Conservative Liberalism: The Progress of a Victorian Paradox
“…a glorious Phantom may Burst, to illumine our tempestous day.” Percy B. Shelley “England in 1819”
In the aftermath of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, several European countries gained a sense of national pride that was combined with the revolutionary spirit of the ideas of equality and liberty that the French had tried to spread. Even when some monarchies had managed to survive the continental war, it was a matter of time before absolute monarchy saw an end. The lavish and inefficient kings and princes were in some cases deposed; or, in the best of cases, deprived of most of their power by rioters that had long suffered the hardships of poverty and exploitation. In the years of the Storming of the Bastille and for some time after the defeat of Napoleon, in 1815, Britain was under the rule of a mentally incapable king, George III, and later his self-absorbed son, George IV; both clearly ineffective rulers. The Industrial revolution had created further inequality between British classes; the electoral system provided no representation for new industrial towns, and the prices of staple food was on the rise while ordinary men, women and children survived in squalor. Why was there no revolution in Britain?
Paradoxical as it may seem, Burke’s theories of English conservatism provide a feasible frame to understand how British parliamentary monarchy and the industrial boom fostered the political and social conditions that allowed liberal ideas to be gradually incorporated and implemented in Britain. In the present essay I intend to explain how liberalism and British conservatism combined to allow the smooth implementation of the principles of liberty and equality along the nineteenth century. Conservatism is the political philosophy that favours the preservation of status quo and the introduction of gradual social reform. The violent radicalism of the French Revolution caused a series of reactions among intellectuals who saw revolutionary zeal as a source of political chaos. One of the earliest philosophers to reflect on that issue was British intellectual Edmund Burke, who as soon as 1790 in his Reflection on the Revolution in France, argued
1
against the enlighten notion of natural human rights1 and social reform by applying universal principles. Burke rejected the existence natural rights outside of society or prior to history. He asserted that all rights derive from the previous generations within a society, and are an inheritance of the past just as political institutions. Furthermore he stated that the universalistic revolutionary ideals called into question the status of the aristocracy, the monarchy and the church, key institutions of European heritage. He claimed that social reform should take place slowly and with due respect to national traditions and values. According to Burke, who was widely popular in England, the British should avoid radical changes as their political institutions were founded on the wisdom of many generations. Liberalism was another philosophy of social reform that developed after the French Revolution. In general terms, it embraces the notions of individual liberties as its main political goal, favours individual rights, the secularisation of the state, free competition and the conception of progress through legal reform. In contrast with Conservatism, Liberalism rejects the value of tradition towards progress and considers that obsolete institutions should be reformed regardless of their historical significance. The most characteristic forms of New Liberalism developed in France and Britain during the nineteenth century. In Britain, this ideology is commonly associated with Utilitarianism, the ethical doctrine first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and later represented by James and John Stuart Mill. In his work The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham builds on the notion that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of
(…) pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.” He suggested that social problems could be solved by applying his “greatest happiness principle”. That is, that the goals of politics should be to minimize the pain while maximizing the pleasure for the greatest number of people, even if it demanded a breach with traditions. In this way Bentham expected a rationalization of society by analysing how different institutions, such as government, educational and prison systems, worked
to
eventually introduce the changes that would ensure the happiness of the largest number of individuals. Since, he assumed, individuals are able to identify their personal needs and the means to improve their situation, universal male suffrage was a desirable reform that would result in extended participation and the possibility of social transformation within the monarchical system. This optimistic outlook presupposes that collective and individual interests can overlap harmoniously; therefore Utilitarianism endorses political, cultural and economic liberalism. 1
Enlightenment Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, had stated, in his “Discourse on Inequality” (Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes, 1754), that civilization implied a decline from nature. Basically he claimed that primitive people living in nature had been free and equal whereas people living in civilization had been filled with inequality and lack of freedom.
2
The rational and moderate nature of both British Conservatism and Utilitarianism provided a unique balance between the urge for reform and respect for traditional institutions. Britain was already a symbol of political liberalism even before the French Revolution. England presented one of the first antecedents of political liberalism in the High Middle Ages; Magna Carta was the first document that limited the prerogative powers of the English monarchy in 1215. The rights that nobility pressed King John to acknowledge had been part of the national tradition long before other European states started to consider the rights of the subjects. This document established the rights of English Barons, Habeas Corpus, trial by peers and consensual taxation. These rights extended to other freemen at the end of feudalism, and then became part of the Common Law. Further provisions were introduced in the Bill of Rights (1689) such as the autonomy of judiciary systems, freedom of speech, and right of petition among others. Some of these rights were limited during the Napoleonic Wars; allowing the stability that gave the country a head start in industrial revolution and the creation of a class of industrialists that demanded both certain degree of reform but also considered political stability a must. Civil liberties were reintroduced after 1815 and were further extended during the nineteenth century. Thus, as the monarch had already lost most prerogative powers and it was clear that sovereignty laid mainly in Parliament, in the form of a Constitutional Monarchy, Britain had already created a tradition that allowed the introduction of political reform without the need for revolution. While many felt the revolutionary need to change the system for good as soon as possible, they also perceived that it was English institutions that made the country the most powerful and prosperous nation at the time; which had, in turn, given Britain an advantage over Napoleonic ambitions. Although it had taken over a century for British monarchs to come to terms with their limited power, since the Glorious Revolution (1688); it was quite timely for Whig Duke of Clarence to receive the crown as William IV in 1830. In spite of himself, William IV allowed the introduction of the first Reform Act in 1832, which enfranchised men who occupied homes with an annual value of £10, allowing about one in seven adult males to vote. These new voters were mainly industrialists, already the core of new bourgeois Britain. Besides, William IV’s successor in 1837, the young Queen Victoria and her family restored the reputation of the monarchy, turning it into a symbol of stability and national unity that embodied the values of the new bourgeoisie. The Reform Act (1832) spearheaded a century of parliamentary reform. Lower-middle and upper-working classes reacted to high-middle class enfranchisement with the Chartist Movement (1838-1848), as they feared the middle-classes would further exploit unrepresented workers. In the People's Charter of 1838, they established a series of liberal demands: universal male suffrage for those over 21, equal-sized electoral districts, secret ballot, abolition of property qualifications for Parliament members, salaried MP’s and annual
3
parliamentary elections. Chartist demands made sense within the Utilitarian ideology, yet the movement was unsuccessful for two main reasons that reflect conservative concerns. Firstly, most chartists were uneducated or even illiterate; thus parliament refused to consider their 1839 petition, in which protesters even expressed their disapproval of Queen Victoria’s expenditure, on the basis that uneducated and un-propertied masses lacked the fundamental political understanding indispensable for such a responsibility.
Secondly, there was a
Chartist faction that favoured revolutionary action, such as the faction led by John Frost in Newport. The government managed to put out the uprising by taking control of the railway and telegraph system, and in that way the government proved that future riots could be easily repressed. During the early 1840’s Britain suffered from a mild economic depression that strained the lower classes and once again and Chartist activists were in the forefront; they sent a new petition to parliament including economic demands, which was rejected once more. Thus in1842, workers decided to go on violent strikes in the north of England and parts of Scotland. This time protesters attacked industrial property by unplugging steam boilers, which gave this uprising the name of Plug Plot; the government responded by sending the cavalry and armed troops to handle the strikers. Yet once again Chartists demonstrated in 1848, but leading rioters were disposed of by means of transportation to the colonies. Nevertheless most Chartists’ demands were introduced as parliamentary reforms 1867, with the enfranchisement of town dwellers, in 1884 with the enfranchisement of rural workers, and in 1872 when secret ballot was adopted. Hand in hand with extended enfranchisement came the educational reform that empowered the new voters: Forster-Ripon English Elementary Education Act (1870), which made primary education compulsory. In this way both Conservative and Utilitarian courses of action combined to allow direct representation of lower classes in the long run. Another movement attempted to introduce economic reforms: The Anti-Corn Law League. This group was more successful because it was better organized, focused on a single aim and was led by industrialists. The Corn Laws (1804) had been introduced to protect the landed farmers, from external competition by imposing a duty on imported corn. When in 1815 the war was over, landowners required the House of Commons to set restrictions to prevent the import of foreign wheat that would cause their profits to plummet. The Corn Laws were loathed by industrialists, who adhered to Adam Smith’s theory of Capitalism. Richard Cobden and John Bright founded the Anti-Corn Law League in Manchester, 1838. During the “hungry forties”, the prices of bread soared reducing the purchase power of workers, and fuelling Chartist demands. The League claimed that landowners were being unfairly protected by Parliament. In their view the wheat market should be self-regulating by the “law of competition” that would force landowners to device more effective farming systems, while the national government should stick to a “Laissez faire” policy. The league employed every available device of propaganda, including the use
4
of new means of communication: pamphlets and the penny post, which had been introduced in 1840. They gained national support arguing that the repeal of the hated Corn Laws would lower the price of bread, make British agriculture more efficient and productive, expand employment, expose trade and agriculture to foreign competition, give manufactures more outlets for their products and promote international peace through trade contact. Landowners expressed their indignation against a measure that, as they saw it, had as main purposes allowing manufacturers to avoid paying higher salaries and undermining the traditional power of the landed classes. After bitter confrontation with Commons and Lords, Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel finally repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. The utilitarian and rational perspective of the league leaders together with the newly gained representation of high-middle classes combined for the abolition of the measures that had caused a great deal of suffering to the working class.
The line of reasoning proposed by the Anti-Corn Law League exemplified some of the tenets of economic liberalism endorsed by Utilitarianism and Capitalism. In 1776, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith published his theory of Capitalism in Inquiry Into the Nature of Causes of the Wealth of Nations. According to Smith, self-interest could lead to socially beneficial results. He argued that the basic economic market is regulated by an “invisible hand” that depends on the production of the right amount and variety of goods; while the to the prices of those goods are regulated by the “law of supply and demand”. In his view free market was the ideal system I which the “law of competition” would compel producers to be increasingly efficient, and to respond to the desires of consumers; therefore governments should interfere minimally with the free and efficient workings of the market, following a “Laissez faire” policy (“Leave things alone.”). Just as Smith , Jeremy Bentham rejected monopolies, tariffs, duties, and other state enforced restrictions of his time as he assumed that individuals were able to recognize their own interests and act accordingly to improve their position. However, Bentham’s disciple, John Stuart Mill in Principles of Political Economy (1871) accepted minor government interventions in the economy if there were sufficient utilitarian grounds, or for the protection of children, animals or environment. He also alleged that Bentham’s original hypothesis presupposed rational understanding in disregard of emotions.
As far a “Laissez faire” was concerned, Britain was the ideal place for an industrial revolution. Prior to the Reformation Act 1832, the country had been ruled for the interest of the landed minorities; and even those who had become wealthy in trade aspired to join the gentry, as in the case of Robert Peel (the son of a textile manufacturer). Besides, Britain had experienced a Financial Revolution in the early eighteenth century, there had been political
5
stability since 1688, the Agricultural Revolution and the introduction of inoculation had resulted in a population boom in the late eighteenth century, and the recently acquired territories abroad provided an attractive market for new products. However, while highermiddle classes improved their social position before long, working classes remained at the bottom of the social ladder. Men, women and children were forced to endure the hardships of the industrial system and unemployment during recession, with the scant protection that the Poor Laws (1834) would provide in the form of the dreaded “workhouses” or meager outdoor relief. Part of the conservative idiosyncrasy of British society was apparent in the slight notion of social mobility among working classes, who soon understood that their empowerment through enfranchisement would be a time-consuming and dawdling process. In order to improve their situation in a more efficient and immediate fashion some workers preferred to channel their efforts through trade unions.
At the turn of the nineteenth century, the Combination Acts (1799) prohibited unionization and collective bargaining by workers, for fear of Jacobinism. Early trade unions, also called “Friendly Societies”, were mainly skilled workers’ social clubs that gathered funds to provide benefits to insure members against unemployment, ill health and old age, as well as covering funeral expenses and widow pensions in case of members’ death. Long after violent groups such as the Luddites’ revolt in Lancashire (1812), during which textile machines were destroyed, fear of worker’s revolt subsided by 1824, when the Combination Acts were repealed only to be reintroduced in 1825 in response to the series of strikes that further estranged social sympathies, as unionisation was viewed as a threat to the capitalist system. By 1851, once the successful Great Exhibition in the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park had displayed British modern industrial technology, design and commitment to progress, the entire nation was utterly converted to the “free market” dogma; even workers now to aspired, not to the dissolution of the industrial system, but to a greater share in the capitalist blessings. A new form of unions developed:” the Junta”. This association of skilled workers, “ the aristocracy of labour”, believed in sobriety and family values, despised violent action and sought to promote improvements by orderly demonstrations making their demands and situation known to the general public. These men pressed for legal changes to protect trade union funds and to allow them to act collectively in industrial disputes. They also campaigned to ensure that all trade unionism was not condemned by public opinion after “the Sheffield outrages”, during which cutlery workers had tried to put pressure on non-strikers by dropping gunpowder can down their home chimneys. Following the 1867 Reform Act, both Liberal and Tory governments showed interest in trade unions; a Royal Commission on Trade Unions (1867) gave trade union leaders the opportunity not only to defend nearly all trade unionism as law-abiding but also to press for favourable legal changes. Members of the commission,
6
Frederic Harrison, Thomas Hughes and the Earl of Lichfield produced a report that maintained that trade unions should be given privileged legal status that would allow protection of their funds. And, contrary to the general perception, they pinpointed that unions actually meant fewer and more orderly strikes, as union stressed respect for lawful organization.
After this report, the first Trade Union Congress in Manchester in May 1868 was summoned, with a total of 34 national delegates, beginning a period of centralize national unionisation that facilitated political lobbying. It was only when unions started to own to conservative attitudes that major legal reforms were introduced for their sake. Factory Act 1847, limited the workday for women and children under 18 years of age to 10 hours. The 1871 Trade Union Act recognised unions as legal entities as corporations, as such they were entitled to protection under the law in cases of fun theft. The 1874 Factory Act set a ten-hour limit on the working day - the unions were campaigning for eight.
The Employers and
Workmen Act 1875 modified the old Master and Servant Law so that employers too could be sued for breach of contract. The 1875 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act decriminalized picketing: workers peacefully discussing their grievances to passers-by in front of factories. The Factory Act 1878 banned child labour and introduced compulsory education of children under 10. The Employers' Liability Act 1880 extended protection to workers concerning accidents caused by the negligence of managers, superintendents and foremen. The Factory and Workshop Act 1895 regulated the sanitary condition of premises in which outworkers were employed. Unionisation of unskilled workers and women workers started in the 1880s and by 1900 union membership reached 2 million. Both Tories and Liberals were keen to use the working class vote to their advantage. The Liberal Party strategy was 'liblabism', supporting workingmen as parliamentary candidates in selected constituencies; however these “lib-men” were often intimidated by parliamentary aristocracy and gentry. Thus, in the early 1890s the TUC recognized the need for a political party to represent the interests and needs of the waged people: The Labour Party. Outrageous and subversive as the ideals of universal male enfranchisement, free market and unionisation appeared to British parliamentarians at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it is clear that even without a revolution middle and working classes managed to improve their legal condition along the Victorian age. Burke’s Conservatism and Bentham’s Utilitarianism were two moderate, yet contrasting, ideologies that accepted the introduction of amendment to the Common Law and respect for the parliamentary system. Adherence to these basic principles allowed the Chartist movement, the Anti-Corn Law League and Trade Unions to obtain wider enfranchisement, profitable free-market economy, educational improvements and recognition of worker’s plight and need of legal protection.
7
Consequently, at the turn of the twentieth century Britain was a pioneer nation as regards social service and political stability.
Bibliography Allitt, Patrick N. PhD (The Teaching Company 2007) Victorian Britain McDowall, David (1991) An Illustrated History of Britain Morgan, Kenneth (1993) The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain www.victorianweb.org/ http://www.web-books.com/classics/Poetry/anthology/Shelley/England.htm
8