You are here:   Civilisation >  Books > Squire Scruton and the Tory Disposition
 
Our distinctive history also had another consequence — creating the world's first market economy. That is what you get when free people can exchange goods and services protected by the impartial enforcement of the law of contract. Because we were the world's first market economy — capitalism without factories — we then gave the world the Industrial Revolution. That has left Conservatives as the bearers of a tradition which created capitalism and yet also anxious that capitalism could erode some of the very values and ties of association which we value. Scruton clearly feels this and appears to be particularly hostile to big business. He is a cottage industry Conservative — indeed he is such a prolific writer that he is a cottage industry in his own right. Of course it is marvellous if someone has the enterprise to set up a local window-cleaning firm or reopens the village store and makes a go of it. But I am even more excited when our entrepreneurs create a small business which turns into ARM or Virgin or Vodafone. In fact Britain is already doing very well when it comes to business start-ups — our problem is that we have not got enough big businesses.

The Liberal split in the 19th century brought Joe Chamberlain and the Liberal Unionists into alliance with the Conservatives, leading to the creation of the Conservative and Unionist party in 1912. Chamberlain's family firm is now part of GKN, still based in the Midlands and a FTSE 100 company. The old Conservative party of the English shires merged with parts of the old Liberal party who brought with them leaders of big business and the big cities. Meanwhile the centre — Right on the Continent often remained divided between a rural, traditionalist, confessional, peasant party and an urban, anti-clerical, pro-business, liberal party. Those two distinctive strands came together in British Conservatism at the beginning of the 20th century and were crucial to our electoral success. We should celebrate that connection and welcome the  "metropolitan" and the "big" in today's Conservatism. This modern Conservatism reflects our deepest and sometimes conflicting desires — we want roots, tradition, and belonging, but at the same time we want opportunity, mobility and opportunity. Quite simply our job is to provide both.

Margaret Thatcher recognised the fear that her policies were tearing up the social fabric and something rather precious was being lost. She resolved the problem by appealing to the great Biblical parables —the parable of the talents or the parable of the good Samaritan. She was absolutely clear — as is Scruton — that capitalism depended on and was shaped by a prior set of Christian moral values. The Centre for Social Justice, founded by Iain Duncan Smith, continues to embody that appeal to a moral framework. But that framework may not work for a modern society with such a range of faiths and culture, including a very strong tradition of secularism. Scruton does try to construct his arguments independently of his religious beliefs, but in many ways his book and the virtues he praises are deeply religious. He eschews newer intellectual disciplines such as game theory, evolutionary biology and neuroscience. I personally find these "-ologies" full of insights which strengthen our Conservatism and enable us to shape it for the 21st century.

Burke famously said: "Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them." Roger Scruton is one of our great men of speculation and there may be even more resources to understand this latent wisdom than he draws on in this book.
View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Charlie 3
October 30th, 2014
3:10 PM
British Conservatism enabled self made man and especially their children and grandchildren to enter the ruling classes. The Continental aristocratic system allowed people to marry only within their stratum, viscounts only married viscounts and counts married counts; hence the need for the Almanac de Gotha. British aristocrats ladies did not marry those who created the Industrial Revolution but they married their sons and grandsons. There was sufficient elasticity and plasticity in the British system to prevent class war. British conservatism is the tradition of putting new wine into old bottles, turning tradesmen into gentlemen( the purpose of public schools) and doing what works.

Charlie3
October 29th, 2014
3:10 PM
I would suggest what has occurred more commonly in Britain than other parts of the World are the following 1. The Law which was derived from Saxon traditions and the Bible which evolved from agreement between a monarch and the people: starting with Aethelbert of Kent in about 650AD. The Law came from the people : it was not imposed upon them. 2. Arming of all free people during Saxon times and then reinstated in 1181AD. 3. A social class which from 1100AD comprised serf, freemen, franklins, yeoman, knights and aristocrats: not just serfs and aristocrats. 4. Fertile soil and a uniform currency which meant excess food could be turned into money. This meant prudent and hardworking serfs could become a freeman or their heirs could inherit sufficient money to do so. 5. A family could move from serfdom to yeoman status( own 40-120 acres of land ) in 3 generations. 6. The introduction of the war bow and pay for archers meant that England and Wales produced very strong men who could earn good money ( up to 6d per day)volunteering to fight for the king. Europe had a military aristocracy and unarmed peasants (who through malnutrition were weak) and the use of mercenaries. An English war bow had pull weights of up to 180lb and archers could fire 12 shafts a minute for several minutes: this strength could only be achieved if you have a meat rich diet. 7.Parliament from 1298, Magna Carta, an ability of people to better themselves, a justice system imposed by royal judges and the jury system rather than local lords and an absence of the concept of Divine Right of Kings meant that the English considered themselves separate from Europeans because they were free. As the saying goes " one cannot be a curl in peace and a lion in war". An outlaw archer became part of the King's bodyguard was injured and knighted- this did not happen in France. 8. In the Spanish Armada, a technically inferior aristocracy was defeated by a technically superior meritocracy. People like drake would have never held command in a Spanish ship. 9. It has been easier to better oneself in England than most parts of Europe since about 700 AD. The only time when social mobility stopped was the Norman invasion of 1066AD but in 1100 AD Henry 1 created the Charter of Liberties which re-introduced The Laws of Edward the Confessor. The legal requirement for all freemen to bear arms from 1181AD means that is is far more difficult for an aristocracy to impose their will on the people. By the time archers have become the mainstay of the English a knight or aristocrat who caused offence risks being killed in revenge : an arrow could kill a knight at 250 yards. 10. The absence of any exception from the Law and/or taxation because of aristocratic birth. On the Continent aristocratic privileges and those accorded to the clergy increased with rank and continued until feudalism was stopped which did not occur in Russia until 1860. 11. I would suggest what England produced was a physically fitter, stronger, better armed and trained population who considered themselves free to speak their minds, better themselves through honest hard work and knew that their freedom and wealth could not be taken away on the whim of aristocrats, clergymen or monarchs: we are nations of lions not curls! 12. Conservatism of Britain was like the yew war bow : it is strong but can bend, a result of the belief doing what works and following the evidence . Continental conservatism is influenced by the concept of the divine right of kings and roman catholic absolutism which gives it a rigid and brittle quality. Consequently continental conservatism tends to be in continuous conflict with marxism which is also rigid and brittle

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.