How far was the New Liberalism a Departure from the Old? The degree to which new Liberalism departed from old (or classical) liberalism is a complex one to answer. While there is broad agreement on the definitions and usage of the terms, the degree to which the differences between them represented a fundamental shift in philosophical and political viewpoint is unclear. While the emphasis on personal freedom and self-actualisation remained, increasingly it was argued that a key to ensuring this was governmental help to help safeguard opportunity rather than a laissez-faire 'nightwatchman' state. Even the most prominent proponents of new Liberal thinking, however, retained a greater skepticism towards state intervention and a than was previously thought to be the case. New Liberalism was also not a synchronic phenomenon, rather a loose and evolving set of ideas whose proponents developed their thinking over time, and the descendents of these ideas could be said to have developed into the more socialist and universal policies of the post-war welfare state. As such it is arguably impossible to pin down exactly how far new Liberalism departed from the old, as the path between them and beyond have the continuity of a rope rather than a single strand. New Liberalism organically grew from the old Liberalism and retained a continuity of certain key principles. Both emphasised the importance of political rights and freedoms, and democratic principles around the importance of political participation and governance. These were rooted in the British political and intellectual traditions of political participation and governance stretching back to Mill, Locke and arguably all the way back to Magna Carta. The new Liberal Beveridge, for example, in his 'Unemployment (1909)' did not seek to remove the existence of unemployment through state intervention as the Soviets tried to in the following decades: 'It is obvious that [...] there must be insecurity of employment. [...] Unemployment, in other words, is to some extent at least part of the price of industrial competition'. This emphasises the continuity between old and new Liberalism in that new Liberalism was more about improving economic efficency and the worst effects of capitalism rather than fighting for an abstract ideal of social justice. Similarly Mill - arguably a prototypical new Liberal - wrote a book 'On Liberty' whose central concern was how to retain those key principles in the face of the limitations to freedom that unregulated freedom itself could bring. In economic philosophy, new Liberalism departed significantly from old Liberalism by accepting a more interventionist role for the state in economic affairs. Old Liberal thinkers such as Adam Smith placed great faith in the ability of markets to allocate resources efficiently for the benefit of all. This changed with ideas such as the Webbs' notions of the 'national minimum', which were enthusiastically championed by Beatrice Webb. Arguably, these arguments reached an apotheosis of new Liberalism in Keynes, whose economics sought to refine Adam Smith's laissez faire conclusions with anti-cyclical market regulation by government designed to avoid the worst excesses of the free market capitalism that Beveridge arged socialism had 'much justificiation' in critiquing. Economic philosophy's adjustments to Liberal philosophy went hand-in-hand with changes to attitudes to social justice. In his 1911 work 'Liberalism', Hobhouse argued for 'positive freedom', which can be characterised as the enablement of the individual to be unencumbered by obstacles to their choice of action, and implied that an outside agency such as government may need to be involved to ensure these obstacles are not in place. This is contrast to 'negative freedom' notions in Liberalism, which argued that freedom can be best safeguarded by the removal of interventions by outside forces, exemplified by old Liberalism's notions of 'laissez faire' in matters of government. These arguments for social justice went together with arguments for economic efficiency. While Beveridge bemoaned the inefficiencies of the free market in his Unemployment, the Webbs, in their co-produced Minority Report of 1909 stated its aims as: 'to secure a national minimum of civilised life ... open to all alike, of both sexes and all classes, by which we meant sufficient nourishment and training when young, a living wage when able-bodied, treatment when sick, and modest but secure livelihood when disabled or aged'. The degree to which the Webbs' motives were social justice rather than classical Liberal philosophies are difficult to disentangle. However, it might be argued that Sidney Webb's move from an early interest in minimum guarantees of personal freedom towards a later increasing interest in addressing social and economic inequalities via collective action was a reflection of how new Liberalism itself developed into the ideas that underpinned the more socialist welfare state that was set up after the second world war. Webb himself reflected this evolution in his work, moving from individual freedom being the focal point of discussion in The Basis of Socialism (1889) to discussion of the limits of individualism in The Difficulties of Individualism (1896). For Beveridge, it is easier to trace this relationship as his theory became concrete practice when he, Churchill and Lloyd George set up Labour Exchanges in 1909 to ensure the efficient and timely allocation of work to obviate 'the incalculable changes and irregularities of economic conditions will still make nearly all men insecure.' (Beveridge, Unemployment, 1909). Tensions and continuities between old Liberal ideas of economic efficiencies and supposedly new Liberal ideas of equality were a common theme of the time. The Old Age Pensions act in 1908 brought in under Asquith provides some examples of this. When first drawn up, exclusions were made for various groups who, by their immoral or 'habitually improvident' behaviour were deemed unworthy by the state. Collini points this out as an example of where the new Liberalism's differences from the old have been significantly overstated. In this context, the revelation that Hobhouse, the principal proponent of 'positive freedom', was content make the Old Age Pension available 'for all persons of respectable standing' (Hobhouse, Social Evolution), implies that rather than foreshadowing a purely socialist ideal of universal living standards, new Liberalism clung relatively close to older ideas of moral worthiness than previously thought by historians such as Weiler. The field of foreign affairs demonstrates again some of the key differences between old and new Liberalism. Whereas old Liberalism clung firmly to the notion of state sovereignty and non-intervention in international affairs, new Liberalism saw a role for more interventionist international insitutions like the League of Nations. J. A. Hobson, whose 'Imperialism: A Study' (1902) espoused the view that the pursuit of economic interests by powerful nations often led to geopolitical tensions and conflicts contrasted firmly with the old Liberal view of free trade bringing relative prosperity, freedom and peace espoused by Cobden in his "Manchester Speech" of 1846, showed a great interest in the formation and structure of the League of Nations in the early 20th century. The transition from Old Liberalism to New Liberalism was marked by both continuity and departure, reflecting the changing socio-economic landscape and ideological responses to it. While both strands maintained a commitment to political rights and democratic principles rooted in British traditions, New Liberalism introduced significant shifts, particularly around the necessity of state involvement in defending freedoms foreshadowed by Mill's political philosophies. The embrace of state intervention in economic affairs, as seen in the works of Beveridge and the evolution of Keynesian economics, marked a departure from the laissez-faire principles of Old Liberalism. Similarly, the emphasis on "positive freedom" and the pursuit of social justice reflected in Hobhouse's writings illustrated a widening of Liberal ideals. The foreign policy arena further exemplified the distinctions, with New Liberals advocating for interventionist international institutions like the League of Nations. To a large extent, these changes can be seen as a continuation of older Liberal ideals responding to the changes brought by a modern industrialised and urbanised economy, the response to which was more small-c conservative, gradualist, and tempered than Marx's more apocalyptic prognoses.