In praise of the landed gentry | Cornelius Christian

We Canadians lack a landed gentry, but our Commonwealth status evokes such a framework: after all, the Queen of England is still our head of state as sovereign monarch. In these modern times, when such titles are called into question, it behooves us as conservatives to offer up a humble defence of these British institutions.

Modernity is skeptical of inherited wealth and titles, viewing them as an affront to ‘equality of opportunity,’ a liberal term without any strict definition. Enabling those from a poor or working-class background to improve their condition is admirable. However, equality of opportunity is used to justify the most vicious competition for status, without any regard for virtue. University graduates are encouraged to cast aside their faiths, family ties, and local traditions in favour of the unbridled, and often elusive, quest for wealth. An Oxford-educated young man uses his position, as a McKinsey consultant, to lay off workers from his hometown factory: the unemployed subsequently turn to drugs and alcohol to cope. The McKinsey man earns a promotion as a reward for adding to company coffers. In ignoring the common good, the pursuit of equal opportunity tramples over society, turning us all into quasi-sociopaths.

It is better, instead, for our elite to be tied to the ground from whence they came. An earl with hectares of farmland must deal amicably with those under his patronage. He is known in the countryside by name, and the common good dictates that he ensure his tenants’ wellbeing: otherwise, his family name is soiled into disrepute. A veneration of the family name is imparted to the noble through coats of arms, old portraits, and other family heirlooms. He is impelled to cultivate a respect for the wisdom of ages past. It is for this reason that the United Kingdom maintains the hereditary peerage: as a vestibule for the transmission of ancient wisdom to matters of governance.

It is countered that the landed gentry exploit their tenants. This may occur in certain cases. However, such an objection must confront the alternative: does the run-of-the-mill landlord have any inherited duty to his tenants, or does he simply seek profit? Does not globalisation imply the chasing of profits across borders, without any loyalty to kin or country? Is such avarice a sign of a healthy community? An affinity for one’s ancestral land is nobler than a lust for lucre. I would rather be a tenant of the Marquess of Salisbury than of a faceless corporate entity.

I am not suggesting that the landed gentry are incorruptible: the nobility is composed of human beings with vices and virtues, like any social group.

However, the institution must be respected as one that has evolved in harmony with Britain’s social order. The incentives of the landed nobility, tied to the local subdivision, trump those of the globalist millionaire, who is uprooted and interested only in material affluence.

In practice, this does not mean that I support a revocation of parliamentary imperative, and a return to absolute aristocratic rule. The common people of Britain have a crucial voice in The House of Commons. However, a Commons that has no countervailing power is apt to fall prey either to the mob, or to capitalist oligarchs. The latter appear to afflict Britain today — for example, although the plurality of the public cries for a reduction in immigration, Parliament has done nothing to address the issue. The globalist elite in Kensington and Chelsea enjoy the implications of high migrant inflows: more competition for jobs and housing, which means cheaper labour and higher housing prices. Thus, the capitalists hire low-wage workers, and rent out expensive apartments to them: both immigrants and natives lose from this arrangement, leaving only the capitalists as winners (is not Prime Minister Johnson himself a capitalist landlord?). 

To offset this, the landed gentry must regain their erstwhile power in the House of Lords. The appointed lords, which comprise the majority of the upper chamber, and who are mainly party stooges, should be greatly reduced in number, and the 814 hereditary peers should take their place. Currently, only 92 hereditary peers are entitled to sit in the House of Lords, a tragic result of hastily implemented legislation in 1999 under Prime Minister Blair, who never had any respect for British tradition. Furthermore, the House of Lords should be given the prerogative, both de facto and de jure, to veto legislation from the junior chamber. 

The ancient institution of a landed aristocracy is required now more than ever, as a bulwark against the corrupting influences of globalized capital. Whether the nobility themselves have embraced the perfidious nature of unbridled capitalism is an open question. However, at the very least, empowering the landed gentry would do no more harm than has already been committed, and has the potential to do much good. The landed gentry cannot reverse the tide of globalism, but at least it can erect levees. I hope that my status as a Canadian, commenting on the United Kingdom, will not seem indecorous. My motive stems from love of the British peoples as co- inhabitants of the Commonwealth realm, and not from an impious pride concerning matters of constitutional politics.

–

If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.