English Land Law. 
3i3 = 77 
rocess of fine or recovery already mentioned ; but to do this 
flfectuallv, the concurrence of the tenant in possession, though 
nly possessed of a life estate, was necessary. The restriction 
as been preserved by the modern Act for abolishing fines and 
'coveries (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 74), which allows any entail to be 
ut an end to by the simple process of enrolling a disentailing 
eed in the Court of Chancery, the consent of the " protector " 
f the settlement, who may be either the tenant who has the life 
state preceding the estate tail, or any person or persons nomi- 
ated by the original settlor, being still a necessary preliminary 
) the exercise of the powers conferred by the statute. Even 
ithout the consent of the " protector," a tenant in tail may dis- 
ose of his lands under the Act in such a way as to defeat any 
ibsequent claim by his own issue, as he might formerly have 
one by levying a fine. He cannot, however, without such con- 
jnt, defeat the right of those entitled to the lands in the event 
f the failure of the estate tail by there being no heirs of his 
ody to take it. The cumbrous and antiquated machinery 
hich tended to fetter the successive inheritors of the land, and 
) stereotype a form of estate so ill-suited to modern requirements, 
as by this beneficial enactment been entirely swept away. 
Modified chiefly by the statute of William IV., the system of Settled estates, 
ittled estates is still in full operation in England ; and it has 
een estimated that probably more English land is thus artifi- 
ially tied up than remains at the free disposal of the nominal 
svners. Although the Court of Chancery has certain statutory 
owers of directing the sale of settled estates where it is thought 
ivisable, yet the habit which has grown up in most wealthy 
tmilies of resettling the land before any person becomes entitled 
) the absolute ownership, results in making no inconsiderable 
ortion of English soil for all ordinary purposes practically 
,nsaleable. Much has been said and written on the merits and 
emerits of such a system ; and the question is often raised 
hether the assumed benefit to the particular family compen- 
ites, by its indirect operation on the welfare of society, for the 
jijury to the State which is generally admitted to be the result 
if restraining the alienation of the State's most valuable pos- 
!Ssion. The discussion of such a question is obviously beyond 
,ie limits of the present paper ; but it has been necessary to refer 
f it, in order to explain that it is chiefly in this form that the 
lie of primogeniture manifests itself in England at the present 
The English law is sometimes criticised as though it encou- Not proscribed 
iged, or even made compulsory, the continuance of large estates 
by law. 
I the hands of one family, and favoured the accumulation and 
ansmission of such estates by men who have acquired wealth 
I 
