John Allett

John Allett

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

John Allett started working in a textile factory when he was fourteen years old. Allett was fifty-three when he was interviewed by Michael Sadler and his House of Commons Committee on 21st May, 1832.

Question: Will you state whether the hours of labour has been increased.

Answer: When I went at first to factories, I was at work about eleven hours a day, but over time this has increased to fifteen, sixteen, and sometimes to eighteen hours. I have seen by own children seem quietly lively; but towards the end of the week, they begin to get fatigued.

Question: Are they almost continually on their feet?

Answer: Always. There can be no rest at all.

Question: Were they excessively sleepy?

Answer: Very sleepy. In the evening my youngest boy has said, "father, what o'clock is it?" I have said perhaps, "It is seven o'clock." "Oh! is it two hours to nine o'clock?" I cannot bear it; I have thought I had rather almost have seen them starve to death, than to be used in that manner. I have heard him crying out, when getting within a few yards of the door, "Mother, is my supper ready?" and I have seen him, when he was taken from my back, fall asleep before he could get it.

Question: When did that child first go to the mill?

Answer: Between six and seven years old.

Question: Do more accidents take place at the latter end of the day?

Answer: I have known more accidents at the beginning of the day than at the later part. I was an eye-witness of one. A child was working wool, that is, to prepare the wool for the machine; but the strap caught him, as he was hardly awake, and it carried him into the machinery; and we found one limb in one place, one in another, and he was cut to bits; his whole body went in, and was mangled.

J. A. Hobson

John Atkinson Hobson (6 July 1858 – 1 April 1940) was an English economist and social scientist. Hobson is best known for his writing on imperialism, which influenced Vladimir Lenin and his theory of underconsumption. [1]

His principal and earliest contribution to economics was the theory of underconsumption, a scathing criticism of Say's law and classical economics' emphasis on thrift. However, this discredited Hobson among the professional economics community from which he was ultimately excluded. Other early work critiqued the classical theory of rent and anticipated the Neoclassical "marginal productivity" theory of distribution.

After covering the Second Boer War as a correspondent for The Manchester Guardian, he condemned British involvement in the war and characterised it as acting under the influence of mine owners. In a series of books, he explored the associations between imperialism and international conflict and asserted that imperial expansion is driven by a search for new markets and investment opportunities overseas. Commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of antisemitic language and themes in his work, especially in his writing on the Boer War.

Later, he argued that maldistribution of income resulted, through oversaving and underconsumption, in unemployment and that the remedy was in eradicating the "surplus" by the redistribution of income by taxation and the nationalization of monopolies. He opposed the First World War and advocated the formation of a world political body to prevent wars. Following the war, he became a reformist socialist.

Cutting Long Grass With Your Allett Cylinder Mower

Support Your Local Allett Dealer- Dealer Showcase- Congleton Garden Machinery

THE BIG DECISION! Battery or Petrol Power?

The first paragraph of this article is uncomfortably close to this:

As to the rest of it, I don't know Hobson well enough to criticise the details of the content, but I also don't feel like I've learned a lot about Hobson from reading it. It seems to be about various people's views on New Imperialism (and indeed duplicates material from that much-disputed article), of whom Hobson just happens to be one. Towards the end it presents various arguments on the subject without really attributing them to anybody, and ends with a conclusion as to what the causes of New Imperialism were, which is both POV and not really the topic of the article. I feel like this was written for some purpose other than an encyclopedia article on Hobson, and it doesn't really do the job very well. --rbrwr —Preceding undated comment added by Rbrwr (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 January 2003 (UTC)

The first paragraph is definitely copy-pasted with a few word changes. --Mrwojo 00:41 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Major Edit Edit

I've just added numerous paragraphs regarding Hobson's life and work, improved the bibliography, added the source for most of the material, and improved general formatting. I decided to contribute to this article because I have recently acquired an interest in Hobson's work. Any questions or comments your free to leave on my talk page. --Begebies 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I edited the erroneous assertion that Hobson was a Fabian, and in the process added a small paragraph that covers the inital inception of underconsumption, A.F. Mummery's contribution and the academic community's rejection of Hobson. ----Kairoi 08:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Kairoi -- 08:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, added the full bibliography of book length works. --Kairoi 09:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Name Edit

I'd propose moving the page to J. A. Hobson per WP:NCP - that is the name he's most commonly known by. See, for example, A. J. P. Taylor or C. S. Lewis. -- Lincolnite 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

J.A. Hobson is how I know him. Ditto on I support the change.--Dylanfly 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I support moving the article to J. A. Hobson too.--Johnbull (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find the mention of Hobson's sexuality slightly odd? Especially the uncited assertion that he was 'confused' and Christianity helped him? (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a B but lacks in-line citations . is it too late? Victuallers 11:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better source for accusations of anti-Semitism? The source currently there is very bad indeed- a quote from Arendt taken out of context, that includes a quote from Hobson taken out of context. Are we to assume uncritically that Hobson's use of "fangs" in a 1900 essay is indeed "Hitlerite rhetoric" and should be seen as significant? It's no falsity that a disproportionate number of financiers were Jews- there are reasons for this that don't have anything to do with anti-semitism, the fact that they couldn't own land and that other professions were declared out of bounds for Jewish people, for instance. There are historians who have laid out the idea that Jewish financiers, like Bleichroder under Bismarck, were among the more pro-Imperialist of the lot because of the anti-semitism of the societies they lived in, they had to be seen as especially supportive of their nation.

So it boils down to an anti-Imperialist likening Imperialists to vampires, sucking their target countries dry. This isn't rhetoric that he confined only to Jewish financiers, this is common anti-Imperialist rhetoric. "The Open Veins of Latin America" comes to mind as a recent example. (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several academic sources covering Hobson's antisemitism. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^Doctrines Of Development, M. P. Cowen, Routledge, page 259, quote:"Rampand anti-Semitism should be recognized, not least because it is John A. Hobson, one of the most rabid anti-Semites of the period, who is the inspiration, alongside Schumpeter and Veblen, for.
  2. ^The Information Nexus: Global Capitalism from the Renaissance to the Present, Cambridge University Press, Steven G. Marks, page 10, quote: "And in England, the Social Democratic Federation newspaper Justice state that "the Jew financier" was the "personification of internation capatalism" - an opinion repeated in the anti-Semitic diatribes of John A. Hobson, the socialist writer who wrote one of the earliest English books with "capitalism" in the title and helped to familiarize Britons with the concept"
  3. ^Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume 1, Richard S. Levy, ABC-CLIO, page 311
  4. ^John A. Hobson: Critical Assessments of Leading Economists, Routledge, 2003, edited by John Cunningham Wood, Robert D. Wood, pages 49-50
  5. ^The Socialism of Fools?: Leftist Origins of Modern Anti-Semitism, Cambridge University Press, By William Brustein, William I. Brustein, Louisa Roberts, page 160-161
  6. ^Theories of Imperialism (Routledge Revivals): War, Conquest and Capital, Routlege, 1984, Norman Etherington, page 70

See also New Liberalism, Old Prejudices: J. A. Hobson and the "Jewish Question" John Allett Jewish Social Studies Vol. 49, No. 2 (Spring, 1987), pp. 99-114 which I have added as a ref. NBeale (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the criticism goes way back - more than the 80s - e.g. Mitchell, Harvey. "Hobson revisited." Journal of the History of Ideas (1965): 397-416. has lots and lots of stuff on his attitude to the Jews (a major part of the text). I suspect the criticism dates back a century at least.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Feel free (of course) to add this to my citation in the initial sentence. NBeale (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC) @NBeale: Per my edit summary and WP:BRD, it is you that must establish a consensus for your recent changes. It isn't for another user to establish a consensus in favour of reverting the changes you made only a few hours ago. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to point out that the material from icewhiz on anti-semitism first appeared on the morning the Corbyn controversy was whipped up by the British media. Then Philip Cross steps in . Know thy Wikipedia. Shtove 21:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:RECENTISM. We should be using well established academic source, which were are. The sources added were written between 1965 and 2016 - well prior to any recent scandal. Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Added the fact that John A. Hobson was mentioned by Keynes in The General Theory. Please feel free to add on as this poor guy has been treated poorly by history. Recently acquired one of his books "The Evolution of Capitalism" (1894) and he was a heretic way ahead of his time. The book reads smooth and very "modern"..--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Heretics are so much more interesting. --Oracleofottawa (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Classical economics didn't/doesn't emphasize thrift, mercantilism does. Read Sir James Steuart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Hobson's references to Jewish immigration and role in international finance in his works are more passing comments than a major part of his work on economic theory and imperialism, which he is well known for. I suppose that many people said similar things at the time. Can I suggest that it does not belong in the lead, as not particularly relevant or notable? Jontel (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be inappropriate to restructure this article around a dimension of Hobson's thought for which he is not predominantly known based on recent events. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Hobson's rabid antisemitism (a language used by RSes) is clearly relevant and notable for the lede given that it is discussed in depth in several academic sources - dating 50 years - e.g. Mitchell, Harvey. "Hobson revisited." Journal of the History of Ideas (1965): 397-416. devotes a large chunk of text to Hobson's antisemitism. Hobson was, per academic sources, a rabid antisemite influential in England and on the continent, whose antisemitic diatribes had quite some impact - e.g. Hobson's anti-semitic conspiracy theories were repeated by Labour leader Keir Hardie. Regardless, on Wikipedia we follow WP:RSes (and in this case, recent news only adds weight to the multitude of academic sources - it does not detract) - which in this case cover this ugly aspect of Hobson in quite some depth. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Hobson's antisemitism should be discussed in the body of the article, but such discussion should not dominate the article purely in the light of recent events. It isn't a bad thing that recent coverage has drawn attention to this particular dimension of his thought, but his influence and significance is much larger than this, as those who had heard of him before yesterday evening will be aware. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Given the volume of published work on J. A. Hobson, I should not have to explain why an aspect of Hobson's thought about which surprisingly little has been written (hence the absence of any discussion of it in this article before a few hours ago) should not feature in the opening line. Citing WP:RS entirely misses the point. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC) There is copious academic sourcing on Hobson's rabid antisemitism (again - language used in 1996 Routledge book by economics Dr. professor Cowen) well prior to yesterday. Hobson gets his own full fledged entry in Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, Volume 1, Richard S. Levy, ABC-CLIO, page 311 - published in 2005 - Yup - a full entry in an Antisemitism encyclopedia. He's often covered in academic sources as a starting point in modern British antisemitism. The multitude of academic sources (which is what we should be using) make this WP:DUE for the lede. Recent coverage in WP:NEWSORGs only increases the DUEness here. Obfuscating the hateful antisemitic diatribes of this individual is a serious WP:NPOV issue. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Which is all very true, but you specifically need to justify making reference to this in a line which otherwise only describes him as "an English economist, social scientist and critic of imperialism, widely popular as a lecturer and writer", with no further reference to his views. Also, can I see some references for your claim that "He's often covered in academic sources as a starting point in modern British antisemitism" . Endymion.12 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Other aspects in the lede should be expanded as well - it is too short at present. Both Hostages of Modernization: Germany - Great Britain - France, De Gruyter, chapter by Colin Holmes, 1993, pages 326-328 and Feldman, David. "Jews and the British Empire c. 1900." History Workshop Journal. Vol. 63. No. 1. Oxford University Press, 2007. begin with Hobson.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clear from the above and the sources that criticism of Hobson's anti-semitism goes back many decades. I don't think this should be suppressed for political reasons. Also removing the reference in the lede broke the link to the Allett reference in the text. We should reflect the facts, including the well-documented long-standing criticism for antisemitism. And removing it requires consensus not unilateral action please NBeale (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@NBeale: Once again, per WP:BRD you need to obtain consensus for the changes you have made to the article, which have been reverted by two separate users. This is pushing the limits of acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. @Icewhiz: I agree that the lead could be expanded, and if this is done mentioning Hobson's antisemitism would be more appropriate. The lead as it stands now for example, in spite of NBeale's failure to adhere to BRD, is more acceptable than it was a few hours ago. Can we also all please cease with the nonsense about NPOV and "suppressing" facts for "political reasons". Endymion.12 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I think antisemitism should have its own subsection. And the lede could use a rather big expansion. Hobson was definitely influential in imperialism (though wrong, in retrospect on very many points (not only Jewish ones), he did instigate a movement). Instead of cutting out what is rather obviously DUE (some mention of his rabid antisemitism - particularly throughout his 1890-1902 activities (first Jewish immigrants, then South African conspiracy theories)) - how about you craft an additional paragraph? 2 short sentences here is much too short and is not a good summary of the body. Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I am in no disagreement with anything written above. I am not proposing that we "cut out" any of the recent contributions on Hobson's antisemitism. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC) :-). I think this article (body and lede) should grow, and I'm glad we see eye to eye here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC) I think the current lede is better than what I suggested, and has about the right balance. I would have been more worried about the 2 removals if one of them hadn't been an IP-address. NBeale (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Why not just be honest and say you want it in the lede so it appears on Google searches? (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Admitting half-heartedly that the lede is imbalanced and then demanding that other editors expand it is lazy and suggests a partisan interest. What the lead was saying until just now is also blatantly untrue: if anything, Imperialism is the point where Hobson ceases his antisemitism with the exception of one slip back into his nasty old habit. FNAS (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all very well for Endymion.12 to say that Google Scholar has fewer hits for "Hobson antisemitism" than "Hobson imperialism". But conversely Google News has 21k hits for Antisemitism and only 218 for Imperialism. If you are going to remove antisemitism from the lede you might as well remove imperialism. How about "Criticism of his antisemitic views dates back to at least the 1980s and became very prominent in 2019 following objections from Danny Finkelstein. NBeale (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jontel: Would you have any objections to mentioning the antisemitic content in the lead now that you have helpfully expanded the lead? Endymion.12 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Being more specific helps with a NPOV and minimizes demonization. Also, focusing on his influence, which is what matters. So, e.g. "It has been argued that Hobson's belief that Jewish financiers and mine owners influenced the British decision to fight the Second Boer War contributed to prevailing antisemitic attiudes. Jontel (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC) My preference would be for a more general comment (like the previous version), since the references in the relevant section attest to antisemitic themes more widespread than is implied by your suggestion above. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC) The section could be clearer. How about: "It has been argued that Hobson's belief that Jewish financiers exerted an undue influence over government policy, notably the British decision to fight the Second Boer War, and his concern over the impact of Jewish immigration to the UK, contributed to prevailing antisemitic attiudes. Jontel (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC) How about: "More recent commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of anti-semitic language and themes in his work. Hobson's criticism of the impact of Jewish migration from Russian Poland made reference to antisemitic tropes. Hobson also blamed the influence of "Jewish financiers" in South Africa for the Second Boer War." Endymion.12 (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC) I don't know the original texts so do not feel I can be definite. I would say the lead should be a summary of the article, so everything in the lead should be also in the section, ideally expanded. I think the section could be improved. However, up to you. Jontel (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC) "more recent" is OR. Hobson has been labelled an antisemite (and compared to Nazis in one paper) from the 60s at least (I have the journal papers, some are cited here) in an academic context - and this probably dates even further back (heck - he was probably called out at the time in some circles) - unless you have a source saying recent - it is OR. The proposed text is furthermore a gross NPOV violation - it hasn't "been argued" - every mainstream source covering Hobson simply say this (using langauge such as "rabid antisemite"). Sources argue on whether a Nazi comparison is due or not - not if this antisemitic drivel is antisemitic (or anti-Jewish, or some other synonym). The proposal above lends weight to antisemitic drivel - and is highly unacceptable. We should also cover Hobson's widely covered calls for genocide (or "elimination") of "colonial people".Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Here is the text of one of his books. I think that the elimination might be achieved through selective reproduction. Jontel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC) How about my text with "More recent" removed? Endymion.12 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC) "Commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of anti-semitic language and themes in his work. Hobson's criticism of the impact of Jewish migration from Russian Poland made reference to antisemitic tropes. Hobson also blamed the influence of "Jewish financiers" in South Africa for the Second Boer War." I would oppose mentioning the "elimination" of colonial people in the lead unless there has been significant coverage of this in secondary literature. Incidentally, I believe Sidney and Beatrice Webb held similar views about the colonies, which were quite common in progressive circles in the early 20th century. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be better simply to say "Commentaries on Hobson have noted the presence of anti-semitic language and themes in his work." and make sure this is properly referenced - which I *think* it is in the relevant section. These rather specific additional details don't belong in the lede but in the body of the article. And of course any specific assertion has to be properly referenced. NBeale (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that. Jontel (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC) I would support either. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NCP, I believe this article should be moved to J. A. Hobson. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

How so? Are you claiming the WP:INITS form is more common? I think I see this more in older sources, with newer sources using John. Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Which is an Americanism. He was a British author, hence J A (not John A.) Hobson. -- (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC) My general impression is that the initialism is more common. This was also suggested a few years ago. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC) On Google searches, I find 113,000 for J.A., 54,000 for John A. and 22,000 for John Atkinsonson. Another source might be his book covers, which seem to go more for J.A. Jontel (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Should I open a request? Endymion.12 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Well, that is four in favour of the change and one ambivalent, so I would say yes. Jontel (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

John A. Hobson → J. A. Hobson – Per rationale and consensus above. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Through the 19th Century

From a cultural perspective, wallets would be considered fairly ‘uncivilized’ for the most part with wallets usually being attached to the belts to actively show off wealth and maintain status (although it sounds like a good way to get robbed).

Strangely enough in the early 19th century wallets were regularly used to carry meats among other items that were considered to be secret, treasures or simply not to be exposed to the elements. This was common in America at the time and was increasingly fashionable to carry your wallet on your belt. Unlike today in which a wallet would be carried in your pocket, this was considered highly uncivilized, uncommon and was to be avoided.

Johns Hopkins Medicine integrates the operations and planning of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine with the Johns Hopkins Health System and Hospital. From basic to translational to clinical research, Johns Hopkins medical and graduate students, residents and fellows learn from and study with Nobel laureates, Lasker Award winners and National Academy of Science members. Tomorrow’s biomedical research and health care leaders are learning from the best at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine today.

Today at Johns Hopkins Medicine, we see the profound influence of women leaders in every aspect of the fields of medicine and science – from the operating room, to the research laboratory, to the executive suite

Bernard Shaw, the doctor's dilemma: Scarcity, socialism, and the sanctity of life [Book Review]

This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).

Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation

Page generated Mon Jun 28 21:25:16 2021 on philpapers-web-b76fb567b-rs8fp Debug information

cache stats: hit=27812, miss=27494, save=
autohandler : 227 ms
called component : 209 ms
entry : 208 ms
similar_entries : 72 ms
entry_basics : 66 ms
entry-header : 58 ms
menu : 54 ms
entry_stats : 19 ms
citations-citations : 14 ms
get_entry : 6 ms
entry-side : 4 ms
entry-links : 3 ms
prepCit : 3 ms
entry_stats_query : 3 ms
entry-cats : 3 ms
writeLog : 2 ms
citations-references : 2 ms
save cache object : 1 ms
entry_chapters : 1 ms
init renderer : 0 ms
setup : 0 ms
retrieve cache object : 0 ms
auth : 0 ms
stat_db : 0 ms
entry-buttons : 0 ms

John Atkinson Hobson, 1858-1940

John Atkinson Hobson, the economic writer and radical journalist most associated (along with L. T. Hobhouse) with Edwardian New Liberalism was born in Derby on 6 July 1858, the second son of William and Josephine (ne Atkinson) Hobson. William Hobson was the proprietor of the Derbyshire Advertiser, to which his son later contributed, and was twice mayor of Derby during the 1880s. J. A. Hobson was educated at the local grammar school, before winning an open scholarship to Lincoln College, Oxford, where he read classics and Modern Greats, graduating in 1880. Hobson then embarked on a teaching career in classics, English and economics, married an American woman, Florence Edgar, and eventually settled in London in 1887.

In London Hobson became associated with a progressive radical milieu of Fabians and ethical writers, some of whom joined him in founding a discussion group, the Rainbow Circle, and in establishing a journal, the Progressive Review. His own work remained focused on the critique of classical economics which he had begun in The Physiology of Industry (co-written with A. F. Mummery, 1889), leading to the publication of his The Evolution of Modern Capitalism (1894) and other studies of poverty and unemployment. In this work he began to outline his theory of the maldistribution of wealth, brought about by the surplus savings of the wealthy and the underconsumption of the poor.

But what gave Hobson’s economic views particular originality and edge was his analysis of British imperialism in southern Africa in the 1890s. In 1899 he went as special correspondent for the Manchester Guardian to cover the South African war. Reporting from Johannesburg, Hobson observed that the origins of the war lay in the operations of capitalist financiers, such as Cecil Rhodes, who were using their influence over both the press and the British government. Hobson returned to England with the leading pro-Boer, Cronwright-Schreiner, and the two embarked on a speaking tour of Yorkshire and Scotland. Hobson’s journalism was published in a book form as The War in South Africa (1900) and he attracted the notice and praise of the pro-Boer element in the Liberal Party. But Hobson himself saw the war and the rough treatment meted out to pro-Boers in Britain as an indictment of the imperialism of the age, and he launched a full-scale assault on it in two works: The Psychology of Jingoism (1901) and Imperialism: A Study (1902), the latter probably the best-known and most influential of all his works, V. I. Lenin being amongst its devotees. In these studies Hobson not only identified the economic tap-root of imperialism, but also described the atavistic and autocratic political culture by which it was accompanied.

Hobson’s solution to the jingoism and illiberalism which loomed so large at the turn of the century was a rejuvenated ethical liberal politics. In time this creed became known as New Liberalism, and was to be found not only in Hobson’s writings throughout the 1900s – in the Manchester Guardian, the Tribune, the Nation and above all in his book, The Crisis of Liberalism (1909) – but also in the work of L. T. Hobhouse and many other academics, journalists, politicians and philanthropists within and on the fringes of the Edwardian Liberal Party. In Hobson’s case there was much old radicalism – free trade, parliamentary reform, secular education – to his support for the Liberal Party. But unusually for a progressive thinker Hobson also embraced evolutionist or organicist ideas about the nature of the relationship between the individual and the society, believing that the two could only progress symbiotically, and for this the active intervention of the state in areas such as pensions and poverty was required. The extent to which the Asquithian Cabinet was influenced by all this is debatable, but some measure of Hobson’s standing was indicated by the possibility that he was amongst Asquith’s candidates for new peers during the constitutional crisis of 1910-11.

Hobson’s liberalism took a severe blow with the onset of the First World War. Not only did the war shatter the prospects for the internationalism and peaceful arbitration which he had supported for the previous decade, but the wartime cabinet split between Asquith and Lloyd George weakened his faith in the Liberal Party. He was one of the driving forces behind the Union of Democratic Control during the war, and he increasingly moved in the direction of the Labour Party. Hobson stood unsuccessfully as an Independent candidate for the Combined Universities seat in the 1918 general election, and joined the Independent Labour Party shortly after. He served on various think-tanks within the ILP during the 1920s, on international relations and on wage reform, and he gave expert evidence to the 1919 Sankey Commission on the coal industry (recommending nationalisation) and to the 1924 Colwyn Committee on the national debt and taxation. As he aged, Hobson’s journalism became more infrequent, but conversely his intellectual influence grew. J. M. Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) acknowledged a debt to Hobson’s theory of underconsumption. He died in 1940, aged eighty-one.

For an excellent short overview of Hobson’s life and work, see the entry by A. J. Lee in the Dictionary of Labour Biography, vol. 1. There are good full-length studies by John Allett (1981) and Jules Townshend (1990). A wide-ranging collection featuring many of the key contributors to Hobson studies in the last two decades is Michael Freeden (ed.), Reappraising J. A. Hobson: Humanism and Warfare (1990).

Miles Taylor was a Lecturer in Modern History at King’s College, London at the time of writing this piece. He is the author of The Decline of British Radicalism 1847-60 (1995), editor of The European Diaries of Richard Cobden, 1846-49 (1994) and co-editor of Party, State and Society: Electoral Behaviour in Britain since 1820 (1997).

Couple quit the rat race for life on the road in a motorhome – and 15 years later they're still going

A couple who swapped £4,000 hotel holidays and a comfortable £100,000 flat for life on the open road in a £28,000 motorhome called Betty are celebrating 15 years with no fixed abode - and they and say every day feels “glorious.”

Former retail manager Claire Walker and her plasterer partner John Allett, both 47, were so sick of the rat race that they decided to take drastic action.

In 2005 they sold their two bedroom flat and moved into a 3.5 tonne Hymer B584 Classic motorhome, despite having never even been camping.

The plucky pair, who are currently parked up in Wantage, Oxfordshire, have no regrets.

Claire said: “Motorhome life means never knowing what the day is going to bring. Every day is different and what you make it.

"I remember driving into the early hours on our very first day living in the van in the summer of 2005 and seeing the sunrise.

“It felt glorious to be freely going where we pleased, with no time restraints, mortgage or bills and commitments – and that feeling has stayed with us ever since.”

Before changing her life, Claire was a successful retail manager who had worked her way up the ranks.

She owned a two-bedroom flat in Cockermouth, Cumbria, which she shared with her boyfriend John.

But five years into their relationship, the couple started yearning for change.

Claire said: “On paper we’d done everything we were meant to have done by that age.

"I was addicted to Hilton hotels and, if possible, I’d stay at one of their five star resorts each year. We were of the mindset that if your holiday accommodation wasn’t nicer than your current home, what was the point of going?

“The most expensive trip we ever took was to Malta in 2003. We spent £4,000 for a 10-day trip to the Hilton opening there.

“But it felt like we were slaves to the daily grind in order to afford everything.

"It got to the point where I turned to John and said, ‘Surely there’s more to life than this?&apos”

Inspired by seeing motorhomes when the couple travelled to the Lake District, John’s solution was to bring home a specialist magazine and a bright idea for changing their future.

Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire

  • Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset 1551 – 22 January 1552
  • William Parr, 1st Marquess of Northampton 1552–?
  • Sir William FitzWilliam 1559
  • Henry Norris, 1st Baron Norreys 17 September 1586 – 27 June 1601 jointly with
  • Sir Francis Knollys 12 September 1586 – 19 July 1596 and
  • William Knollys, 1st Earl of Banbury 4 November 1596 – 25 May 1632 jointly with
  • Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland 28 March 1628 – 23 August 1643 (Parliamentary from 1642)
  • Interregnum
  • John Lovelace, 2nd Baron Lovelace 28 August 1660 – 25 November 1670
  • Prince Rupert of the Rhine 7 November 1670 – 29 November 1682
  • Henry Howard, 7th Duke of Norfolk 16 December 1682 – 2 April 1701
  • Montagu Venables-Bertie, 2nd Earl of Abingdon 12 May 1701 – 11 June 1702
  • William Craven, 2nd Baron Craven 11 June 1702 – 9 October 1711
  • George FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Northumberland 15 May 1712 – 12 November 1714
  • Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans 12 November 1714 – 10 May 1726
  • Charles Beauclerk, 2nd Duke of St Albans 4 March 1727 – 27 July 1751
  • George Beauclerk, 3rd Duke of St Albans 30 October 1751 – 18 March 1761
  • Vere Beauclerk, 1st Baron Vere 18 March 1761 – 16 July 1771
  • George Beauclerk, 3rd Duke of St Albans 16 July 1771 – 1 February 1786
  • William Craven, 6th Baron Craven 1786 – 26 September 1791
  • Jacob Pleydell-Bouverie, 2nd Earl of Radnor 1791 – 9 December 1819
  • William Craven, 1st Earl of Craven 9 December 1819 – 30 July 1825
  • Montagu Bertie, 5th Earl of Abingdon 27 April 1826 – 16 October 1854
  • Montagu Bertie, 6th Earl of Abingdon 13 February 1854 – 7 September 1881
  • George Craven, 3rd Earl of Craven 7 September 1881 – 7 December 1883
  • Ernest Brudenell-Bruce, 3rd Marquess of Ailesbury 16 January 1884 – 18 October 1886
  • Robert Loyd-Lindsay, 1st Baron Wantage 12 November 1886 – 10 June 1901 (deceased)
  • James Herbert Benyon 26 August 1901 – 14 February 1935[1]
  • Arthur Loyd 22 March 1935 – 8 November 1944
  • Sir Henry Benyon, 1st Baronet 28 March 1945 – 15 June 1959
  • Hon. David John Smith 30 September 1959 – 1976[2]
  • John Lindsay Eric Smith 5 March 1976 – 16 March 1978
  • Hon. Gordon William Nottage Palmer 16 March 1978 – 1989[3]
  • John Ronald (Johnny) Henderson 4 September 1989 – 9 May 1995[4]
  • Sir Philip Wroughton 9 May 1995 – 19 April 2008[5]
  • Mary Bayliss 19 April 2008 – present[6]

Main Reference Wiki Berkshire Information shared under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License - see Creative Commons Licenses

this project is in History Link 

Watch the video: Allett 2019 Year Review- Allett MD Austin Jarrett


  1. Galar

    Bravo, magnificent phrase and is duly

  2. Somerville

    Yes, the quality is excellent

  3. Marsden

    This message is incomparable))), I really like it :)

  4. Yitzchak

    All the same, and so on indefinitely

  5. Kyrk

    I mean you are not right.Write to me in PM, we will discuss.

  6. Hototo

    Quite right! I think this is a great idea. I agree with you.

  7. Negm

    there are still many variants

Write a message