no alienations to break the descent. I am afraid this is not very clear but I will put the case, by an example.
The possessor of an estate (who may stand in any relationship or none to those who take from him) makes his will dated we may suppose 1700 and gives his land thus
To A during his life; on his death,
To B and his heirs in tail i.e. right heirs, male or female, of B's body; on failure of B's heirs in tail (or issue),
To C and his heirs in tail.
On the testator's death say in 1701, A (who might be a stranger or his widow) comes into possession and lives in possession some long time. B is then tenant in tail in remainder (that is expectantly). A and B together could by a proper process of law bar the entail, defeat C's prospect, and undo the settlement but neither can separately. So long as A is in possession B can only bar the entail partially, that is can defeat his own issue -- but not C or his issue. This is called creating a base fee. 403 It is a good fee simple estate, so long as B and B's issue remain.
We might conceive this state of things. B may be on bad terms with A and unable to obtain A's concurrence, yet ready and anxious to make something even out of a base fee. This interest being precarious would only be bought at an undervalue yet if B had numerous children it often would find purchasers.
Let us suppose B being needy and estranged from A to create such a base fee and sell his and his children and issue's rights to X. B might then die during A's life, X upon A's death comes in as purchaser and retains the estate lawfully (say in 1720). X might be a member of the family or a stranger and would continue to retain or transmit to his heirs the estate, affecting to have a fee simple, but all the while only possessing a base fee or rights during the survival of B's issue. C and C's issue might be all this while ignorant of B's acts or unable to make their future rights considered, and might have emigrated or fallen out of sight. B's issue continue for any length of time (a century if necessary) and X's issue also continue to hold, enjoy or deal with the estate as absolute owners (consciously or not).
At any period after the original will (say in 1810) B's issue fails -- i.e. all direct heirs male or female of the body of B fail. On this C and his issue find their rights accrue for B could not give to X nor could X or his issue acquire any rights beyond the continuance of B's own direct descendants.
In 1810 then or any other period C's lineal descendant C4 who might be the son of an emigrant or decayed family is informed of his rights to the property now held by X's issue. The difficulties which might meet him would be numerous. He would have to (1)st establish that the true transaction made by B was only the creation of a base fee. He (2)nd would or might have to show that B's issue was totally exhausted; and he would (3rdly) have to show that he was C4 the direct lineal heir of C.
He might fail in carrying this through and leave a daughter C5 under age. She however could and might continue the attempt and eventually succeed. Time (the 20 years) would begin to run upon the accruer of the rights of the Cs and this could be extended if necessary if C were under disability so that C5 might only just establish her full rights within the period when she would have been barred.
By this plan of a settlement (by deed or will) any period of time could be dealt with. A simpler plan for a shorter time would be to give A an interest for life -- which he might sell or mortgage etc. -- and still live for 80 years. B the tenant for life and his descendants would only come into his rights after A's death -- and no possession by X -- a purchaser -- would oust him.
The flexibility of the settlement plan is so great that there is no need to go into the period of limitation at all. I will send you the
Sugden if you still think it desirable to deal with details -- but I have another plan to suggest. Perhaps I may be asking too much; but if you would read to me or recount to me such portions of this family history as involve legal relations, it would be a great pleasure to me to see how a murky corner of our stores of lore could be humanized. The main thing for consideration is to render it legally probable. What is possible in law is of course (as my supposed example is) highly improbable unless with sundry legal provisoes to get over difficulties. I might possibly find in our reports the history of an actual case sufficiently near to be useful if I had the details more before me. But these cases would be in fact and in theory rather dependent on evidence than law, and cases of evidence are hardly ever recorded in the Reports.
I think I ought to recommend you not to read books on special subjects for yourself, as they necessarily state only half the subject. Thus the practical effect of the system of settlements would not be found in any law book.
I think, now that you have a conception of the general principles from Blackstone, that your best plan will be to put a sketch of this history before a lawyer to see if he observes any invraisemblances and can suggest any vraisemblances. I am an interested party however in making this suggestion; for I hope that you will let that lawyer be myself. It would be a real pleasure. I am
Sincerely yours
Frederic Harrison.
Signature
Frederic Harrison.
Citation
Frederic Harrison, Frederic Harrison to GE, London, [11 January 1866], Complete George Eliot Letters(2026), George Eliot Archive, edited by Beverley Park Rilett. https://GeorgeEliotArchive.org, Accessed September 7, 2026. https://www.georgeeliotarchive.org/items/show/91834