Liberal Reforms 1906 1914 Background The Problem of

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. ”