Search results

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how L.T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) theoretically contributed to the British New Liberalism, focusing particularly on the issue of social reform in turn-of-the-century Britain.

The question is approached in two ways: by exploring the theoretical structure of Hobhouse’s ethical theory (which can be termed an “ethics of harmony”) through a textual analysis of his rights theory and distributive theory; and by comparing that ethical theory with that of J.S. Mill, T.H. Green and J.A. Hobson so as to identify their commonalities and differences.

It is found that Hobhouse’s contribution to the New Liberalism was twofold, both of which grew out of his staunchly moralistic perspective. Hobhouse showed in his rights theory a direction towards which the morality of individuals should be developed; and provided a guideline based on a notion of justice for wealth redistribution by the state which he saw as a necessary external condition for realizing such development.

Existing literature on the British New Liberalism has paid less attention to Hobhouse than it has to T.H. Green and J.A. Hobson. Hobhouse has been relatively neglected due to a wide-spread view that his role was mainly in his expressing a typical but not necessarily original direction for the transformation of British Liberalism at the turn of the century. Against this received view, this paper demonstrates that Hobhouse made a significant contribution to the socio-political thinking of the New Liberalism by providing a distinctive ethical theory of harmony, which enabled New Liberal protagonists to address the important issue of the conceptual place of individual morality within a programme of collectivist social reform.

Despite the apparent philanthropic concerns of the new imperialism and the rhetoric of the civilising mission, the Second Boer War (1899–1902) revealed British irrational ambition, military reverses, scandals and evidence of inadequate administration. In this context, the South African concentration camps where the Boers, mostly women and children whose houses and farms had been destroyed by the British forces, were concentrated, stand out as examples of a seemingly arbitrary power. The controversies over such camps, and over the War itself, were heightened after Emily Hobhouse's Report was made public. Emily Hobhouse, an active humanitarian, obtained permission to visit the camps in order to write a report on the living conditions there. Upon returning to England, she had a meeting with Campbell-Bannerman, the leader of the Liberal Party, who eventually denounced the methods of barbarism carried out in such places. The Report appeared soon after the meeting and waves of protest ensued. Both Emily Hobhouse and Campbell-Bannerman were under crossfire.

My intention in this paper is, firstly, to briefly address the social, political and economic context underlying British imperial expansion and struggle for space at the turn of the nineteenth century, as far as controversies over the Boer War are concerned; secondly, to study the characteristics and living conditions in South African ‘concentration camps’ relying, to a great extent, on Emily Hobhouse's account; and thirdly, to analyse the social and political impact of the denunciation of such camps as places of wholesale cruelty in Hobhouse's (in) famous Report.

The paper aims to examine and compare two understandings of liberty that have dealt successfully with the normative and analytical challenge of reconciling liberty with social justice: Philip Pettit's republican liberty as nondomination and Hobhouse's concept of liberty as personal growth available to all. The paper focuses on one particular question: how successful each of these thinkers has been in resolving the tension between voluntariness of action, implicit in the “primary” meaning of liberty (as defined by T.H. Green), with the often heavy demands of social justice policies aiming at social equality and entailing economic redistribution.

The paper analyses two theories of liberty by spelling out the difficulties they aimed to deal with and by assessing the level of success they have achieved in resolving these difficulties, with the objective to demonstrate their originality in the broader context of conceptualising liberty.

The paper criticises Pettit's republican theory from a new perspective and develops an original critique of it; it spells out the achievements of Hobhouse's understanding of liberty in a new light – related to the specific critique of Pettit's republican liberty; and by spelling out the analytical and normative achievements of Hobhouse's liberty as “personal growth available to all” it offers a viable concept of liberty that fits with contemporary conceptualisations but overcomes their shortcomings.

As the project is based on analysing texts that have been easy to access, there have not been significant research limitations.

The two theories of freedom assessed here (the contemporary republican and the “new liberal”) entail some subtle, but potentially significant differences in public policy implications. While both can justify extended state action, the latter could tailor specific policies in a manner more mindful of the well-being of all parties, even those on the wrong side of social justice.

The paper makes an original contribution in three areas: contemporary republican theory of liberty, Hobhouse's theory of liberty and conceptualisations of liberty in general.

The narratives that would give meaning to at least four generations of scholars and practitioners are amplified in the discourse growing out of the elements of technical rationality, pragmatism, evolution, and the rush of different ideas and new institutions that punctuate the Progressive period. The narratives explored below persist in public administration from the beginning of the twentieth century: preparation for the rise of national institutions, the citizen-state relationship, reconciling democracy and administration, and science and scientific management. Throughout the paper, the author's interest in the reconciliation of freedom and order is explored in the relationship between self and community, citizen and nation, and politics and administration.

In Sociology, the term ‘value’ has come to denote shared cultural standards related to objects of need, attitude or desire. Sociologists have generally confined their attention to values as empirical variables in social life whose scientific importance is not so much dependent upon their validity and ‘correctness’ as upon the fact that they are believed to be true and correct by those who hold them. For the scientific observer, values only have relevance if there is an observable relationship between the actions of subjects (individuals, groups, etc.) and the objects of their concern. Therefore, it is the holding of values and its social manifestations which is, arguably, the primary concern of the sociologist. The question of their derivation and possible ‘ontic status’ has been left largely to the uncertain ministrations of the philosophers. The possible objective validity of values tends to be regarded as a problem which falls outside the realm of science, but the insistence that social science remains value‐free, has raised the question as to what extent such freedom is really possible, and to what extent extrinsic values must always intrude.

WE are as yet without the means of verifying the forecast in our last issue that there would be a cutting of library estimates this year. There has been some; one library authority known to us having ordered a five per cent. cut. The fact still is that such retrenchments can only be made at the expense of a very few items of our estimates, and of these the book fund is the severest sufferer. This is a fact that cannot always be brought home to finance committees who only think as a rule in gross figures, and do not know that the library estimate consists mainly of fixed charges. The librarian who forms an estimate in anticipation of cuts does not aft quite honestly, but in the way of the world at present he may, like the Unjust Steward, be acting wisely. But it is pitiful to think that this should even be a matter for discussion.

This article examines relationships between capitalism and democracy as perceived by contending perspectives within the liberal capitalist‐liberal democratic tradition(s). Bentham and the Mills are taken as initiating both this tradition and the core elements of the debate within it. Pre‐Benthamite theories are first reviewed. Then, after discussion of Bentham and James Mill and of John Stuart Mill, Mill's late nineteenth and early twentieth century successors are examined. We then go on to consider hypotheses concerning the “exceptional” quality of relationships between capitalism and democracy in the United States. The penultimate section of the article adumbrates the main contours of mid‐twentieth century pluralist‐elitist theories. We conclude with a summary.

TO many of us it is a matter for regret that we are not able to keep ourselves so closely in touch with library affairs in other parts of the world as we would wish. With American happenings we are, of course, fairly well acquainted, but Colonial effort has not received the attention which is its due. In many places in the Empire methods are, in certain ways, in advance of ours—in more than one country the legislation has been more enlightened than it was in England until quite recently—and everywhere the experience of keen progressive librarians facing their own particular problems must prove of interest and value to those in the home country. Therefore we believe that by devoting this issue to a discussion of some phases of Colonial librarianship we are but answering the large demand for such information.

IN the editorial columns of our last issue we asked the question, “What of Plymouth?” We are pleased to be able to announce that Mr. Fred. Cole, Chief Librarian and Curator of Huddersfield, has been appointed. Mr. Cole leaves Huddersfield with a splendid record as an indefatigable worker and organizer. Labouring under great difficulties he raised the standard of the Library to a high state of efficiency, and his recently‐organized Music Section has brought a host of appreciations and unqualified praise. We congratulate Mr. Cole on his appointment and wish him every success in his new sphere, where he will find even more scope for his energies and undoubted enthusiasm.