Editor’s
Note: It has gone the way of the dinosaurs.
The British aristocracy is no more.
It took a long time to pass away, over a hundred years in fact. But the recent victory of Tony Blair’s Labour government in
denying the vote to hereditary peers in the House of Lords is the
final nail in the coffin. From
a position of fabulous wealth, power and privilege a century ago, the
British aristocracy has fallen to insignificance today.
In
an event-filled century, the death of the British ruling class is an
important and compelling story. A
reissue of a book first published in 1990, The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy
by David Cannadine, (Vintage, paper, $20),
charts this story in thorough and engrossing detail.
Today’s Books page focuses on Cannadine’s epochal work, and
by way of introduction, presents a short piece of historical fiction,
the better to illuminate some of the themes within this great drama.
THE
FALL OF THE HOUSE OF BURLEIGH
He
was born on a chill April morning in 1880.
His mother, diminutive in the massive four-poster bed, was
exhausted by her long labor. After
he had nursed and been cleaned, his father, the Duke of Wiltshire,
took him out of the bedchamber and held him aloft for the servants in
the hall below to see. They smiled and clapped, welcoming the eighth Lord Burleigh,
healthy and robust, into his privileged world.
The
family home, Burleigh Hall, was a famous landmark, a massive, 18th
century porticoed stone edifice topped with statues.
It was surrounded by landscaped gardens and served as the seat
for twenty thousand acres of rich farmland, all owned by the Duke.
The vast estate included villages of houses, shops and pubs and
small farms with cottages and barns.
Lord
Burleigh wanted for nothing. From
the moment of birth, servants saw to his every need: nursemaids to
rock him and read to him when he was small, a gardener to lead him
around the grounds on a pony, and a gentleman’s gentleman to put out
his dinner attire and attend him when he was a young man.
His
father the Duke was a hereditary member of the House of Lords, as Lord
Burleigh himself would be one day, and was often in London attending
Parliament. The family
had an elegant town home there. His
mother, the Duchess, gentle and kind, directed the household
activities of the servants from the drawing room with her books or
needlework close at hand. From her Lord Burleigh learned the advantages of an even
temper and steady habits. His
father was less even-tempered, and one of his most vivid early
memories was of the Duke raging through the house damning Prime
Minister Gladstone to hell. "He’s
done us in!" the Duke had roared.
"Given the vote to every dreary shopkeeper and tradesman!
No good will come of this!"
Lord
Burleigh’s education was the best--public school at Eton, then
Oxford, where he excelled at history.
After graduation, he returned to Burleigh Hall to prove himself
a worthy heir to the Duke. Then
came the government’s efforts at land reform and its determination
to raise taxes. Lord
Burleigh winced at the vicious attacks on his class by Lloyd George
and others, who accused them of being useless wastrels.
His father had his first stroke that year, after months of
fighting the reforms.
The
Great War gave Lord Burleigh hope that he and his fellow aristocrats
could at last forcefully prove their mettle and value to the realm.
He raised a company of working-class men from the estate, and
crossed the channel with them as their captain.
"I can’t wait to see the show," he wrote to his mother
from France, "I’ll give them what for." But "the show" proved more terrible than he or anyone
else could have imagined. Virtually
all the boys he had known at Eton and Oxford were killed or wounded
during the first two years of fighting.
By
the summer of 1916, he had no more illusions: He was there because he
was there. He knew it was
no longer a question of if he would be killed, but rather when. In the nightmarish world of the trenches he became closer to
his men. Whatever their
social backgrounds, he respected them as soldiers, shared their
hardships and grieved over their deaths.
And then came the fateful day of the big push.
When the signal to attack came, he clambered out of the trench
and led his men forward. They
were met by a sheet of flame.
He
awoke in hospital days later, unable to remember anything other than
the noise and the unbearable pain.
The nurses explained that he had taken shrapnel in his leg, and
that his unit was decimated. Within
a matter of weeks he was walking with a cane, but for him the war was
over. He was shipped
home, physically and mentally scarred.
The sight of Burleigh Hall was a balm to his soul, however, and
he gloried in the smell of the gardens and the cool feel of the marble
halls. His parents had
worried desperately over his fate, and were visibly aged and worn.
The
Duke died two years later, and Lord Burleigh came into his
inheritance. At night he
would pore over the records and bills, wondering how he was going to
hold it all together. Rents
were down, taxes were up and competition abroad had significantly
depressed agricultural prices. Awful
as it was to admit, there was nothing to do but sell off enough of the
estate to financially square matters.
Though Lord Burleigh was now a hereditary peer, he rarely
attended Parliament (after all, it was the blundering politicians who
had foolishly sent him and his fellows into the trenches).
And so, painful as it was to do so, he sold the London
residence to a war orphan society.
He also sold off over 5,000 acres of Burleigh Manor itself to
several different parties. Land
was no longer the key to power; it was, instead, a distinct liability.
The
postwar social scene was a dismal run of parties attended by
obnoxious, socially obscure young people and vulgar businessmen
chomping expensive cigars. Lord
Burleigh attended several out of a sense of obligation, but then
became disgusted and determined to spend some time abroad.
After his mother died, he closed Burleigh Hall and paid an
elderly caretaker to keep watch over things.
His
first destination was Egypt, where he found that his leg pained him
less in the warm climate. While
cruising the Nile he met a fellow veteran and aristocrat, Lord Dunbar,
who was also fleeing travail at home.
The two of them spent months together, indolently wandering the
broad African continent. They
shot big game, canoed Lake Tanganyika and gazed at Victoria Falls.
They parted after a year, and Lord Burleigh decided to return
to England.
At
age 52, he married a much younger American woman. They had two sons and for a time Burleigh Hall seemed alive
again as the delighted giggles of children once more echoed through
its rooms. But the house
was more than the family needed or could keep up, and in 1938 they
demolished the wings. Then
came the Second World War, and though the family was safe from the
bombing raids that devastated the cities, their lives were disrupted
as the British army commandeered the house and grounds for a training
base.
After
World War II, Lord Burleigh was forced to sell off most of his
remaining acreage. The
older he got the more his war wounds pained him, and his children
thought him sad. He died
in 1955 after a stroke. His
widow struggled to keep the house up, but servants were impossible to
get and she despaired. Home
from Oxford, her eldest son suggested she open the house for tours,
charging the public to wander through Burleigh Hall’s magnificent
spaces. Being an
American, she was nothing if not practical, and thought it an inspired
idea. In 1957 Burleigh
Hall opened to the public and people streamed through by the
thousands, gawking at its treasures.
Lady Burleigh would stand on the staircase as they came in,
smiling and nodding. Occasionally, a guest would stray outside and marvel at the
green fields and hedgerows stretching towards the horizon, and wonder
what it was like to live in such an extraordinary place.
The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy
by David Cannadine
Vintage,
paper, $20.
"Even
in an era when the word processor has encouraged unprecedented
authorial prolixity, this remains a long book."
So writes David Cannadine, a professor at the London School of
Economics, in the new preface to his monumental study of the British
aristocracy’s slow demise. Indeed,
at 813 pages, including appendices, notes and index, this hefty book
would make a serviceable doorstop.
Yet the story it tells--how a small number of incredibly
wealthy and powerful families fell from a pinnacle of influence and
importance to near oblivion in a century’s span--is a sobering
reminder of the transience of human affairs.
In
1880, Cannadine informs us, the members of the British aristocracy
(which he defines as landholders with 1,000 acres or more) were the
"lords of the earth." They
were a tiny minority, only 7,000 families in a country of millions.
Yet this "tough,
tenacious, and resourceful elite" owned four-fifths of the land in
England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
It had been that way since before the Middle Ages, and few had
questioned it. The 18th century philosopher Edmund Burke
expressed the prevailing view when he wrote, "Nobility is a graceful
ornament to the civil order. It
is the Corinthian capital of polished society."
Land
ownership was the key to wealth, social prestige and political power.
Along with their fertile acres and mind-boggling inherited
fortunes, the British aristocrats presided over elegant, art-filled
country houses and London town homes and proudly bore distinguished
titles bestowed by royalty. They
dominated their county governments and at the national level
controlled both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
As Cannadine writes, these people had "leisure, confidence,
experience, and expertise: they had time to govern, they were expected
to govern." Their
offspring, particularly second and third sons, filled the upper ranks
of the army, the church and the civil service, making these "an
outwork of patrician power."
After
1880, however, historical forces converged and things began to change.
A worldwide collapse in agricultural prices diminished the
economic power of the large estates. In addition, there was a gradually increasing democratization
of the British Isles. In
1884, responding to growing pressure from influential urban trade
unions, the Gladstone Ministry passed a series of reform measures
which doubled the electorate, from three million to six million
voters. Nearly 60% of the
male population of the British Isles now had the franchise, and the
aristocrats’ hold on the political levers weakened.
More
extensive changes were to come. In
1909, Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer (roughly equivalent to
the United States’ Secretary of the Treasurer) submitted a budget to
Parliament, which called for broad reforms.
George’s budget was defeated by the House of Lords, but was
only the beginning of a sustained, full-scale assault on the landed
classes. Of modest Welsh
stock himself, George hated the landlords, and was determined to
loosen their hold on British society.
In 1913 he launched his "Land Campaign," proposing higher
taxes for landowners, governmental control of rents and higher wages
for laborers. Throughout
the campaign, George "pilloried the patricians" to great popular
approval. His measures
passed, and the aristocracy’s place in British life slipped another
notch.
Then
came the Great War, which the aristocrats believed would give them
"the supreme opportunity to prove themselves and to justify their
existence." After all,
the historical purpose of the aristocracy was war; from feudal times
the nobility had shouldered the responsibility for the defense of the
realm, fielding knights and armies.
The
patrician sons answered the call to arms, eager for battle.
By the end of 1914 however, the glamour was gone.
In that year alone, six peers, sixteen baronets, 95 sons of
peers and 82 sons of baronets were killed.
When one considers that in 1914 there were only some 500 peers,
and not many more baronets, the impact of these deaths becomes
evident. Over the
subsequent months of fighting, there was hardly an aristocratic family
that did not suffer the death or maiming of a loved one.
In 1916 Lord Roseberg wrote, "The fountain of tears is nearly
dry. One loss follows
another till one is dazed." By
war’s end, a contemporary would write, "the Feudal System vanished
in blood and fire, and the landed classes were consumed."
In
the gloomy aftermath of war, the landed classes were not only
diminished in numbers but also faced with growing financial pressures.
Over the next few years they divested themselves of millions of
acres of land in "the greatest territorial transfer since the Norman
Conquest and Dissolution of Monasteries."
As it happened, however, selling off lands was not enough, and
soon the magnificent country houses and London town homes began to be
sold and demolished. By
1939, over 250 mansions had fallen to the wrecking ball.
In
another societal sea change, the makeup of the House of Commons
changed. By 1919, only 25
of 168 new members were aristocrats.
The rest were plutocrats, men who had made their money in trade
or speculation. One bitter patrician referred to them contemptuously as
"hard-faced men." Land
ownership was no longer a prerequisite to political clout.
Nor was aristocratic status now enough to guarantee entree into
the army, the church or the civil service.
Concurrent with the rise of the plutocrats was an increase in
"professionalism, merit-competition, bureaucracy, specialization and
expertise," all of which worked against the old ruling order.
Indeed, one politician labeled aristocrats "a public danger
in all matters when quantitative knowledge, unremitting effort, vivid
imagination and organized planning are concerned."
The
age-old honors system changed as well.
Titles were given away willy-nilly without regard to birth or
merit. In 1914 for
example, there were 700 Knights Bachelor awarded, more than triple the
number in 1885. Even
Lloyd George, implacable foe of the aristocracy, was made an earl. An
old-line aristocrat, Lord Salisbury, grumbled, "You cannot throw a
stone at a dog without hitting a knight in London."
Deprived
of much of their former influence, the aristocrats drifted through the
1930s and 1940s, unsure of their purpose.
More than ever in their long history, they were the idle rich,
partying mindlessly and, in some cases, naively dabbling in fascism.
"They no longer knew who they were," Cannadine writes,
"what they were doing, or where they were going."
Lloyd George commented with satisfaction that their place in
history would be "like the scent on a pocket handkerchief."
The
passing of the British aristocracy was not to go unmourned.
As early as 1945, the novelist Evelyn Waugh poignantly sketched
its decline in "Brideshead Revisited."
And American public television viewers pine over stories with
aristocratic settings presented by programs like Mystery and
Masterpiece Theatre. In
David Cannadine’s solid and well-written analysis we now have the
most thorough history of this fall from grace that we are likely to
have for many a year. Sic
transit gloria.