L. T. Hobhouse was a British political theorist and liberal political philosopher who is known for his contributions to the development of liberalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Hobhouse believed in the importance of individual liberty and the rule of law, and he argued that the role of government was to create the conditions in which individuals could freely pursue their own interests and goals.
Hobhouse's liberalism was characterized by a commitment to social justice and the belief that the state should play a role in promoting the well-being of its citizens. He argued that the state had a responsibility to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, such as education, healthcare, and a safety net for those in need. Hobhouse also believed in the importance of democracy and the need for political participation by all members of society.
One of Hobhouse's most significant contributions to liberal thought was his concept of "positive liberty." This concept argued that true liberty was not simply the absence of interference from the state, but rather the ability to achieve one's own goals and objectives. To achieve this positive liberty, Hobhouse believed that the state had a role to play in providing the necessary resources and opportunities for individuals to develop their full potential.
In addition to his contributions to liberal thought, Hobhouse was also a influential advocate for social reform. He supported the rights of workers and argued for the creation of a welfare state to provide for the needs of the poor and disadvantaged. Hobhouse's ideas on social reform were influential in the development of the modern welfare state in Britain and other countries.
In conclusion, L. T. Hobhouse's contributions to liberalism have had a lasting impact on political thought and policy. His ideas on individual liberty, social justice, and the role of the state in promoting the well-being of its citizens continue to be relevant today.
Leonard Hobhouse
Personal LibertyOf political liberty it will be more convenient to speak later. The so-cial structure of the Middle Ages accordingly assumed the hierarchicalform which we speak of as the Feudal system. At its core, Hobhouse liberalism advocates for a society in which individuals are free to pursue their own interests and goals, but also recognizes that the state has a role in promoting the common good and protecting the rights and welfare of its citizens. In Eu-rope it has taken more than one form. Even in this country it is atenable view that the extension of the suffrage in 1884 tended for someyears to arrest the development of liberty in various directions. Taxes there must beto carry on government, but if we looked into the cost of government wefound that it depended mostly on armaments. The end of every political association is the conserva-tion of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man.
L. T. Hobhouse and the Theory of "Social Liberalism" on JSTOR
It began, as we saw, with the child, where the case wasoverwhelming. Let every people be free to work out its ownsalvation. The secret of the empire that was early di-vulged was that an emperor could be made elsewhere than at Rome, andthough a certain sanctity remained to the person of the emperor, andlegists cherished a dim remembrance of the theory that he embodied thepopular will, the fact was that he was the choice of a powerful army,ratified by the God of Baffles, and maintaining his power as long as hecould suppress any rival pretender. The first of these types I will call the theory of the Natural Order. Hobhouse was also deeply internationalist and was revolted by the Fabian endorsement of the Boer War.
In its early days and in its more moderate forms,it sought its ends under the guise of constitutionalism. Now, those who effect a revolution ought to know whither they areleading the world. One can gather that Mill believes that liberty is necessary for improvement and the more liberty present in individual members of society the more persons influencing change. Their emergence involved the widening and in some respectsthe improvement of the social order; and in its earlier stages it favouredcivic autonomy by suppressing local anarchy and feudal privilege. It is significant of much that this first step in liberty should be inreality nothing more nor less than a demand for law. The concepts of restraint and coercive and non-coercive actions need to be considered as well.
Hobhouse and Leadership: A Consideration of Liberalism
Generally, the right to injure or take advantage of another isnot sufficiently limited by the right of that other if he should have thepower to retaliate in kind. But even here Cobdenis active in the work of finally emancipating Manchester from manorialrights that have no place in the nineteenth century. The Declaration of 1793 ismore emphatic about equality, and more rhetorical. Thus Liberalism appears at first as a criticism, sometimes evenas a destructive and revolutionary criticism. His New Liberalism was, above all, the result of his disillusion with Fabian socialism. If the child washelpless, was the grown-up person, man or woman, in a much betterposition? In this thorough-goingapplication of die principle of authority every man, in theory, had hismaster. The earlier Liberalism had to deal with authoritarian government in church and state.
Liberalism : Hobhouse, L. T. (Leonard Trelawney), 1864
Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse, born at Liskeard, Cornwall on 8 September 1864, came from a long line of Anglican clerics. Hencethe doubts felt by so many Liberals as to the regulation of industry bylaw. In thefirst place it contained many clans and villages, and perhaps owed itsorigin to the coming together of separate clans on the basis not of con-quest but of comparatively equal alliance. He also distinguished between property held for use and property held for power, recognising the need for the former but not the latter to be protected by a system of rights. The immediate cause of theFrench Revolution was the refusal of the nobles and the clergy to beartheir share of the financial burden. Hobhouse tiative as the source of progress. True, this harmonymight require a certain amount of education and enlightenment to makeit effective.
What is more vital to the socialorder than its beliefs? Expression is free, andworship is free as far as it is the expression of personal devotion. Popular sovereignty is not fundamental, for all government is ameans to an end. For him, I think, Liberalism and, by inference, leadership must serve the prosperity and well-being of all persons within the larger purpose of developing a just society in which liberty is preserved in the context of equality. It was, in fact, the possibility of such conflict which was recog-nized by our theory as the origin and foundation of society. Yetis not religion also eminently social? What is truly primitive is veryhard to say.
Free Trade meant peace, andonce taught by the example of Great Britains prosperity, other nationswould follow suit, and Free Trade would be universal. An action is goodwhich tends to promote the greatest possible happiness of the greatestpossible number of those affected by it. When it comes to a question of any far-reaching change, they must not merely conceive their own immediate end with clearness. Thereis one point gained as compared to earlier forms of society. Heremen and women, though enjoying customary rights of person and prop-erty as against one another, have no rights at all as against the kingspleasure. Life expectancy is lengthened, societal growth is stronger, literacy rates are higher because education institutes are emerging, and living conditions are improved in countries that embrace economic freedom. For to raise the same sum the tax onwine will, as less is drunk, have to be much larger than the tax on tea, sothat a little gain to many tea-drinkers might inflict a heavy loss on thefew wine-drinkers, and on the Benthamite principle it is not clear thatthis would be just.
However, the reasons for maintaining the order are rooted in both commercial liberalism and the democratic peace theory. Yet here again we stumble on difficulties. In entering intothe compact, the individual gave up so much of his rights as was neces-sitated by the condition of submitting to a common ruleso much, andno more. Hobhouse the nineteenth century; and it is strongly held by contemporary Liberalslike M. That is right whichconforms to it, that is wrong which conflicts with it. During the same days the operative might have nothing to eat,and might see his children going hungry. Feudal disobedi-ence and disorder were suppressed, and by the end of the fifteenth cen-tury great unified states, the foundation of modem nations, were alreadyin being.
As against theclaims of the Stuart monarchy, there was a historic case as well as aphilosophic argument, and the earlier leaders of the Parliament reliedmore on precedent than on principle. But the isolatedindividual was powerless. It may do withthe individual what it pleases provided that it has the good of the wholein view. Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian, persuaded him to write occasional leading articles for the paper. Whatwere these rights, and on what did they rest? Non-in-tervention, peace, restriction of armaments, retrenchment of expendi-ture, reduction of taxation, were the connected series of practical conse-quences. He believed that the value of liberty lies precisely in its role in human self-development. This conception we shall thenapply to the greater questions, political and economic, of our own day; andthis will enable us finally to estimate the present position of Liberalism as aliving force in the modern world and the prospect of transforming its idealsinto actualities.
