Course:History 344 Nasty Families/Estates and gentry income/Land Investment
Land investment in seventeenth century England was a tricky business and the accumulation of land could occur in any combination of ways. Typically it was a result of the usurpation of church lands, the takeover of state lands, the enclosure of common land, or the sale of land by large-landowners burdened with debt. In addition, land accumulation in this time period was almost always related to the expropriation of the land of peasants and small farmers.[1] For Londoners, the ideal estate housed a villa on approximately 400 acres or less in the surrounding areas of London.[2] The East Midlands were home to many entrepreneurs interested in gaining more and more power and prestige through the purchasing and building up of massive estates.[3] Those more affluent members of the merchant class sought to become landed gentry by investing in estates, but preferred to settle in counties in the East Midlands.[4]
In the late seventeenth century, there was a critical shift to the accumulation of great estates at the expense of small landowners.[5] The size of the estate that a family owned was proportional to the economic and political power that the family held in its region, as well as its social prestige.[6] Critical to this societal position was the family’s ability not only to build up a large estate, but also to hold that estate together and pass it down through the established inheritance laws of primogeniture.[7] Mortgage facilities funded indebtedness, inheritance, marriages, and additional purchases to ensure the estates held together.[8] It is important to note that the dowry was not normally used to purchase land.[9] Patterns emerge, particularly in the late seventeenth century, which suggest that economic conditions set a perfect stage to strengthen the position of the better established land owners. For example, the development of strict settlements and improved mortgage facilities meant that the estates of greater owners were more likely to be held together. Due to this notion of continuity, owners were encouraged to further invest, and by so strengthen their position in the market economy.[10]
Estate ownership was not black and white, however. Factors such as the civil war and political strife in the seventeenth century could contribute to the partial to full destruction or confiscation of property. See Effects of Politics on Property Rights and Land Protection.
[BN: Good start. Almost every sentence could be expanded upon.]
- ↑ Stephanie Holbik, “The Ideology of Large Landowners in Late Eighteenth Century Ireland” (1978). Open Dissertations and Theses Paper 2693. http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations/2693, 22.
- ↑ J.V. Beckett, "The Pattern of Landownership in England and Wales, 1660-1880," The Economic History Review 37, no.1 (1984): 13.http://www.jstor.org/stable/2596828?&Search=yes&searchText=Patterns&searchText=England&searchText=Landownership&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DPatterns%2BAND%2BLandownership%2Band%2BEngland%26gw%3Djtx%26acc%3Don%26prq%3DPatterns%2BAND%2BLandownership%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=2&ttl=1418&returnArticleService=showFullText (accessed February 4, 2012).
- ↑ Beckett, 8.
- ↑ Beckett, 13.
- ↑ Beckett, 3.
- ↑ Beckett, 7.
- ↑ Beckett, 2.
- ↑ Beckett, 8.
- ↑ Beckett, 9.
- ↑ Gregory Clark, “The Political Foundations of Modern Economic Growth: England, 1540-1800,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 26, no. 4 (1996): 565. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/205042 (accessed January 30, 2012).