The last of the squires?
Hugh Mon tgomery-Massingberd
Even so uncompromising a pessimist as Evelyn Waugh had to admit in 1959 that his evocation of the past glories of aristocratic life in Brideshead Revisited, written fifteen years earlier, was 'a pane- gyric preached over an empty coffin'. The English aristocracy, he observed in the preface to the revised edition of Brideshead, 'has maintained its identity to a degree that then seemed impossible'. This is still surprisingly true today as far as the greater aristocracy is concerned. They have managed their large landed estates so pro- fessionally and ridden the heritage hobby- horse so skilfully that one can be reasonably optimistic about their chances of survival. It is the squirearchy, the dutiful, stay-at- home breed of smaller landowner, that is an endangered species. A memorial tablet erected in a Gloucestershire parish church in 1961 by a son to his father describes him as 'the last of the squires'.
Traditionally the squires are defined as the 'landed gentry', that untitled aristocracy which is so peculiarly British a phenomenon. 'I'll ha' no lords or courtiers in my vamily,' says Fielding Squire Western. 'They have beggared the nation,' observes this bucolic sportsman, `but they shall never beggar me'. A myth grew up in Victorian times that the peerage originated with Tudor upstarts and Georgian borough-mongers whereas the untitled landed gentry tended to have longer descents and had steadily refused titles through the centuries. In fact, though there are some notable examples of squirearchical dynasties with the proud distinction of be- ing descended in the male'line from a mediaeval ancestor who took his surname from lands which they still hold (Fulford of Fulford, Gatacre of Gatacre, Plowden of Plowden etc), the great majority of these families acquired their lands in Tudor or Stuart times, or even later.
Although the untitled squirearchy cer- tainly form the majority of the lesser landed families in the make-up of the aristocracy, one must also put most of the baronets in this group as well as not a few peers of moderate means and rustic tastes. The point is that the only significant division that has existed in Britain between the greater and the lesser aristocracy is not related to titles but to wealth. Sorting out the sheep from the goats, families with enough of the right stuff to be of national importance tend to form one group; families of only local importance the other. A century ago a landowner in England would have had to own upwards of 10,000 acres and certainly more than 5,000 to be in the wealthier group. At the opposite end of the scale, the smaller country squires who were the typical landowners in the less wealthy group would have owned estates of under 5,000 acres; in many cases not much more than the 1,000 acres which used sometimes to be thought of as the minimuln required to qualify as 'landed gentry'.
Capital gains tax and capital transfer tax have done much to offset the spectacular rise in land values which had given the chronically hard-up squires new hope. (`You understand the position,' said one landowner to his nephew when making over the family estate to him recently. 'You're a millionaire on paper but you can't afford a bicycle.') The problem of maintaining 3 country house has been growing ever more acute with inflation; indeed the present tax system seems particularly loaded against the smaller seats of the squires as opposed to the stately showplaces. Unlike the great ter- ritorial magnates, the squires cannot spread their resources and avoid this taxation which now seems set to destroy the con- tinuity of ownership in the countryside.. There are now about 2,200 'familY estates' in England, Scotland and Wales. Over three-quarters of these are under 5,000 acres in extent and about half come within the 1,000 to 2,000 bracket. Significantly, only about 15 per cent of the 1,600 existing English family estates have survived in the same ownership over the last hundred years. The individual countY averages for the survival rate range from 6 per cent for industrial or surburban co1n. ties, such as Surrey, to 25 per cent for a few of the rural areas like Devon and ShroP- shire. In Norfolk, for instance, although some 120 family estates remain, there have been 400 demolitions of country houses this century and the break-up of some l l° estates. It is melancholy to record that one now has to subtract up to about 20 everY year from the total of family estates. Turning from statistics to what may Jus,t be regarded as 'well-bred sentiment', it 15 painfully sad to see the disappearance of many 'illustriously obscure' squirearchieal families from their beloved seats. They g° unnoticed and unmourned. The hard-faced modern 'Conservative' view, as typified bY Michael Heseltine, is that if such long- established families cannot manage to maintain their houses adequately, then good riddance to them. But this gradual chipping away at the fabric of rural societY can only be regretted. It might be argued that there is nothing new about the lesser landowning families slithering down the greasy pole, but the trend is depressinglY one-sided. Although there are some comparative newcomers among the English family estate-owners who have put doval roots over the last century, one can be sure that very few of the families who are now giving up the ghost will be succeeded by potential squirearchical dynasties of the future. In fairness to Mr Heseltine, he has sho01‘. a proper concern for the preservation 01 buildings, but the families who live in the should also count for something. In JaPa,°' I believe, the owners of historic properties
are themselves classified as ancient Monuments; a similar, scheme over here could have diverting possibilities. The so- called 'national heritage' was created by Private owners and the squires' contribu- tion should not be forgotten. Being less ex- posed than the magnate class to the corrup- ting influence of too much cash, the squires have always been associated with the best gentlemanly values. One likes to think of the ideal squire carrying on the role of un- Paid local administrator (started by Queen Elizabeth and officially stopped by Queen Victoria), presiding over a pocket of rural contentment and stability. This paragon looks after the village on the estate — where his ancestors built the parish hall, presented the playing fields etc. — and contributes largely to the upkeep of the church. When a trendy parson invited everyone to bring their favourite pets to church for an absurd 'Animal Service', the local squire threaten- ed to bring his bull.
These traditions, with all their overtones of feudalism, paternalism and noblesse Oblige, are happily still not quite extinct; though one fears the exigencies of estate Management are the main concern of the Modern squires as they struggle to pass the Place on to the next generation. One is, alas, much more likely to encounter mere technocrats of the land among their number than people living up to the aristocratic Concept of the 'Complete Man' by being scholars, public figures and patrons of the arts as well as sportsmen.
Previous page
