Liberal Reforms
1906 - 1914
Background
The Problem of poverty in 1900
In the late nineteenth century and the early
twentieth century a growing amount of
evidence emerged of the extent of poverty
in Britain and the desperate misery of the
lives of the poor.
The Investigators
Reverend Andrew Mearns in his pamphlet
“The Bitter Cry of Outcast London” made a
powerful impact in 1883. He said “ …The
State must secure for the poorest the
rights of citizenship, the right to live in
something other than fever dens.”
G R Sims 1889 also reported on the
conditions in London
Booth and Rowntree
Both conducted such detailed investigations into
the causes of poverty that it was impossible to
ignore their great weight of evidence.
Booth, a wealthy Liverpool ship owner,
researched the extent of poverty in London. He
showed that low pay, lack of regular work,
supporting large families, illness and old age
were major causes of poverty. He became an
advocate of government action, such as the
introduction of pensions for all.
Cont.
Rowntree conducted a study in his native town of York.
His work was published in 1901 Poverty: A Study of Town Life
He concluded that 52% of the very poor were paid wages too low to
sustain an adequate life
Around 21% lived in misery because the chief wage earner had
died, or was too ill or too old to work
Booth and Rowntree’s researches turned them against those who
argued that the poor were to blame for their misery and they should
save money to cope in times of crisis. They established the huge
scale of poverty and clearly identified its causes
Work by AL Bowley in 5 different towns pointed to low wages as
especially important as a cause of poverty
What Help Was Available?
Self-help
A number of people in nineteenth century Britain
believed it was wrong to encourage people to believe
they could always count on government help. The
philosopher John Stuart Mill suggested “letting alone
should be the general practice.”
Victorians were also influenced by the Scot Samuel
Smiles. He did not totally believe in Laissez-faire and
supported laws that would prevent the spread of
disease, cruelty and would encourage a better education
system. He did believe in the principle of self help. “No
laws, however stringent, can make the idle industrious,
the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober.”
Forms of Help
Trade unions by 1900 provided help in times of need
Friendly Societies grew up to help people save in case of
sickness, old age or widowhood
Numerous wealthy people worked hard to raise money
to help the poor feeling this charitable approach was the
only right one to pursue. The Charity Organisation
Society tried to coordinate the work of different groups
By 1900 the large sums of money given to charity were
increasingly seen as simply not enough. Worthy bodies
provided coal, clothing , bedding and soup. None of
these activities solved the causes of poverty.
Laissez-faire
This was a widely held ideology- government
should not interfere in peoples lives any more
than was necessary.
When action was taken to improve the nations
health or education it was done so reluctantly
and often against strong criticism
Political leaders such as Gladstone believed that
taxes should be as low as possible and social
reforms were usually expensive
Examples of State Intervention
The problem of poverty had forced the state to act long before 1900.
Martin Pugh in “State and Society”, 1994,wrote
“Victorian governments increasingly wanted local bodies to assume
responsibilities they themselves shirked and so in spite of their
misgivings they significantly extended local democracy after 1870.”
There were town councils, local councils, and district councils. There
were also locally elected boards looking after education and trying to
cope with the problem of poverty. They tried to keep the money
raised from local ratepayers low.
The parochial boards were required to make sure whatever they
offered the poor would be so bleak that no one would be tempted to
avoid work and live off of the ratepayers
Cont.
In England the very poor were offered places in workhouses were
the able-bodied poor would work for their keep.
By 1900 “outdoor relief” was more common ie they provided support
for people in their own home.
In Scotland this strategy was also used widely.
Poorhouses were chiefly for the aged and young orphans.
In Scotland the able-bodied rendered poor by unemployment were
not entitled to any sort of help
The workhouse-poorhouse system was loathed. It meant loss of
reputation, possible loss of freedom and loss of the right to vote.
Around 90% of the poor never touched poor relief despite the grim
state of their lives
Changing Attitudes to Poverty
Some employers were persuaded of the need for action eg
Rowntree, Cadbury, Lever and Brunner. For some it was a matter of
Christian conscience but others felt that having a capable , peaceful
workforce meant making sure that workers were healthy and well
cared for.
Politicians particularly socialists and labour societies were
particularly keen on state action to tackle poverty. The Liberal Party
was becoming divided between those who saw social reform as a
way of heading off socialism and those who believed firmly in the
principles of laissez-faire
The Boer War that had ended in 1902 had shown up in horrifying
detail the poor state of health of many people in Britain. A quarter of
the urban male population were unfit to serve in the armed forces.
Those who believed it was morally wrong to to allow widespread
poverty to exist were now joined by others who saw it as weakening
Britain's place in the world
Liberal Reforms 1906-1914
Political Attitudes
The Liberal leaders Campbell-Bannerman until
1908 then Asquith were very concerned with
holding together a liberal Party that contained
widely differing views. The party was also far
from agreed on vigorous reform. It is not
surprising that they proceeded with caution.
Since the dominant liberal belief was to keep
taxes as low as possible it was difficult to see
where the revenue for reforms would come from.
1909 Budget and The House of
Lords
In the House of Lords there was a permanent majority for the
Conservatives
In 1909 the H of L went against all its previous actions and rejected
the budget put forward by Lloyd George to finance social reforms.
Asquith declared war on them and called for another election which
the liberals again won and their lead was strengthened by labour
and Irish Nationalist votes.
The Lords gave way and passed the budget
A second election was called on the issue of power of the H of L
The H of L finally gave way when the King threatened to create
enough Liberal Peers to swamp the Conservative majority and
passed the 1911 Parliament Act which reduced its authority
Reforms (1) School Meals, Medical
Inspections and the “Children’s
Charter”
Bill for local authorities to provide a free school meal was
proposed by a labour MP but supported by liberals to
become law. It was made compulsory in 1914 since by
then less than half of local authorities had responded.
Medical Inspection of school children law was passed in
1907.School clinics were set up in 1912. Identifying
problems was easy but curing them proved more
difficult. Medical costs could not be met by most parents.
Children's Charter was introduced in 1908 by the Liberal
MP Herbert Samuel to deal with the welfare of children.
It meant that children could not be sent to prison, beg
enter public houses etc.
Reforms (2) Old Age Pensions
In 1908 a law was passed topay a pension to the
elderly to help them to continue to live outside
the workhouse.
The election of several Labour MP’s at by –
elections may have helped persuade the Liberal
Government who had hesitated because of the
high cost.
The pension was made available to those over
70 and entitlement depended on income.
Historian Peter Clarke has pointed out how
cautious this reform was
Reforms (3) Employment
Low wages, unemployment or irregular earnings were a
major cause of poverty and health was damaged by the
hours and conditions in which some people worked
In 1908 an 8 hour day was introduced in coal mines.
In 1909 the Trade Boards Act set up boards to control
wages and working conditions in sweated trades.
In 1911 the Shop Act introduced a legal weekly half day
holiday for shop workers.
Winston Churchill (President of the Board of Trade
1908)along with Oxford academic William Beveridge,
visited Germany to look at their workers insurance
scheme.
Reforms (3) cont.
After 1909 Labour exchanges were set up but
workers were not required to register and
employers were not compelled to notify the
exchange of vacancies.
The 1911 Insurance Act . (Unemployment
Benefit) offered a lifebelt to those in temporary
trouble but not the long –term unemployed.
Employees, employers and the state made
contributions and benefits could be claimed for
up to 15 weeks but workers who did not come
into the scheme or used up their entitlement still
had to turn to the poor law for relief
Reforms (4) Health Insurance
Influenced again by the system in Germany and
by the belief that insurance schemes gave the
workers a sense of self respect Lloyd George
introduced the health insurance scheme as part
of the 1911 National Insurance Act
Insured workers were entitled to claim for 26
weeks although it excluded their families. It was
intended to maintain an income for the
breadwinner, not to provide a national health
service. Keir Hardie, the Labour leader called it
“a porous plaster to cover the disease that
poverty causes.”
How Successful?
All the Liberal Reforms offered levels of support that were confined
to the poor and gave low levels of aid that were really only a
supplement to other resources.
AJP Taylor has stressed how limited the welfare programme was.
Peter Clarke has argued that although limited it was skilful because
it bypassed the poor law and won popular approval.
The social reforms may have been more radical, but for the
increasing expense of the naval arms race, and the possibility of civil
war in Ireland.
Martin Pugh concludes" The Edwardian social reforms were in no
sense a welfare state….The Liberal measures were not intended as
a comprehensive or uniform system of welfare provision. Rather
they involved targeting certain discrete parts of the problem of
poverty.”