early nineteenth century liberalism called for miniscule government
interference, or laissez faire, however the latter of the nineteenth century
liberalism came to support government reforms to deal with many problems. L.T.
Hobhouse and Herbert Spencer each had contrasting views on how society should
be structured, Hobhouse justifying state intervention and Spencer on the
contrary was against state intervention.
to Hobhouse, “On all sides we find the State making active provisions for the
poorer classes…” he wrote this to show that the State was supplying those who
could not afford to care for themselves, in light to make people understand
that government intervention is needed for people of certain social statuses.1
Hobhouse goes on to write how the state educates children, provides medical
inspections and helps people find employment. Hobhouse also goes on to write
“…the function of the state is to secure conditions upon which its citizens are
able to win by their own efforts all that is necessary to live full civic
efficiency.”2 This furthermore supports his ideology by installing
the idea that the state is here to give people the right tools to be
successful. He writes that State intervention is not going to spoon feed citizens
by giving citizens houses, food, and clothing, however just the proper economy
in which they can provide for themselves. Hobhouse considers it a shared
responsibility, that the State gives citizens an opportunity and the citizens
use that opportunity to better themselves.
contrast Spencer forewarned government regulation would lead to slavery and
socialism. Spencer feared the government would intervene anytime things went
wrong rather than have citizens work out a solution. Spencer writes that “Every
extension of the regulative policy involves an addition to regulative agents, a
further growth of officialism and an increasing power of the organization
formed of officials.”3 He warns that every time the government
intervenes people would lose more freedom and become more dependent on
government organization. This links to his warning of people becoming slaves to
the government, losing more and more to the state which he claiming that the
state will arrange things for its own convenience. Spencer ends his argument by reminding people
of why they broke away and formed a government, to limit the power of monarchy
and proclaimed liberalism in the future will be putting limits on Parliaments
in Europe fought for equal rights just how women across the globe did, however
European women did not receive equal social status until World War 1 was over.
Women faced heavy opposition in Europe, facing accusations that women’s rights
would undermine marriage and were given the demands to be housewives and
caretakers. Both and Emmeline Pankhurst supported feminism and women’s rights
while Emmeline Pankhurst has a more militant approach in leading feminist demonstrations.
Stuart Mill and Emmeline Pankhurst were fighting for women’s rights. Mill was
exposing the clear abuse of power that men had over women, and he believed that
women had a right to suffrage and a right to be professionals. Pankhurst had a
more divisive argument in which she stated “…and we were the proud citizens who
could decide our faith and yours, because we knew what was better for you better
than you knew yourselves, you know perfectly well that you wouldn’t stand it a
single day…”4 she flipped the scenario in which women had dominated
over men, and if they made choices for men and told them their duties there
would be a rebellion and rightfully so.