Family Settlement and the "Rise of Great Estates"

Abstract

T | THE recent article by Dr Bonfieldwas based upon a particular interpretation of some part ofthe custom of family settlement as it had evolved by c. I 700. His argument was an attempt to refute Habakkuk thesis whereby, in Bonfield's words, settlement contributed to accumulation, as well as preservation, of great estates (p. 487). His own conclusion was that the nexus between strict settlement and 'rise of great estates' is rather a weak (p. 492), because high mortality rates among landowners meant they often failed to survive to resettle their estates. In this note we are not concerned with general argument surrounding Habakkuk thesis or with criticisms that have been levied against it.2 Our aim is narrow one of defining as clearly and briefly as possible relevant parts of law or custom relating to strict settlement that apply to Bonfield's argument. If we are correct, then central core of Bonfield's analysis is mistaken, and conclusions cannot be accepted. Bonfield studied in detail marriage settlements of landed families in Kent and Northamptonshire during period i 6o I-I740. His whole argument rests upon an identification of strict settlement with marriage settlement. His line of reasoning is: