to retain it, that the liberals had to rely on right wing support in the conservatives,
which mean that any reforms passed needed to suit this way of thinking. However,
tariff reform was a programme that failed to attract the working classes, therefore the
liberals had also gained power on votes from the left wing too, as well as making a
pact with the labour party to secure a non-conservative victory4.
The fact that there had all of a sudden grown a strong emergence of the labour party
in the house of commons is extremely important when it comes to arguing that social
reforms passed in this period were concerned with the maintenance of Edwardian
society. The new labour party had emerged from strong opposition of the Taff Vale
Case, 1901. In the general election of 1906, 30 candidates that stood as straight labour
managed to win seats in parliament and 24 candidates that stood as lib labour. This
meant that there obviously a high proportion of the population that were supporting
socialist ideas within the Labour party. The reform act of 1867 helped the situation
allowing the franchise to be available to all householder men, for the first time certain
working class men were able to insert input to who was to hold government5.
The first of the many reforms passed by the Liberal party concerned children. The
provision of meals act 1906, is a prime example of an act passed primarily out of a
desire to head off the socialist advance. This is evident as the firstly proposed bill, put
forward by the Labour party, not the liberals was considerably watered down when
finally passed. The labour party requested that school children were guaranteed to be
fed school meals provided by their local authority. The final act passed did not
completely meet the needs of the labour party as all it managed to obtain was that
local authorities had the right to provide school meals, it did not directly secure it.
Even by 1939 less than 50% of school children were actually being provided this
service. Instead of opposing to the private members bill in parliament the liberals met
half way. The growing pressure of the labour party was the main reason for the act.
The liberals had to try and maintain balance and were able to justify their decisions to
more individualist members of the party by reasons of political pragmatism, they did
not to any extent, want to witness the labour party grow a political advantage over
them. In essence then, it was an act that had to be passed in order to head off socialist
advance3.
The Education (Administrative Provisions), act (1907) , again, was another implement
pushed on by back bench consistency. It had actually been proposed with the
education act a year before but had lost in the house of Lords. Prominently it seemed
the pressure was mounting. The liberals knew what Labour had in mind and had to
find a way to reach the conditions on a passable scale that they could get away with.
This is quite evident as just before the act was passed the liberals had to reject another
one of Labours proposals concerning the same bill as they had already drawn up their
own. Their bill assured that medical inspection will be provided in each school6. Like
the provision of meals act (1906), it was a product stimulated by the 1904 Physical
Deterioration Report. The report noted that it was vital for children to acquire a fare
amount of cleanliness and nutrition. It recommend that children should be given the
chance to have "every branch of domestic hygiene, including the preparation of food,
the practice of household cleanliness, the tendance and feeding of young children",
and made recommendations for Medical inspections of children in schools, Free
school meals for the very poor and Training in mother craft7.
Clearly, the liberals were meeting with some of the demands of the report, to what
extent, is a different question. The act did assure that medical inspections were free,
but treatment, however, was not. As mentioned the provision of meals act (1906) was
immoderately diminished in effect similarly to the Education (Administrative
Provisions). At the same time the Physical Deterioration Report was a direct response
from the Director General of the Army Medical Services. He claimed that the Boer
War had sufficiently suffered due to the poor health of recruiters. He stressed that it
was crucial that future generations did not have to end up the same way. This is an
idea know as national efficiency. It is argued by many historians that National
Efficiency was a direct reason for many of the reforms passed in the period 1906-
1914. J R Hays states “school meals and medical inspections of school-children were
both products of the climate of opinion created by the Boer war”8. If this is the case it
is vital to note that these opinions are of concern, but most likely of concern from the
socialist elite. Although the government saw this as a problem it was one which was
being stressed by other directions and could not be ignored due to the importance of
the Physical Deterioration Report. It was another issue being thrown at them which
would be impossible to decline, but used to the governments advantage when faced
with objections to acts from the more individualist members of the party.
Previous to 1909, although sufficient bills were passed, none touched as close to
public approval than the Old age pensions act (1909). Around half a million men and
women benefited from the act. Although, again there were draw backs. The people
that took advantage of the act had to be over seventy and not have criminal
convictions. Though it can be argued that there was no longer the moral stigma
attached when applying like the previous poor law, which saw participants as victims
of their own moral setbacks. This is all well and good, but the reasoning behind the
bill is again one of heading off a socialist advance rather than of moral concern for the
elderly9.
“As late as 1906 the Liberals, as a party were not committed to old age pensions” J R
Hay quotes 10 This is most certainly the case. Britain was already twenty years passed
talk off the bill and many other countries such as Germany and New Zealand had
already taken up the idea. When the liberals came to office they were faced with
increasing pressure not just from The Labour party (When made into a parliamentary
strength it was the labour parties first debate to push through old age pensions), but
from the co operative movement, the TUC, the Fabians along side the friendly
societies and the Charity Organisation Society, both of whom had previously opposed
to the idea.11 Although aims in the act may have been different between each society
the general principle of old age pensions was there.
Administrative momentum is quite clear when it comes to old age pensions. In 1907
three liberal seats were lost to Labour in a by election. In his famous quote Lloyd
George, soon to become the Liberal parties famous Chancellor of the Exchequer
admitted “It is time we did something that appealed straight to the people-it will, I
think help to stop this electoral rot and that is most necessary”.12
The Liberals knew it was time to push the bill forward in order to make sure they
would withhold a political advance. Again the bill had to be levelled out in order to
grant just enough leeway to head of socialist advance. Therefore it did not meet the
requirements of the Labour party, as they stressed that many individuals would not
live past seventy, therefore would not be able to enjoy the scheme. As well as the fact
that 5s to a single adult and 7s between a married couple was just not enough.
Nevertheless, the scheme did meet the main demands of the labour party that the bill
was non-contributory based, which at the time was extremely radical and did indicate
that the poor did need state help and were not in that position through their own moral
drawbacks13.
The growth of the Labour party can also take responsibility for many reforms passed
in this revolutionary period concerning workers and those without work. For forty
years miners had been campaigning for an eight hour day and in 1908 the eight hour
day bill was introduced. A long hard battle been won and when you study the
reasoning behind it close enough it is clear to see why. Apart from the fact the
Liberals lost seats to Labour in a by election a year before, sitting in government were
a vast amount of miner Mps15.
It was the Labour of Exchange act(1909), however, that really stood out. In working
class areas Liberal M.P’s were fearful of losing seats to labour M.Ps. So when there
seemed to be an unemployment crisis it was the Liberals in these consistencies that
pushed for government action. Yet another need to head of the Labour party in order
to help maintain Edwardian Society. Winston Churchill, newly president of the board
of trade responded to the pleas, and working with a young civil servant William
Beveridge, developed a new scheme to deal with these issues. The Labour Exchanges
act (1909), was one half of the plan that Churchill personally saw go through. All
throughout the country Labour Exchanges were set up. The plan actually intended an
unemployment insurance alongside the Labour Exchanges but Churchill did not
complete the scheme as he was promoted to Home Office in 1910. Instead Lloyd
George took over and the scheme was to become one half of the National Insurance
Act(1911).16
The National Insurance Act (1911) was one which came in two parts and affected the
sick and the British workforce. It is by all means one of the biggest and crucial act
passed by the liberal government ass many historians agree that it was this act that
crucially evolved into the British welfare state. It was a scheme passed saw that all
wage earners paid a set amount each week and their employer added to that too. In
return free medical attention was available. There was also help to those who had no
opportunity to work. If needed a certain amount of money was avaliable to
workers if off work for a certain amount of time. The scheme, which only included
industries such as construction, engineering, and ship building ensured that, if
unemployed a worker would receive 7 shillings a week for a period of 15 weeks in a
year17.
The reasoning for national insurance no doubt descended from realisation that there
was actually a huge problem when it came to the general state of the working classes.
Physical deterioration reports conducted by Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree,
brought to light in estimated figures the real extent of Britain’s poverty. However,
genuine sincerity towards poverty and ill living amongst the lower classes of Britain
does not seem to be a case of why help was being offered. It was a time of great
change, genuine concerns for the poor were being realised and expressed more than
ever before. Other countries were using insurance schemes and the government knew
that it was time for change. Like most of the reforms passed the scheme did not
completely meet the needs of the Labour party and others on the left who saw the
scheme as not far reaching enough as it involved money that had to be deducted form
wages. Again the Liberals managed to half heart ably meet requests from the labour
party but not completely see it through. Kier Hardy, head of the labour party saw the
scheme as weak as it did not touch on the underlying problem, the capitalist scheme,
as it was not financed by higher taxation of the wealthy18.
Between 1906 and 1914 there were a number of reform acts passed that would lead
one to believe lay the foundations of a welfare state. However, at the time it seems
evident that by no means did the government know this was occurring. This is due to
the fact that if the liberal government really wanted a system like the welfare state
they would have given the acts a little more comprehensive coverage than they
managed to. Each act was watered down to suit the political needs of situations
occurring between governments at the time. The newly emerged labour party stood for
the workers of the country, and as mentioned it is clear that the problems of British
poverty was greatly becoming evident and more and more people were willing to get
involved in the matter. Therefore the liberal party knew that they stood as a huge
Threat, so had to keep themselves as middle ground as they possibly could. Therefore
the liberal government reforms 1906-1914 were more concerned with the maintenance
of Edwardian society than its radical overhaul.
The shift of the well known laissez faire attitudes was a result of social change and
circumstance. Each act did not completely meet those on the left sides needs but at
the same time it is important to note often upset the needs of the higher classes. It is
also vital to remember that most acts mentioned are bills passed that have been talked
about for years. Even if passing them were new at the time the thought behind them
were far from fresh.
Bibliography
Fraser Dereck, The Evolution Of The Welfare State ,London: Macmillan,1984
Hay. J. R , The Origins of the Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906-1914,London: Macmillan, 1983
Lednum, , 07/09/2006, , 25/10/2006,
Levenstein H.A Revolution at the table: the transformation of the American diet, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993
M. P Stuart and Geoffrey Stewart, British Political History, London, Routledge, 1992
Rubinstein W.D , TWENTIETH CENTURY BRITAIN, New York , Macmillan, 2003
D. Fraser, The Evolution Of The Welfare State (THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTM,1984) 147.
4 J. R HAY, The Origins of the Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906-1914(Palgrave Macmillan, 1983) 25
5 W.D Rubinstein, TWENTIETH CENTURY BRITAIN (Palgrave Macmillian, 2003) 25
3 W.D Rubinstein, TWENTIETH CENTURY BRITAIN (Palgrave Macmillian, 2003) 38.
6 D. Fraser, The Evolution Of The Welfare State (THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTM,1984) 148.
7 H.A Levenstein (Revolution at the table: the transformation of the American diet), Oxford University Press, New York, 1993
8 J. R HAY, The Origins of the Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906-1914(Palgrave Macmillan, 1983) 43.
9 J. R HAY, The Origins of the Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906-1914(Palgrave Macmillan, 1983) 44
0 10 J. R HAY, The Origins of the Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906-1914(Palgrave Macmillan, 1983) 46
1 1 D. Fraser, The Evolution Of The Welfare State (THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTM,1984) 148.
2 12 D. Fraser, The Evolution Of The Welfare State (THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTM,1984) 154.
3 13 M. P Stuart and Geoffrey Stewart, British Political History (Routledge, 1992) 202.
5 15 D. Fraser, The Evolution Of The Welfare State (THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTM,1984) 171.
6 16 M. P Stuart and Geoffrey Stewart, British Political History (Routledge, 1992) 205.
7 17 D. Fraser, The Evolution Of The Welfare State (THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTM,1984) 163.
8 18 W.D Rubinstein, TWENTIETH CENTURY BRITAIN (Palgrave Macmillian, 2003) 59.