Why didn't more aristocratic families (specifically, English) invest heavily in land in their respective Empires?

by Elidioemperor

Hello, I was reading earlier about Brian Harrison who owned a "small" 1500 acre estate in England but owned several extensive lands in Australia. This got me thinking about the moneyed classes as a whole and the aristocracy in particular. Since for the aristocracy the main generator of wealth has always been land, why did they not invest in this extensively in the Empire? I know some British nobles owned some lands in the Colonial US, but I really do not know much about this at all. Did some aristocracts, and to a lesser extent rich industrialists and merchants, ever seriously invest in lands in colonial possessions?

Second_Mate

You need to bear in mind that although the Brits, in India, for example, were the political rulers of a region, they didn't own it as a personal possession. A wealthy noble might buy land in the Americas, or in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, as these were viewed as "empty" lands, where unoccupied land could be obtained. Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Rhodesia were also genuine "colonies" where Brits, and other Europeans settled. Elsewhere, India, for example, some large areas were purchased from the local owners, for tea plantations, for example, and were then run by managers, but usually by companies rather than by wealthy individuals.