recidivist lords and landowners

[james armstrong]

The Commons were reformed in 1834 but land monopoly and  recidivist  lordship
Remain.
Cahill and Shoar seem to have missed a vital point about the significance of 
The aristocratic land monopoly:That it was associated until (and after) Pitt's  parliamentary reform of 1834,  with plundering  the  state's coffers and the commonalty. All the cabinet except Pitt  in 1789 were  Lords and by bribery, sinecures, fees for collecting taxes and corruption, fortunes were amassed  from public office. The concept of public good, administrative efficiency and democracy did not exist or were not evidenced in British government . Lords used land for personal profit, public power and influence.    
Only landowners were eligible for office. Land was  the passport to plunder. 
Both the monopoly of land they accumulated, and the office of state they used to get   power and wealth -the House of Lords-  need abolishing-not reforming since both  can be and still are used as vehicles for plunder : The housing monopoly, secret  CAP handouts and supremely the sinecure of monarchy  are current examples using  land  to exploit the commonalty. 
The replacement for landownership is all land vested in the people as a state.
The replacement of a House of Lords is the Assembly of the people to control the House of Commons who mirror presently these plundering aspirations through  patronage, of the 1790's lords.  Monarchy, like the office of usher of the receipt of the exchequer abolished in 1789, is redundant.
 
Pitt's life obsession was to stop this plunder. Contrary to common usage not government, not parliament  but merely the expendable  House of Commons was reformed in 1834 by extending the franchise following Pitt's groundwork.
"until 1789 Pitt remained the only member of the house of commons who was in the cabinet"      …J Steven Watson, Oxford history of England," 
The  government ,i.e. monarchy and lords, remain unreformed.  The current office of 'Her Majesty's Prime Minister', assumes power cloaked by the monarchy and uses traditional patronage, to buy votes in the Commons subverting members' loyalty to the voters. Party contributions of £50million  are bought and dispensed with patronage which dwarfs the rampant corruption of 1790.  
The task of addressing the land monopoly and  ending the theft of  power by means of the institution of lordship remains. Bulk landownership and lordship and  monarchy are tainted by recidivism and should be abolished to continue the good work started by  Pitt.   A good reference is "The Reign of George lll"  in the Oxford History series  by J Steven Watson.

I'm enjoying making a list of existing recidivist bulk landowning families and their eighteenth century plunders from public office. James A 

_________________________________________________________________
Feel like a local wherever you go.
http://www.backofmyhand.com