Orsdxy

In the book Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Collins comments that Lady Catherine de Bourgh's daughter will one day inherit the de Bourgh fortune. From previous chapters, we know that the five daughters of Bennet will not inherit their estate (which is now to be given to Mr. Collins).

Why is this the case? Is it because women were not allowed to inherit the family fortune upon their parents' death? If that is the case, how does Lady Catherine's daughter get to inherit the de Bourgh fortune?

TL;DR: The Longbourn estate is ‘entailed’ to male heirs only, whereas Rosings is not.

Austen sets out the financial situation of the Bennets in detail:

Mr. Bennet’s property consisted almost entirely in an estate of two thousand a year, which, unfortunately for his daughters, was entailed, in default of heirs male, on a distant relation; and their mother’s fortune, though ample for her situation in life, could but ill supply the deficiency of his. Her father had been an attorney in Meryton, and had left her four thousand pounds. [Chapter 7]

Mr. Bennet’s main asset was thus an estate of land at Longbourn, which generated an income of £2,000 a year by renting it out to tenant farmers. The estate was entailed, meaning that in law Mr. Bennet had only a ‘life interest’ in the estate: he could make use of it while he was alive, but he was not allowed not sell or divide the land, and he could not dispose of the estate in his will. Instead the estate would pass at his death to the next male heir in line of the landowner who originally created the entail. Since Mr. Bennet had no male heirs, the estate would pass at his death to his cousin Mr. Collins. (Except in remote circumstance, such as Mrs. Bennet dying, Mr. Bennet marrying again and having a son.)

The entail only covers the Longbourn estate, and does not include Mr. Bennet’s other property, and so if he had been more prudent, he could have saved money out of his income from the estate in order to settle on his daughters:

Mr. Bennet had very often wished before this period of his life that, instead of spending his whole income, he had laid by an annual sum for the better provision of his children, and of his wife, if she survived him. [Chapter 50]

However, he did not do this, because his plan for providing for his family was to ‘cut off’ (or ‘bar’) the entail:

[…] When first Mr. Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless, for, of course, they were to have a son. The son was to join in cutting off the entail, as soon as he should be of age, and the widow and younger children would by that means be provided for.

Black’s Law Dictionary explains the procedure thus:

barring of entail. The freeing of an estate from the limitations imposed by an entail and permitting its free disposition. This was anciently done by means of a fine or common recovery, but later by deed in which the tenant and next heir join.

Lacking a son, he was unable to carry out this plan:

Five daughters successively entered the world, but yet the son was to come; and Mrs. Bennet, for many years after Lydia's birth, had been certain that he would. This event had at last been despaired of, but it was then too late to be saving.

(Mr. Bennet’s plan to bar the entail was risky, because there was no guarantee that the son, if he existed, would co-operate. He might prefer a life interest in a whole estate to an absolute interest in a divided estate, and so refuse to join with his father in barring the entail.)

Austen does not give such explicit details of the legal and financial situation of the de Bourgh family, but there are some clues. First, we learn that Catherine de Bourgh is a widow and her daughter Anne is the “heiress of Rosings”:

[Mrs. Bennet] “I think you said she was a widow, sir? Has she any family?”

[Mr. Collins] “She has only one daughter, the heiress of Rosings, and of very extensive property.”

“Ah!” said Mrs. Bennet, shaking her head, “then she is better off than many girls.” [Chapter 14]

It seems that Rosings is not entailed:

[Lady de Bourgh] “Your father’s estate is entailed on Mr. Collins, I think. For your sake,” turning to Charlotte, “I am glad of it; but otherwise I see no occasion for entailing estates from the female line. It was not thought necessary in Sir Lewis de Bourgh’s family.” [Chapter 29]

We can therefore guess that Lewis de Bourgh disposed of Rosings in his will, either by leaving the whole estate to his widow, or else by giving his widow a life interest, with the estate reverting to their daughter on Lady Catherine’s death.

Entails were widely considered unjust (especially by owners of entailed estates who wished to raise money by selling off parts of the land), and were abolished by the Law of Property Act 1925.

Answers to questions raised in comments:

• Why were entails created? The purpose was to maintain the concentration of power and wealth (as embodied in an estate of land) by preventing it from being sold off or divided up among many heirs.




• Why were entails so commonly restricted to male heirs? No doubt there was a substantial degree of sexism involved, but additionally, prior to the Married Women’s Property Act 1870, a woman in England lost control over her property after marriage: she could not sell, lease, or mortgage her estate without her husband’s consent. For the landowner creating the entail, this risk of loss of control could be avoided by specifying that only male heirs could inherit.




• What about the family name? A landowner who was concerned about the preservation of his surname could require, when creating an entail, that a male heir succeeding via a female line must adopt his surname. Wikipedia gives the example of Mark Rolle, who was born Mark Trefusis, but changed his surname on inheriting the estate of his uncle John Rolle. Presumably the Bennet who created the Longbourn entail was not so concerned (alternatively, Mr. Collins will be required to change his name, but this is not mentioned in the novel).