kev67
08-13-2013, 08:04 PM
Property inheritance in The Woodlanders seems as convoluted as in Wuthering Heights. It seems copy-holders had the right to pass on their cottages to their heirs in perpetuity, although they still had to pay rent to the landlord. Unfortunately, some of the villagers exchanged their copy-hold for some sort of lease-hold, which would expire after the current tenants' grandsons died. After that, control of the cottages would revert to the landlord, who could evict his tenants if he (in this case, she) wants. Apparently the deal was that the landlord paid for the properties to be repaired and in exchange his heir received the properties three generations later. (This seems similar to the situation in Tess with John Durbeyfield). The terms of the lease must have been quite confusing, especially for simple peasant folk. First, for some reason, the tenants were paying rent to Giles Winterbourne rather than the landlord, Mrs Charmond. Second, Giles Winterboune receives rents for several cottages, but the leasehold on all of them expires when Mr South dies. That is odd: you would think that the leasehold would expire on each property individually. Third, I think chapter 15 said that Giles Winterbourne received the rents for these leases because his mother was from the South family, but you would think the properties would be passed down the male line. Why wouldn't Mr South inherit them? I can only think that Mr South's father was the younger brother of Giles' grandfather (which would make Giles Winterbourne and Marty South second cousins). Lastly, the contract gave Winterbourne the option of extending his leasehold, but he did not get around to doing it until too late. That seems like an odd clause. Why wouldn't anyone in his position not want to extend his lease, although there was a cost associated. I have to give some credit to Giles Winterbourne because I doubt I could understand a contract like that. OTOH, it was remiss of him to leave it so late to check the lease.