ABSTRACT
Mill appears to be a consistent defender of the non-intervention principle, in economic as well as in military affairs. Still, in both cases, he considers that this principle should not be applied strictly. The exceptions to the general rule characteristically share a common point: the immaturity of the person or people concerned. For example, he defends free trade while stressing the need for State protection of “infant industries”. Along the same lines, he argues that intervention in civilized countries is not legitimate because it hinders the effort that a people must do to acquire by himself his freedom; however, in the case of “barbarous” peoples an intervention is morally required.
Now, Mill’s defence of Empire still looks globally consistent with his commitment towards liberalism. White settler colonies allow, according to him, creating universal peace. And Mill’s participation in the East India Company does not contradict free trade nor thwart the liberal idea of emancipation: first, the Company has, at the time, nothing to do with the mercantilist organization it was in its origins; second it has unparalleled proximity to native people and are not subject to pressure from public opinion and thus serves as means to national independence.
