This was an excellent piece and glad I have stumbled upon your Substack.
What was Morley's basis for political participation? Was it based on being landed? Or having the English 'characteristic' and was that an ancestral concept or a socio-cultural one?
Thank you for reading! Morley believed most British men (important to note he considered the Irish (and also most Americans) to be British), regardless of station, should have voting rights. He wasn't as keen on "ordinary" people (i.e., the non-educated lower classes) at serving in government.
Your second question is harder to answer. Morley viewed what we think of as "19th-century liberalism" -- powerful legislature, expanded franchise, minimal state involvement outside war, policing, and courts -- as uniquely British, in both an ethnic and cultural sense. It accordingly couldn't reproduced in places that didn't have British people. That being said, he also thought that other European countries (e.g., France and Germany) might develop their own form of liberalism, which would be shaped by their native ethnic groups and cultural traits. I was going to write about this in a sequel but got discouraged and stopped.
Thanks so much and amen. Maybe why flashier / unaristocratic leaders like Disraeli and Lloyd George have endured!
Morley was inconsistent on the exact issue you mentioned. If liberalism is the uniquely English way of government, how can it also be a "universal" approach that is independently adopted by other countries (as opposed to being forced on them by England)? Will be writing about this in the next post on his view of history!
This was an excellent piece and glad I have stumbled upon your Substack.
What was Morley's basis for political participation? Was it based on being landed? Or having the English 'characteristic' and was that an ancestral concept or a socio-cultural one?
Thank you for reading! Morley believed most British men (important to note he considered the Irish (and also most Americans) to be British), regardless of station, should have voting rights. He wasn't as keen on "ordinary" people (i.e., the non-educated lower classes) at serving in government.
Your second question is harder to answer. Morley viewed what we think of as "19th-century liberalism" -- powerful legislature, expanded franchise, minimal state involvement outside war, policing, and courts -- as uniquely British, in both an ethnic and cultural sense. It accordingly couldn't reproduced in places that didn't have British people. That being said, he also thought that other European countries (e.g., France and Germany) might develop their own form of liberalism, which would be shaped by their native ethnic groups and cultural traits. I was going to write about this in a sequel but got discouraged and stopped.
Very much enjoyed this introduction.
I like this series concept. The paradox of Anglo aristocratic unostentatiousness is that few people remember your name.
On the topic, some Germans became convinced that liberalism was just code for the English. This seems plausible today.
Thanks so much and amen. Maybe why flashier / unaristocratic leaders like Disraeli and Lloyd George have endured!
Morley was inconsistent on the exact issue you mentioned. If liberalism is the uniquely English way of government, how can it also be a "universal" approach that is independently adopted by other countries (as opposed to being forced on them by England)? Will be writing about this in the next post on his view of history!
Thank you for reading!