What did 19th century liberals believe?

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Table of Contents Show

1. Introduction
2. Economic liberalism in the 19th century
2.1. Liberal proposals
2.2. Other influential thoughts
2.3. Government position
3. Consequences of laissez f aire
3.1. Economical impact
3.2. Moral influence
4. Conclusion

Excerpt

1. Introduction

2. Economic liberalism in the 19th century 2.1. Liberal proposals 2.2. Other influential thoughts

2.3. Government position

3. Consequences of laissez faire 3.1. Economical impact

3.2. Moral influence

4. Conclusion

5. References

1. Introduction

This report sets out to investigate whether 19th century liberalism was the ideology of vested economic interest.

2. Economic liberalism in the 19th century

2.1. Liberal proposals

The proposals of early liberals constituted an attack not only on the claims of the feudal aristocracy but also on the economic basis of society (Connin, 1990, p.297). They advocated an industrialized and market economic order, which would by free from government interference and free trade between countries (Heywood, 2007, p.24). Liberals believed that free trade would:

- promote economic growth and consumption - improve the values and ideas of society

- ensure peace.

2.2. Other influential thoughts

Utilitarianism

One of the major foundations for liberalism was provided by the utilitarianism ideas, which suggested using calculations of the amount of pleasure and pain to establish ‘happiness of greatest number’ (Adams, 1993, p.27). However, utilitarianism has been criticised for using this principle as a moral standard as it may violate the rights of the minority or individuals. This principle was nevertheless used by J. Bentham for a justification of the laissez faire economics (Heywood, 2004, p. 359).

Ricardo and Malthus

The ideas from the leading liberals D. Ricardo and T. Malthus had an enormous effect on the developments in the 19th century.

Ricardo’s theory of ‘iron law of wages’ suggested that workers should be only paid enough to bring them back another day, as this was the only way to secure capital for future production. Even further Malthus concluded that it was prudent, in fact more humane in the long-term, to deny masses more than the bare essentials in order to avoid a potentially dangerous population explosion (Baradat, 2009, p.85).

Social Darwinism

The supporters of laissez faire practices widely employed the liberal view that socioeconomic inequalities was a reflection of unequal merit and abilities, hence they were natural.

Consequently, H. Spencer developed a theory of ‘natural selection’ whereby the people who are best suited by nature to survive will rise while the less fit will fall. These ideas were increasingly affecting social and political theory in the 19th century.

Further, R. Cobden advocated that improvements of the conditions of the working class should come through themselves rather than the law (Heywood, 2007, p.34-51).

2.3. Government position

The laissez faire ideas were in conflict with the economic practice of most governments; hence it took time for these ideas to gain influence. However, they were increasingly supported by governments as a way to strengthen national identities, the prosperity and the power of their nation-state (Helleiner, 2001, p.319-20).

Moreover, the liberal ideas reflected very well the needs of the new class of industrialists and at times when economics were controlled by the arbitrary governments, the idea of pursuing self-interest seemed justified (Baradat, 2009, p. 85). In fact, it was the support of this group that gave more radical liberal ideas a certain respectability (Adams, 1993, p.26-7).

3. Consequences of laissez f aire

3.1. Economical impact

As the industrial revolution spread through the west, it became apparent that free market was not producing the advocated harmonious society; instead there were vast inequalities with many suffering poverty and exploitation (Adams, 1993, p. 37). These circumstances were reinforced by the ideas of the leading liberals as they seemed to justify the inequalities and the increased accumulation of wealth.

Spencer’s ideas were particularly influential in America, leading to what became known as the age of the ‘robber barons’ characterised by exploitation and corrupted politics. Men like J.P. Morgan virtually controlled the American economy and thereby the American government (Sargent, 2009, p.112). Moreover, these theories encouraged the rich to increase their efforts even more. In addition, Malthus’s theory was welcomed by the government as it suggested that poverty resulted from natural sources; hence, political leaders had no responsibility to do anything about these problems (Baradat, 2009, p. 86).

3.2. Moral influence

Consequently, liberalism has been criticised for viewing individuals as mere producers and consumers and not as citizens and members of nations (Helleiner, 2001, p.311). As Neal (1985, p.682-3) suggests, the mechanisms of the free market lead to the development of a particular type of individual character. And while it is not self-evidently a nasty and brutish character type, it is also not necessarily the free and autonomous person advocated by liberals. In fact, capitalist structures are said to encourage egoistical individualism, which was, in fact, promoted by liberals. However, they maintained that such individualism will ultimately lead to general prosperity and well-being (Heywood, 2007, p.45-51). Eccleshall (2003, p.28) also argues that there is little evidence that liberalism in the 19th century was a form of possessive individualism. Nonetheless, liberals feared that free individuals may exploit others if it is to their advantage, which resulted in the request for the ‘rule of law’ (Heywood, 2007, p.36).

Moreover, Helleiner (2001, p.313) argues that many liberals actually considered a peaceful cosmopolitan society to be the main motive for free trade. In addition, Mill also emphasized the cultural benefits of trade (Harlen, 1999, 736).

With regards to an individual’s place in the society, liberals proposed that removal of the arbitrary powers and equality of rights would lead to a free, independent and virtuous citizenry (Eccleshall, 2003, p.28-9). It is even argued that Mill placed more emphasis on human flourishing rather than the rough satisfaction of interests (Heywood, 2007, p.55).

4. Conclusion

The laissez faire capitalism arguably was a central doctrine in the 19th century. In many ways it served to promote the interests of the new class of manufacturers. As Richardson (2001, p.50) argues, 19th century liberalism could be hence regarded as the elitist liberalism of the industrial society.

However, liberalist original intentions were to promote the equality and freedom from the arbitrary powers, which were based on a positivist view of human nature and a vision of virtuous citizens unified by common values. This serves to demonstrate that liberal proposals were not explicitly elitist.

[...]

As an ideology and in practice liberalism became the preeminent reform movement in Europe during the 19th century. Its fortunes, however, varied with the historical conditions in each country—the strength of the crown, the élan of the aristocracy, the pace of industrialization, and the circumstances of national unification. The national character of a liberal movement could even be affected by religion. Liberalism in Roman Catholic countries such as France, Italy, and Spain, for example, tended to acquire anticlerical overtones, and liberals in those countries tended to favour legislation restricting the civil authority and political power of the Catholic clergy.

William Ewart Gladstone

In Great Britain the Whigs had evolved by the mid-19th century into the Liberal Party, whose reformist programs became the model for liberal political parties throughout Europe. Liberals propelled the long campaign that abolished Britain’s slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself throughout the British dominions in 1833. The liberal project of broadening the franchise in Britain bore fruit in the Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1884–85. The sweeping reforms achieved by Liberal Party governments led by William Gladstone for 14 years between 1868 and 1894 marked the apex of British liberalism.

Liberalism in continental Europe often lacked the fortuitous combination of broad popular support and a powerful liberal party that it had in Britain. In France the Revolutionary and Napoleonic governments pursued liberal goals in their abolition of feudal privileges and their modernization of the decrepit institutions inherited from the ancien régime. After the Bourbon Restoration in 1815, however, French liberals were faced with the decades-long task of securing constitutional liberties and enlarging popular participation in government under a reestablished monarchy, goals not substantially achieved until the formation of the Third Republic in 1871.

Throughout Europe and in the Western Hemisphere, liberalism inspired nationalistic aspirations to the creation of unified, independent, constitutional states with their own parliaments and the rule of law. The most dramatic exponents of this liberal assault against authoritarian rule were the Founding Fathers of the United States, the statesman and revolutionary Simón Bolívar in South America, the leaders of the Risorgimento in Italy, and the nationalist reformer Lajos Kossuth in Hungary. But the failure of the Revolutions of 1848 highlighted the comparative weakness of liberalism on the Continent. Liberals’ inability to unify the German states in the mid-19th century was attributable in large part to the dominant role of a militarized Prussia and the reactionary influence of Austria. The liberal-inspired unification of Italy was delayed until the 1860s by the armies of Austria and of Napoleon III of France and by the opposition of the Vatican.

property law: Marxism, liberalism, and the law

Not surprisingly, relatively little of Marx’s theory of property showed itself in property law until a Marxist revolution took place in...

The United States presented a quite different situation, because there was neither a monarchy, an aristocracy, nor an established church against which liberalism could react. Indeed, liberalism was so well established in the United States’ constitutional structure, its political culture, and its jurisprudence that there was no distinct role for a liberal party to play, at least not until the 20th century.

In Europe, by contrast, liberalism was a transforming force throughout the 19th century. Industrialization and modernization, for which classical liberalism provided ideological justification, wrought great changes. The feudal system fell, a functionless aristocracy lost its privileges, and monarchs were challenged and curbed. Capitalism replaced the static economies of the Middle Ages, and the middle class was left free to employ its energies by expanding the means of production and vastly increasing the wealth of society. As liberals set about limiting the power of the monarchy, they converted the ideal of constitutional government, accountable to the people through the election of representatives, into a reality.

Discover the origins of liberalism, its relation to democracy, and how modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism and conservatism

See all videos for this article

By the end of the 19th century, some unforeseen but serious consequences of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America had produced a deepening disenchantment with the principal economic basis of classical liberalism—the ideal of a market economy. The main problem was that the profit system had concentrated vast wealth in the hands of a relatively small number of industrialists and financiers, with several adverse consequences. First, great masses of people failed to benefit from the wealth flowing from factories and lived in poverty in vast slums. Second, because the greatly expanded system of production created many goods and services that people often could not afford to buy, markets became glutted and the system periodically came to a near halt in periods of stagnation that came to be called depressions. Finally, those who owned or managed the means of production had acquired enormous economic power that they used to influence and control government, to manipulate an inchoate electorate, to limit competition, and to obstruct substantive social reform. In short, some of the same forces that had once released the productive energies of Western society now restrained them; some of the very energies that had demolished the power of despots now nourished a new despotism.