In England “benefit of clergy” was still a good plea for remission of sentence for a number of crimes in the seventeenth century. At that time all who could read could claim benefit, which was therefore of the nature of a privilege for the educated class. The requirement of reading, which had become a form, was abolished in 1705, but peers and clerks in holy orders could still plead their clergy in the eighteenth century, and the last relics of the privilege were not finally abolished till the nineteenth century. ↩
See an interesting chapter in Faguet’s Libéralisme, which points out that the common saying that thought is free is negated by any inquisition which compels a man to disclose opinions, and penalizes him if they are not such as to suit the inquisitor. ↩
Cf. the preamble to the “Declaration of the Rights” of Man by the French National Assembly in 1789. The Assembly lays down “the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of man,” in order, among other things, “that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power, being capable of being at every instant compared with the end of every political institution, may be more respected accordingly.” ↩
The comparison of the Declaration of the Assembly in 1789 with that of the Convention in 1793 is full of interest, both for the points of agreement and difference, but would require a lengthy examination. I note one or two points in passing. ↩
Contrast 1793, Art. I: “The end of society is the common happiness. Government is instituted to guarantee to man the enjoyment of his natural and imprescriptible rights.” ↩
“If I were asked to sum up in a sentence the difference and the connection (between the two schools) I would say that the Manchester men were the disciples of Adam Smith and Bentham, while the Philosophical Radicals followed Bentham and Adam Smith” (F. W. Hirst, The Manchester School, Introd., p. xi). Lord Morley, in the concluding chapter of his Life of Cobden, points out that it was the view of “policy as a whole” in connection with the economic movement of society which distinguished the school of Cobden from that of the Benthamites. ↩
Indirectly it has for long limited the hours of men in factories owing to the interdependence of the adult male with the female and child operative. ↩
An absurd misconception fostered principally by opponents of equality for controversial purposes. ↩
The objection most often taken to “undenominationalism” itself is that it is in reality a form of doctrinal teaching seeking State endowment. ↩
I do not include those living in “secondary poverty,” as defined by Mr. Rowntree, as the responsibility in this case is partly personal. It must, however, be remembered that great poverty increases the difficulty of efficient management. ↩
It is true that so long as it remains possible for a certain order of ability to earn £50,000 a year, the community will not obtain its services for £5,000. But if things should be so altered by taxation and economic reorganization that £5,000 became in practice the highest limit attainable, and remained attainable even for the ablest only by effort, there is no reason to doubt that that effort would be forthcoming. It is not the absolute amount of remuneration, but the increment of remuneration in proportion to the output of industrial or commercial capacity, which serves as the needed stimulus to energy. ↩
I need hardly add that financial measures are entirely unsuited to a referendum. Financial and executive control go together, and to take either of them out of the hands of the majority in the House of Commons is not to reform our system but to destroy it root and branch. The same is not true of legislative control. There are cases in which a government might fairly submit a legislative measure to the people without electing to stand or fall by it. ↩
Probably the best alternative to these proposals is that of a small directly elected Second Chamber, with a provision for a joint session in case of insuperable disagreement, but with no provision for delay. This proposal has the advantage, apparently, of commanding a measure of Conservative support. ↩
Colophon
Liberalism
was published in 1911 by
L. T. Hobhouse.
This ebook was produced for
Standard Ebooks
by
Lukas Bystricky,
and is based on a transcription produced in 2009 by
Steven Gibbs, Martin Pettit, and The Online Distributed Proofreading Team
for
Project Gutenberg
and on digital scans from the
Internet Archive.
The cover page is adapted from
Peace Bringing Back Prosperity,
a painting completed in 1790 by
Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun.
The cover and title pages feature the
League Spartan and Sorts Mill Goudy
typefaces created in 2014 and 2009 by
The League of Moveable Type.
The first edition of this ebook was released on
June 22, 2022, 6:26 p.m.
You can check for updates to this ebook, view its revision history, or download it for different ereading systems at
standardebooks.org/ebooks/l-t-hobhouse/liberalism.
The volunteer-driven Standard Ebooks project relies on readers like you to submit typos, corrections, and other improvements. Anyone can contribute at standardebooks.org.
Uncopyright
May you do good and not evil.
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
Copyright pages exist to tell you that you can’t do something. Unlike them, this Uncopyright page
