Frederic Harrison to GE, London, 27 January [1866]
Title
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, 27 January [1866]
Title
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, 27 January [1866]
Sender
Frederic Harrison
Recipient
George Eliot
Date(s)
- 1866-01-27
Place
London
Letter Content
Frederic Harrison to GE, London, 27 January [1866]
MS: Tinker Collection, Yale. Hitherto unpublished.
New Sq: | January 27.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
I send you the legal skeleton you ask for. I have delayed it some days in order that I might read the whole MS. and more fully consider the case. 407 I have ventured to turn the account into the real names and here and there to insert a word or two of connexion which is only meant as an example of what is legally probable. I hope you will not think this is a presumptuous tampering with the authenticity of history.
Otherwise I have only tried to put into legal language the story as I understand it in the MS. and from your own relation. In one point (the mother of Esther) I have ventured to make a little suggestion of my own -- which I hope you will forgive. The last of the Thomas Transome branch might of course be anyone -- but it occurred to me that there might be some use in making Esther after all a true Transome and Harold only a Durfey.
The tale might be, if desired, greatly simplified -- the one difficulty to get over being this that if Esther's father ever had a case which could be brought into court, or even a case in which litigation was threatened -- that same case would be barred by lapse of 20 years after his right accrued. So that if there is to be a double litigation or even a double threat of litigation with an interval of 20 or 30 years between them -- a new right or title must be conceived in the interim to have arisen in favour of the second claimant. I have carefully read through the MS. and I hope you will let me say that I feel sure that it will [be] received with even greater delight than any other work of yours.
I hope the air of Tunbridge Wells is benefiting Mr. Lewes. 408 I am
Your sincerely
Frederic Harrison.
Towards the middle of the 18th Century a certain Transome of Transome Court duly settled the ancestral estate by his will in the following manner.
To John Transome during his life, then to his only son Thomas Transome in tail general (as the lawyers call it) i.e. to the male and female descendants of his body, and subject to these estates or (as the law says) [with remainder] to Henry Bycliffe (his cousin) and his heirs and assigns for ever. 409
Upon the death of this testator, John Transome only entered upon the estates and enjoyed them during his life. Thomas Transome the heir in tail proved a dissolute spendthrift, whose necessities forced him to improvident dealings with money lenders. In the course of these dealings he fell into the hands of one Durfey a distant connexion of the Transome family, a lawyer who speculated upon the follies of expectant heirs. By him Transome was induced for a small sum in hand to sell his interest under the settlement. To this end he [levied a fine] as it is technically called and effectually cut off the estate of his own heirs and sold his and their prospects to Durfey. John Transome his father who was still in possession of the property refused to concur in the son's schemes or to assist him in raising money by the sale of the family property. The effect therefore of these transactions was this -- that Durfey became entitled on the death of John Transome to the whole interest of Thomas Transome and his issue so long as any of them might survive -- but for want of the cooperation in levying the fine <by> of John Transome, the interests of the Bycliffes were not prejudiced and the heir of Bycliffe would rightly succeed so soon as the issue of Thomas Transome was extinct.
This the law called the creation of a base fee by the tenant in tail without the consent of the tenant for life in possession, by which the tenant in tail and his issue were effectually barred, but the remaindermen were not barred.
Thomas Transome after this fell from bad to worse and eventually died in the life time of his father as was generally supposed without issue, but in reality having been married and left a child.
John Transome under distress at the ruin of his family fell into a feeble state, which Durfey managed to turn to his own advantage, and by means which it is not now necessary to state in detail, contrived to show upon his title the consent and cooperation of the tenant for life in levying the fine, so as to establish an absolute title as it was believed in himself in fee simple, ousting the estates in remainder of the Bycliffes.
Upon the death of John Transome then Durfey came into possession of Transome Court under the assumed title of purchaser in fee, and took the name and arms of Transome.
The Durfey-Transomes however did not entirely prosper. They were exposed to litigation from other branches of the family (and possibly the Bycliffes) but during the latter portion of the 18th century they retained their possession in one course and held a high position.
Towards the early years of the 19th century however their right was again attacked. The Bycliffe family who had maintained an honourable position in a distant county and regarded themselves as their family antagonists procured positive proof of the fraudulent means by which the first Durfey had procured evidence of the consent of the tenant for life John Transome in barring the entail, their own descent as that of a well known family was easily proveable to the Bycliffe of the original settlement. The only point remaining was the history of Thomas Transome's issue.
Thomas Transome's child had been little regarded -- (for its existence was of little consequence so long as a complete disentailment and not a mere base fee was supposed to have been effected) but this child had been taken abroad and there married into a family of rank which enabled the descent to be though with difficulty traced, and it is traced so as to be shown to be recently extinct.
Armed with this evidence the Bycliffe family or rather the lawful heir of the first Bycliffe seriously bring a suit for the recovery of Transome Court. And the first ten years of the 19th Century are occupied with desperately-contested litigation in which the fortunes of both Transomes and Bycliffes are seriously impaired.
Jermyn the lawyer and factotum of the Transomes contests the claim fairly at first, but as point after point fails him, has recourse to <yet> questionable expedients for the purpose of breaking the Bycliffe descent and of producing living issue of Thomas Transome.
About 1810 Maurice Christian Bycliffe by the death of his elder brother (father) becomes the representative and is the last heir of the Bycliffe race and the litigation is continued in his name, he being a prisoner in France.
He escapes and comes to England where he arranges for the vigorous prosecution of the suit but Jermyn knowing him to be the last of the race, and taking advantage of the suspicious circumstances arising from his change of name with a fellow prisoner, succeeds in becoming (by third parties? Johnson) a creditor, has him thrown into prison as a fraudulent debtor, where he dies -- as it is believed childless, and the Transomes and Jermyn are relieved from apprehension.
The Transome family estates have been severely exhausted in the unfinished struggle -- but they are now exposed to a further drain. Jermyn has become indispensable, and has gradually developed a system which the need of litigation first induced him to adopt -- the creation of annuities on the estate. As Mr. Transome the father of Harold needed supplies Jermyn procured advances in consideration of annuities continuing during old Mr. Transome's life. Gradually these annuities and other mortgages at ruinous rates have passed in reality into Jermyn's own hands. His agent in London (Johnson) has been the nominal mortgagee and annuitant, but in fact Jermyn has found the money and receives the interest. In truth for total advances not exceeding £20,000-£30,000 Jermyn holds burdens over the property to the amount of several thousands per annum. These mortgages and annuities have been obtained at an undervalue and surrepti[ti]ously by a solicitor from his client and are such as would be cancelled by the Court of Chancery. A Bill to set them aside would ruin Jermyn in reputation as well as in purse to say nothing of certain irregularities in the amounts and form of the deeds amounting to positive criminality. It is therefore essential to Jermyn's safety that no keen eye shall attempt to investigate the complicated affairs of the Transome estates, mortgages and suits.
Things are in this state and some 20 years have passed when in 1832 the fellow prisoner of Maurice Christian Bycliffe with whom he changed names accidentally discovers his end and the fact that Bycliffe left a daughter by Annette his French wife. 410 Possessed of this information he falls in with Johnson, Jermyn's confederate and agent, who has now quarrelled with or sees reason to sell Jermyn. This Johnson has an intimate knowledge of the Bycliffe v. Transome litigation and at once sees the importance of the discovery. They communicate with the indefatigable lawyers who have fought the Bycliffe cause; and the latter before calling in Esther Bycliffe the heiress or making public their discovery prosecute inquiries and lay their plans.
In tracing out the descent of Thomas Transome's heirs who have become a foreign family of sufficient distinction to be traceable, they ascertain that it was not as they previously imagined wholly extinct but that a branch which had escaped them undoubtedly existed. By this means it appears that Maurice Bycliffe and the other Bycliffe had not had a really good title inasmuch as the Thomas Transome branch was not quite extinct. Thus the grand difficulty which had stared them in the face -- the statute of Limitations -- is got over. The Bycliffe claim had not been till now a good one. Now it is ascertained that the Thomas Transome branch is recently extinct and for the first time a good title accrues to the heiress of Bycliffe.
In tracing out the birth and parentage of Esther Bycliffe, and the descent of the Thomas Transome issue a coincidence arises, the one runs into the other, and the Lawyers discover that the true and last ???descendant of Thomas Transome the spendthrift was a daughter of ???a noble French family -- Annette the wife of Maurice. Thus Esther unites in herself the old Transome and the Bycliffe races and is the legitimate heiress and last representative of both.
(mir'e2 cum trepidatione et verecundi'e2 conjecit F.H.)
The positive proof of this being established and the earlier suits (which failed for want of this) having satisfactorily established the fact of the base fee, of the original settlement, and of the Bycliffe descent the success of Esther in ousting Harold Transome the representative of the Durfey's is a matter of certainty. No protracted litigation is now possible or probable. The proof of Esther's legitimate birth being absolutely irrefragable -- it remains for her only to decide if the action which has been commenced in her name shall proceed, or if she voluntarily stay it. The time at which this crisis is arrived at is unimportant provided the action commence before 1834.
P. S.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
I have just sent off a skeleton sketch and there has flashed across me a gross absurdity which it contains. You will see it at a glance.
Of course if Esther's mother Annette were in the Thomas-Transome line, Annette would not be the last of it and Esther's own life as a Thomas-Transome would bar her of any right she might have as a Bycliffe; in fact if Thomas Transome and Bycliffe ever had coalesced there would be an end of the Bycliffe claim. So the Thomas Transome line must expire in some one else. In any case Esther might very well be the heiress of Transome the settlor if Bycliffe was his cousin.
I must think of this again -- the Annette episode struck me as an after-thought and its dramatic character blinded me to its inherent absurdity -- you see how rash it is for critics to presume to construct even a cell in an organism.
You must think me as [a] very unsafe [conveyancer] after such a blunder -- but it comes of travelling out of A and B and mixing up practical justice with law.
Yours sincerely
F. Harrison.
MS: Tinker Collection, Yale. Hitherto unpublished.
New Sq: | January 27.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
I send you the legal skeleton you ask for. I have delayed it some days in order that I might read the whole MS. and more fully consider the case. 407 I have ventured to turn the account into the real names and here and there to insert a word or two of connexion which is only meant as an example of what is legally probable. I hope you will not think this is a presumptuous tampering with the authenticity of history.
Otherwise I have only tried to put into legal language the story as I understand it in the MS. and from your own relation. In one point (the mother of Esther) I have ventured to make a little suggestion of my own -- which I hope you will forgive. The last of the Thomas Transome branch might of course be anyone -- but it occurred to me that there might be some use in making Esther after all a true Transome and Harold only a Durfey.
The tale might be, if desired, greatly simplified -- the one difficulty to get over being this that if Esther's father ever had a case which could be brought into court, or even a case in which litigation was threatened -- that same case would be barred by lapse of 20 years after his right accrued. So that if there is to be a double litigation or even a double threat of litigation with an interval of 20 or 30 years between them -- a new right or title must be conceived in the interim to have arisen in favour of the second claimant. I have carefully read through the MS. and I hope you will let me say that I feel sure that it will [be] received with even greater delight than any other work of yours.
I hope the air of Tunbridge Wells is benefiting Mr. Lewes. 408 I am
Your sincerely
Frederic Harrison.
Towards the middle of the 18th Century a certain Transome of Transome Court duly settled the ancestral estate by his will in the following manner.
To John Transome during his life, then to his only son Thomas Transome in tail general (as the lawyers call it) i.e. to the male and female descendants of his body, and subject to these estates or (as the law says) [with remainder] to Henry Bycliffe (his cousin) and his heirs and assigns for ever. 409
Upon the death of this testator, John Transome only entered upon the estates and enjoyed them during his life. Thomas Transome the heir in tail proved a dissolute spendthrift, whose necessities forced him to improvident dealings with money lenders. In the course of these dealings he fell into the hands of one Durfey a distant connexion of the Transome family, a lawyer who speculated upon the follies of expectant heirs. By him Transome was induced for a small sum in hand to sell his interest under the settlement. To this end he [levied a fine] as it is technically called and effectually cut off the estate of his own heirs and sold his and their prospects to Durfey. John Transome his father who was still in possession of the property refused to concur in the son's schemes or to assist him in raising money by the sale of the family property. The effect therefore of these transactions was this -- that Durfey became entitled on the death of John Transome to the whole interest of Thomas Transome and his issue so long as any of them might survive -- but for want of the cooperation in levying the fine <by> of John Transome, the interests of the Bycliffes were not prejudiced and the heir of Bycliffe would rightly succeed so soon as the issue of Thomas Transome was extinct.
This the law called the creation of a base fee by the tenant in tail without the consent of the tenant for life in possession, by which the tenant in tail and his issue were effectually barred, but the remaindermen were not barred.
Thomas Transome after this fell from bad to worse and eventually died in the life time of his father as was generally supposed without issue, but in reality having been married and left a child.
John Transome under distress at the ruin of his family fell into a feeble state, which Durfey managed to turn to his own advantage, and by means which it is not now necessary to state in detail, contrived to show upon his title the consent and cooperation of the tenant for life in levying the fine, so as to establish an absolute title as it was believed in himself in fee simple, ousting the estates in remainder of the Bycliffes.
Upon the death of John Transome then Durfey came into possession of Transome Court under the assumed title of purchaser in fee, and took the name and arms of Transome.
The Durfey-Transomes however did not entirely prosper. They were exposed to litigation from other branches of the family (and possibly the Bycliffes) but during the latter portion of the 18th century they retained their possession in one course and held a high position.
Towards the early years of the 19th century however their right was again attacked. The Bycliffe family who had maintained an honourable position in a distant county and regarded themselves as their family antagonists procured positive proof of the fraudulent means by which the first Durfey had procured evidence of the consent of the tenant for life John Transome in barring the entail, their own descent as that of a well known family was easily proveable to the Bycliffe of the original settlement. The only point remaining was the history of Thomas Transome's issue.
Thomas Transome's child had been little regarded -- (for its existence was of little consequence so long as a complete disentailment and not a mere base fee was supposed to have been effected) but this child had been taken abroad and there married into a family of rank which enabled the descent to be though with difficulty traced, and it is traced so as to be shown to be recently extinct.
Armed with this evidence the Bycliffe family or rather the lawful heir of the first Bycliffe seriously bring a suit for the recovery of Transome Court. And the first ten years of the 19th Century are occupied with desperately-contested litigation in which the fortunes of both Transomes and Bycliffes are seriously impaired.
Jermyn the lawyer and factotum of the Transomes contests the claim fairly at first, but as point after point fails him, has recourse to <yet> questionable expedients for the purpose of breaking the Bycliffe descent and of producing living issue of Thomas Transome.
About 1810 Maurice Christian Bycliffe by the death of his elder brother (father) becomes the representative and is the last heir of the Bycliffe race and the litigation is continued in his name, he being a prisoner in France.
He escapes and comes to England where he arranges for the vigorous prosecution of the suit but Jermyn knowing him to be the last of the race, and taking advantage of the suspicious circumstances arising from his change of name with a fellow prisoner, succeeds in becoming (by third parties? Johnson) a creditor, has him thrown into prison as a fraudulent debtor, where he dies -- as it is believed childless, and the Transomes and Jermyn are relieved from apprehension.
The Transome family estates have been severely exhausted in the unfinished struggle -- but they are now exposed to a further drain. Jermyn has become indispensable, and has gradually developed a system which the need of litigation first induced him to adopt -- the creation of annuities on the estate. As Mr. Transome the father of Harold needed supplies Jermyn procured advances in consideration of annuities continuing during old Mr. Transome's life. Gradually these annuities and other mortgages at ruinous rates have passed in reality into Jermyn's own hands. His agent in London (Johnson) has been the nominal mortgagee and annuitant, but in fact Jermyn has found the money and receives the interest. In truth for total advances not exceeding £20,000-£30,000 Jermyn holds burdens over the property to the amount of several thousands per annum. These mortgages and annuities have been obtained at an undervalue and surrepti[ti]ously by a solicitor from his client and are such as would be cancelled by the Court of Chancery. A Bill to set them aside would ruin Jermyn in reputation as well as in purse to say nothing of certain irregularities in the amounts and form of the deeds amounting to positive criminality. It is therefore essential to Jermyn's safety that no keen eye shall attempt to investigate the complicated affairs of the Transome estates, mortgages and suits.
Things are in this state and some 20 years have passed when in 1832 the fellow prisoner of Maurice Christian Bycliffe with whom he changed names accidentally discovers his end and the fact that Bycliffe left a daughter by Annette his French wife. 410 Possessed of this information he falls in with Johnson, Jermyn's confederate and agent, who has now quarrelled with or sees reason to sell Jermyn. This Johnson has an intimate knowledge of the Bycliffe v. Transome litigation and at once sees the importance of the discovery. They communicate with the indefatigable lawyers who have fought the Bycliffe cause; and the latter before calling in Esther Bycliffe the heiress or making public their discovery prosecute inquiries and lay their plans.
In tracing out the descent of Thomas Transome's heirs who have become a foreign family of sufficient distinction to be traceable, they ascertain that it was not as they previously imagined wholly extinct but that a branch which had escaped them undoubtedly existed. By this means it appears that Maurice Bycliffe and the other Bycliffe had not had a really good title inasmuch as the Thomas Transome branch was not quite extinct. Thus the grand difficulty which had stared them in the face -- the statute of Limitations -- is got over. The Bycliffe claim had not been till now a good one. Now it is ascertained that the Thomas Transome branch is recently extinct and for the first time a good title accrues to the heiress of Bycliffe.
In tracing out the birth and parentage of Esther Bycliffe, and the descent of the Thomas Transome issue a coincidence arises, the one runs into the other, and the Lawyers discover that the true and last ???descendant of Thomas Transome the spendthrift was a daughter of ???a noble French family -- Annette the wife of Maurice. Thus Esther unites in herself the old Transome and the Bycliffe races and is the legitimate heiress and last representative of both.
(mir'e2 cum trepidatione et verecundi'e2 conjecit F.H.)
The positive proof of this being established and the earlier suits (which failed for want of this) having satisfactorily established the fact of the base fee, of the original settlement, and of the Bycliffe descent the success of Esther in ousting Harold Transome the representative of the Durfey's is a matter of certainty. No protracted litigation is now possible or probable. The proof of Esther's legitimate birth being absolutely irrefragable -- it remains for her only to decide if the action which has been commenced in her name shall proceed, or if she voluntarily stay it. The time at which this crisis is arrived at is unimportant provided the action commence before 1834.
P. S.
My dear Mrs. Lewes,
I have just sent off a skeleton sketch and there has flashed across me a gross absurdity which it contains. You will see it at a glance.
Of course if Esther's mother Annette were in the Thomas-Transome line, Annette would not be the last of it and Esther's own life as a Thomas-Transome would bar her of any right she might have as a Bycliffe; in fact if Thomas Transome and Bycliffe ever had coalesced there would be an end of the Bycliffe claim. So the Thomas Transome line must expire in some one else. In any case Esther might very well be the heiress of Transome the settlor if Bycliffe was his cousin.
I must think of this again -- the Annette episode struck me as an after-thought and its dramatic character blinded me to its inherent absurdity -- you see how rash it is for critics to presume to construct even a cell in an organism.
You must think me as [a] very unsafe [conveyancer] after such a blunder -- but it comes of travelling out of A and B and mixing up practical justice with law.
Yours sincerely
F. Harrison.
Signature
F. Harrison.
Citation
Frederic Harrison, Frederic Harrison to GE, London, 27 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/91846