The attitudes of the poor to social reform in the early 1900s are unclear; however it is widely agreed that a large portion of the working-class, namely the unskilled and uneducated, would not have welcomed many aspects of the reforms. The view is that many workers would have been suspicious and hostile towards increased state involvement, owing mainly to existing institutions such as the hated Poor Law (Hay, 1975, p26). The demand for social reform was coming mainly from organised and politically involved groups whose key aims were not particularly radical, rather they were concerned with achieving limited changes such as reversing legal decisions which were damaging to the Trade Unions (Hay, 1975, p27).
It would appear that the Liberal Party was not forced into social reform, neither by massive popular demand, nor by genuine threat of revolution. One could assume that the most likely of reasons for introducing the reforms would have been to gain some tactical advantage over the other parties(Hay, 1975, p27), particularly over the emerging Labour Party. This argument can be validated further by the fact that, by the early 1900s, the Labour Party already had an extensive programme of reform which included free education for all, a pension scheme and measures to deal with poverty and unemployment(Hay, 1975, p27). Certainly the Liberals were seeking working-class support and wished to be seen as the party who were able to bring about change. On the basis of these assumptions, one could conclude that, although political pressure from below was an important factor to some extent, it cannot account as the sole reason behind the reforms.
It would seem that the vast majority of the welfare reforms would not have been introduced without a major change in Liberal ideology. The attitudes towards government involvement had been largely uniform across the political spectrum for the best part of the nineteenth century: minimum state intervention and an emphasis on individual self-help. In 1884, the Liberal leader William Gladstone’s stated:
If the Government takes into its hand that which the man ought to do for himself, it will inflict upon him greater mischiefs than all the benefits he will have received (Watts, 1995, p128).
However, by the late 1880s, a new interpretation of Liberalism had gradually been forming, drifting away from the traditional approach of laissez-faire politics (Watts, 1995, p129).
This shift in ideology was in part influenced by the developments in the British economy. By the late nineteenth century, both Germany and the United States were starting to overtake Britain in industrial production (Hay, 1975, p29-30). In the light of this uncertain economic situation, the Liberals had to redefine themselves in order to maintain Britain’s status as a competitive nation. Whilst still identifying themselves with the core values of Liberal ideology, that is to say individual liberty and enterprise, proponents of ‘New Liberalism’ envisioned a greater role for the state in safeguarding the lower classes (Watts, 1995, p129). According to this new thinking, persistent uneven distribution of wealth affected the driving force of the economy and risked putting Britain further behind other developing countries. There was also great embarrassment when it transpired that large numbers of the recruits for the Boer Wars were found to be physically unfit to serve due to poverty-related illnesses (Butler&Jones, 1994, p14). Sidney Webb argued that a minimum standard of welfare for all was paramount if Britain was to remain an imperial power, both militarily and economically (Hay, 1975, p31).
The growing concern over national and military efficiency coincided with new statistics brought to light over the extent of the general state of the poor. In 1889, the first in a series of volumes by Charles Booth was published. Booth had investigated the degree of poverty in the streets of London and found that 30 per cent of the population lived below his ‘poverty line’ (Watts, 1995, p131). In 1901, a similar survey conducted in York by Benjamin Rowntree was shown to match Booth’s own findings, with an estimated 28 per cent of the population living in abject poverty (Butler&Jones, 1994, p13). In the light of these conclusions, Asquith asked:
What is the use of talking about Empire if here, at its very centre, there is always to be found a mass of people, stunted in education, a prey of intemperance, huddled and congested beyond the possibility of realising in any true sense either social or domestic life? (Hay, 1975, p31)
Despite the questionable accuracy of Booth and Rowntree’s research, their findings, combined with the exposure of the recruit’s conditions during the Boer Wars, rendered social reform a respectable political issue and further emphasised Britain’s need to act (Hay, 1975, p31).
One way of explaining the introduction of the Liberal reforms would be to say that Lloyd George and Churchill saw the reforms as instruments capable of ensuring a healthier, more efficient and competitive society whilst combating socialism and attracting working-class voters without distancing themselves from the middle classes (Hay, 1975, p61). Churchill argued:
It supplies at once the highest impulse and the practical path. By sentiments of generosity and humanity, by the process of moderation, Liberalism enlists on the side of progress [hundreds of thousands] whom a militant Socialist party would drive into violent Tory reaction. It is through the agency of the Liberal Party alone that Society will in the course of time slide forwards almost painlessly ... We are all agreed that the State must concern itself with the care of the sick, of the aged and, above all, of the children. I do not wish to limit the vigour of competition, but to mitigate the consequences of failure (Watts, 1995, p144).
It would also be useful to see these reforms as a response to the problems which follow the expansion of a capitalist economy (Hay, 1975, p62).
It could be argued that, whether the Liberal reforms were calculated responses to individual social problems or whether they were part of a wider movement of gradual improvement, they helped ‘sew the seeds’ of future state-sponsored reforms. However, the limitations of these early Liberal attempts to ameliorate the conditions of the working classes were clearly shown in the difficult economic circumstances of the 1920s/30s. Memories of pre-war poverty helped Clement Atlee win a landslide Labour victory in 1945, clearly suggesting there was an appetite for more far-reaching reforms. It was now that a Labour government could establish a coherent and comprehensive Welfare State.
Word Count 1345
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Butler, Lawrence and Jones, Harriet eds. Britain in the Twentieth Century: A Documentary Reader Volume 1 1900-1939 (Oxford: Heinemann, 1994).
Hay, J.R, The Origins of the Liberal Welfare Reforms 1906-1914 (London: Macmillan, 1975).
Watts, Duncan, Access to History: Whigs, Radicals and Liberals 1815-1914 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1995).
