Â鶹Éç

Page 8 of 8

• 1. Britain's world dominance
• 2. Understanding 'laissez-faire'
• 3. Intervention
• 4. Locating the problems
• 5. Urban and rural squalor
• 6. The growth of the state
• 7. Education and health policies
• 8. Centralisation, or not?
• Print entire article

Centralisation, or not?

So, in the light of so many examples of state intervention in various aspects of social life, can we still say that there was 'an age of laissez-faire' in Victorian Britain? Some historians have argued not, but this is surely a mistaken view. By the middle of the 19th century, laissez-faire was firmly established as the guiding principle in economic life. Furthermore, state intervention was grudgingly conceded and limited in its impact until at least the last quarter of the 19th century.

The state intervened only to prevent those greater evils that might threaten the efficiency of a free-trade economy - not to provide positive benefits for its citizens. Also, the burden of provision rested overwhelmingly with local authorities, not with central government.

'Centralization. No. Never with my consent. Not English.'

Thus, the range of what local authorities might offer was massively expanded during the Victorian era. What either central or local government must provide, however, remained extremely limited. At the turn of the 20th century, there was no housing policy, there were no old-age pensions, and no national insurance schemes.

For many English property owners, reliance on local solutions to local problems remained an absolute priority. The last word might properly lie with Charles Dickens' fictional creation in Our Mutual Friend, Mr Podsnap: 'Centralization. No. Never with my consent. Not English.'

ÌýPrevious

Published: 2004-11-04