THE GROWTH OF THE VICTORIAN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE There is no more fascinating theme in contemporary history than to follow the stages through which the laissez-faire `night-watchman state of the nineteenth century has been transformed into the `welfare state of today.(8) E. H. Carr Conceptions as to what role the state should play in the life of the nation during the nineteenth century were so bound up with the prevailing liberal notions of the time, that a brief examination of these notions is necessary in order fully to appreciate the changes that occurred concerning the public/private sphere between the start and the end of this century. Early Victorian liberalism, carrying on a tradition prevalent since the seventeenth century, still held closely to a belief in the `inalienable rights of man to `life, liberty and property, a doctrine closely connected to the writings of John Locke. Over time this doctrine evolved into notions of the autonomous will of the individual and liberty, defined as the absence of all unnecessary restraints, was lauded as the supreme value in political discourse. This `rugged individualism naturally led to a distrust of the state and most forms of government intervention. Also, the belief in self-help as expounded by Samuel Smiles coupled with the political economy of Smith, Malthus and Ricardo amongst others, was ideally suited to the opinions of the growing commercial, industrial and merchant middle-classes who were becoming increasingly influential in national affairs. Progress would be ensured if the government removed restraints to trade and let individual enterprise flourish. Reform meant repeal. However, if most of the nineteenth century can be considered as the `golden era of laissez-faire, self-reliance, individual responsibility, and minimal government intervention in economic and social affairs, it is clear that by the end of the century these ideas were in decline as popular ideology. Many reasons have been put forward as to why governmental controls grew during the Victorian era, and they mainly concern the rapid changing social conditions of that time and the response many thought necessary to meet them. In other words, well-meaning people believed new measures were needed to meet new problems or even old problems which had now moved from the local to the national stage. Of greatest importance was industrialisation and its corollary, urbanisation, which was facilitated by a rapid increase and greater mobility in the population. As towns and cities grew so did the problems related to their growing density, such as general squalor and poor sanitary conditions. These changing social and economic conditions impacted so strongly on those who had to endure them that the general public became increasingly favourable towards interventionist reform to alleviate the problems. Of equal significance is the extension of the franchise, particularly the second Reform Act of 1867, which ensured that government became more responsive to a wider segment of society. This may explain in part why Dicey dated the end of laissez-faire at about 1870. Laissez-faire capitalism, with its concern over property rights and the inviolability of contracts, had always held more appeal to the middle-classes than those lower down the social scale who were more concerned with better conditions of employment, etc. In other words, the needs of employees as well as employers now came into the equation. Yet even those who were believed to have benefited most from the free play of market forces such as industrialists, merchants and traders also began to question laissez-faire doctrines at about this time. Certainly increasing competition from abroad and the economic slump this country suffered in the 1870s and 1880s shook the conviction of many in the supremacy of private enterprise. It was not only a reaction to external events, however, that forced the pace of change concerning governmental involvement in society. Liberalism itself underwent ideological change that could not but have had some influence on how public opinion and those more directly involved in government perceived political and social concerns. Yet it is not at all clear whether this evolving liberalism ran concurrently with changing external factors or whether it responded to these in order to survive as a still relevant and going concern. In short, whether liberalism influenced public opinion or whether it was influenced by it. Whatever the case, a growing segment of liberal opinion believed that if it did not loosen its ties to laissez-faire doctrines then it would be superseded by the growing ideology of socialism. Throughout the nineteenth century non-interventionist liberalism had come under increasingly hostile cultural and literary criticism from figures such as Dickens, Coleridge, Southey, Arnold, Carlyle and Ruskin, to name but a few. The common caricature of political economy as heartless ideology concerned only with `atomistic and `economic individuals they considered too limiting as a description of the human condition. Furthermore, unregulated capitalism was condemned for the dehumanising effect it was perceived to have and for breaking the traditional bonds that held society together as an organic whole. For those with an aesthetic sensibility, capitalism was seen as the engine by which ugliness had replaced beauty. Unfortunately, some liberal thinkers responded to this criticism by conceding the argument over the perceived inadequacies of many of liberalisms basic tenets, particularly those concerning the nature of individuality and the traditional way freedom was defined as merely the absence of constraints on individual action. T. H. Green played an important role in changing liberal assumptions by moving from a `negative conception of freedom towards a more `positive one. He argued that freedom should be conceived in broader terms than had been previously allowed. Moral and ethical considerations were now brought to bear so that the ideal of true freedom is the maximum of power for all members of human society alike to make the best of themselves.(9) A belief in the autonomy of the individual was discarded in favour of an organic notion of the individual as a part of society and with corresponding obligations to it. Rather than restricting freedom, the state should now be used as the means to enhance it as well. The traditional liberal antithesis between the state and the individual, Green argued, should be discarded, particularly in an emerging democratic nation. Green was followed by other liberal thinkers such as David Ritchie, John Hobson and Leonard Hobhouse who all contributed to the movement of liberalism away from laissez-faire towards a more interventionist path. Significantly enough, Hobhouse acknowledged the debt that Bentham and utilitarianism had bequeathed to the changing emphasis of liberal ideology: men ... like Bentham and Mill, who had principles and knew how to apply them, were the real spiritual leaders who moved the masses of social prejudice and political obstruction and made the way plain for reform.(10) Would Hobhouse have acknowledged a debt to previous thinkers if he had not seen them as forerunners of his own thought? I can only assume that his reference to John Stuart Mill concerns The Principles of Political Economy which, while still laying down Mills laissez-faire credentials, nevertheless expressed some sympathy with socialist aspirations and sanctioned a fairly impressive number of exceptions to the `non-interference principle.
Posted on: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:48:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015