"The Budget is Merely the Culmination of a Design Deliberately Adopted and Steadily Pursued" - Discuss.

Laura Westwood

“The Budget is Merely the Culmination of a Design Deliberately

Adopted and Steadily Pursued”

This quote is referring to the constitutional conflict between the democratically elected party, the Liberals, and the House of Lords. The conflict arose due to the fact that the un elected party, the conservatives were able to block legislation from passing through the House of Lords, putting a strain on the British democratic constitution.

The quote is basically implying that the people’s Budget of 1909 was a plan or strategy made by the Liberals to reduce the power of the House of Lords. It was felt by some that the budget was not introduced to help the British population, but its ulterior motive was to provoke the House of Lords into rejecting. However, the Liberals insisted differently, saying that it was merely for social reform.

This argument can be split into two halves. Firstly the idea that the budget was a deliberate provocation of the House of Lords, which is in agreement with the Quote.

One of the Conservative’s main arguments was that the Liberals had no electoral mandate to pass this Act. They had not legal or moral power given to them to propose and pass the legislation, as they had never mentioned the People’s Budget during the election campaign. The supporters were voting for their proposals concerning Taff Vale and Chinese Slavery etc.

The Lords had previously shown that they were not taking on their role as ‘watchdog of the constitution’ and were simply looking after their own by stopping any Bills that may have affected them. Examples of this are the ‘Licensing Bill’, which was rejected as it removed compensation from pub owners who should receive it. The Conservative supporters did not agree with this, and therefore it was not passed. Another example was the ‘Scottish Land Bill,’ which was rejected as all of the power of the Lords was tied up in their wealth, part of their wealth accumulated from the great deal of land which they owned. This Bill would have attacked this and therefore would have attacked their power.

These losses made the Liberals lose confidence. The House of Lords had a veto on all Bills passed by the House of Commons, so by Law they weren’t doing anything wrong, but morally they were, as Liberals supporters would not be receiving the elected parties reforms. This was the basis of the idea of ‘Filling the cup’, which was a Liberal plan to build upon their rejections to prove that the House of Lords was acting unconstitutionally. Lloyd George felt that the more Bills that were rejected the clearer it would become to the people about the actions ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The terms of the budget were seen as too one sided and a deliberate attack on the upper classes. Some of the terms included increased income taxes, duties on motorcar fuel, and land taxes, which the rich felt was unfair targeting. Every issue proposed seemed to suggest that funds would be taken away from the upper classes, and given directly to the working classes. This can be seen as provocative, as past Bills that have been seen to undermine the power of the upper classes such as the Licensing Bill were rejected, therefore it would have been obvious to Lloyd George that the Budget would be rejected as it was targeting the rich.

This Budget was also a direct shift from the 19th century attitude of laissez-faire, towards socialism and state intervention. This also highlighted the issue and made it seem deliberate, as it was unlike any previous Bills, and against Conservative ideas, therefore more likely to be rejected.

It could also have been said that the Budget was not strictly a finance Bill as other Acts were cunningly grafted into the Budget. Therefore it was the House of Lords’ role to reject this.

Balfour claimed that the Budget was ‘Vindictive, inequitable, based on no principle, and injurious to the productive capacity of the country.’ (Aikin,1972 pg62) The Budget was seen as a threat to the future of business and free trade.

Another reason why the Budget was seen as an attack on the House of Lords is the fact that Lloyd George had a strong dislike for the aristocracy, as show in his speech where he says ‘500 men…chosen accidentally from among the unemployed’. He felt that the Lords were selfish and greedy with money and that their wealth should be shared out. In his speeches at Newcastle and Limehouse there is some justification of the idea that the Budget was deliberately provocative, and his language also indicates this, ‘by that test, I challenge them to judge the Budget.’ This is almost like a threat.

It was also thought that Lloyd George was using the budget for his own personal gain as he was in a win, win situation. His reputation could have been increased whatever happened as if the Lords passed the Budget he won, as his party was successful, and it was largely seen as his idea, and if it were not passed the Lords would be exposed.

The conservatives also felt that the Liberals had completely overlooked the option of tariff reform as a way of gaining money to fund the poor.

The other side of the argument is backing up liberal views, and suggests that it was not a deliberate plan to undermine the power of the Lords but a genuine Bill to give more to the working classes and fund military defence.

The Liberals saw the Budget, as a step forward for the country and desperately needed for the “defence of the realm and health of the poor”. There was a great need for military spending for Britain to keep up with the developments of other rising nations such as Germany. The Liberals felt that the Budget was not a direct attack on the upper classes, as it would benefit everyone by building a stronger nation. It was also said that the Budget ‘received enthusiastic support from all parts of the country.’ Banners in favour of the Budget read ‘tax the idlers, not the workers’ and also ‘land for the landless.’ The Liberals saw no other way of financing these improvements.

The improvements to public health and income were seen as very important to the Liberals and research had shown that a third of the population lived in abject poverty. However, the upper classes that were a minority, owned the majority of the country’s wealth, which was considered unfair and selfish.

The Budget, being a finance Bill was also critical to the government as if they didn’t have control of finance then they could not effectively govern the country, and would have to call a general election. Therefore if their finance Bill’s failed, such as the Budget, they would not be able to rule.

Although the House of Lords had the right to veto any Bills passed by the commons they had not done so to a finance Bill in the previous one hundred and fifty years. This would indicate that it was therefore not expected that the House of Lords might reject it. This gives strength to Lloyd George’s argument that it was not a deliberate plan as he did not think that the Lords would reject a finance Bill, as it was almost unheard of.

The Liberals also justified their budget as being morally right, as they would be taxing a lot of unproductive wealth. The idea behind this was that a minority of the rich plutocracy held excessive savings, which were unproductive. This meant that a great deal of the country’s wealth was not being used, consumption is restricted, and therefore a depression in trade is seen. This would be a direct cause of unemployment in the working classes. The Liberals therefore felt that it would be morally right to introduce such terms in the finance Bill, as a cause of poverty is due to the unproductive wealth of the rich. As the rich can afford to pay, it is right that they should contribute and share their wealth.

In conclusion, the Quote that “The Budget is Merely the Culmination of a Design deliberately adopted and Steadily Pursued” is a valid interpretation of the relationship between the Lords and the Liberals. Both have different views as to what the budget was meant to achieve, the Lords saw it as a threat, whereas the Liberals merely said it was to help those who needed it more. Evidence from Asquith in a speech to the House of Commons on 2nd December 1909 states, “We have not provoked the challenge, but we welcome it”. This shows their view that they did not intend the crisis to arise, and for the Lords to reject the Budget, but they do not deny the fact that they can gain from this.

However, it must also be noted that the Liberals later introduced the Parliament Bill in 1910, which clearly highlights their intentions of undermining the power of the second chamber, making it easier for the government to pass legislation through the House of Lords. Although this is a different Act, it still shows the want for the reduction of power of the Lords.