1

F963: England and a New Century, 1900-1924 A: Why were the fortunes of political parties so varied in the period from 1900 to 1914? The progress of the Labour Party from 1900 to 1914 After the legal recognition of the Trade Unions in 1868, the tactic employed by the TUC was to

try to influence the existing political parties rather than to try to establish an independent working class party.

Whilst there seemed to be political parity between the Liberals and Conservatives this tactic

seemed to be working with a number of concessions won from Gladstone and Disraeli. The split in the Liberal Party (1886) meant that apart from a brief period (1892-5), Britain

appeared to be a period of one party dominating Westminster. The domination of the Liberal Party by a small number of businessmen who refused to

countenance working class candidates meant that there was a demand for greater political activity amongst trade unionists.

A series of legal decisions convinced the TU movement of the need for greater political action.

Temperton v Russell (1893), Lyons v Wilkins (1896) and, greatest of all, Taff Vale (1901. These judgements under-mined the gains made through the legislation of Gladstone and

Disraeli. The Rise of Labour The Independent Labour Party was founded in 1892 by James Keir Hardie, who had been

elected MP for West Ham. It attracted little support initially because most unions did not wish to become directly involved

in politics. A series of legal decisions convinced the TU movement of the need for greater political action.

Temperton v Russell (1893), Lyons v Wilkins (1896) and, greatest of all, Taff Vale (1901. These judgements under-mined the gains made through the legislation of Gladstone and

Disraeli. In 1900 the Labour Representation Committee formed from the Independent Labour Party, the

Fabians, the Social Democratic Federation and the Trade Union movement. The secretary of the LRC was James Ramsay Macdonald.

In 1901, the Taff Vale Case threatened the right to strike. The Taff Vale Railway Company sued

the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for damages after a strike. The company won and the ASRS had to pay damages and costs of £51,000. After Taff Vale, there was an increased willingness of trade unions to affiliate to the LRC.

Membership rose from 376,000 (1901) to 998,338 (1906).

2

Balfour failed to take action to tackle the effects of the Taff Vale judgment, so the LRC sought

an alliance with the Liberal Party. Many working men traditional voted Liberal and the first working class MPs (the Lib-Labs) had

been elected in the 1880s. The Macdonald-Gladstone Pact was formed in 1903. The two parties agreed not to fight against

each other in constituencies at the next general election. The LRC would then support Liberal reforms which would reverse Taff Vale. The Liberals also

offered the prospect of social reforms How did the Labour Party develop before 1914? Growth in TU membership would inevitably have an electoral impact in favour of Labour. 1910

Trade Unions had 2.5 million members, but in 1914 4.0 million members. Number of socialist societies doubled between 1906 and 1914. By 1915 85 Trades Councils had affiliated to the Labour Party and they had 73 local Labour

parties (only had 8 in total in 1906). Number of Labour candidates and successes at local elections increased.

1907 340 candidates 86 elected Net Gain of 10 1913 494 196 85

There were also gains in Scotland (59 town councillors in 1913). Gains were variable; strong in Bradford (20/84 councillors) and Leicester (14/48). By 1914

more than half of Labour’s sitting councillors were in Lancashire and Yorkshire. In contrast, Labour was weak in cities such as Birmingham (8/120). 1909 and the accession of the miners union to the Labour Party. Miners had 900,000 members.

Potentially, the miners controlled 90 seats. 1911 The Daily Herald founded and was to become an outstanding newspaper with a Labour

bias. 1914 London Labour Party was founded.

3

The uneven progress of the Unionist (Conservative) Party Why did the Unionist Party become unpopular in the years after 1900? The Boer War The Boer War had begun in 1899 with expectations of an early and easy victory. But in the first

year the British Army suffered a series of heavy defeats. The Boers were flexible and fast moving and moved far more easily over vast distances. The

only significant British successes in the first year were the relief of Ladysmith and Mafeking. Kitchener adopted different tactics; using blockhouses to strangle the Boers and moving tens of

thousands into concentration camps. This proved unpopular. British casualties were heavy; 6% of the 450,000 men recruited. The war showed up the

inadequacy of the army and the unhealthy state of many recruits; 37% failed the medical (see below).

The financial cost of the war was far greater than had originally been anticipated. The effect on national morale was even more serious: Britain had only just managed to defeat an

army made up largely of farmers. This led to the debate over National Efficiency The conduct of the war was condemned in 1904 by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Education Act, 1902 Balfour’s Education Act (1902) brought all elementary schools under local council control. This

was a much needed reform which was intended to establish parity between the schools across the country.

But the Act angered Non-Conformists, whose schools were now largely controlled by

Anglicans. They feared this would mean Anglican control of religious education. Some Non-Conformist schools refused to accept council supervision and went independent, but

by 1906 most had been forced to give in because of lack of funds. Coolie labour In 1903, a Commission reported on the use of coolie (mostly Chinese) labour in the British

Empire. Coolies were indentured labourers who had been brought to the West Indies and South Africa.

The Commission criticised their treatment and there was a national scandal. Tariff Reform In 1903, Joseph Chamberlain (Colonial Secretary) and the Tariff Reform League proposed

duties on many imports to counter competition from cheaper foreign goods. The Empire would have been given preferential treatment.

4

Balfour refused to accept the proposals because they would have increased the price of food and ended the policy of free trade that had been followed since the 1840s.

Chamberlain resigned in September 1903 to campaign for Imperial Preference. This split the

Unionist (Conservative) Party and gave the Liberals a major advantage. Balfour attempted to bridge the gap by using a threat of retaliation to force other countries to

reduce tariffs. This only served to make Balfour look weak and indecisive. The Liberals were able to use Tariff reform in the 1906 campaign, when the Unionists

(Conservatives) were painted as the party of expensive food. Why did Balfour resign in 1905? Balfour felt there was no real fear of losing the general election. At that time, there were many

divisions within the Liberal Party which, he thought, would cause them difficulties in forming a government.

There had been much debate within the Liberal Party about the Boer War. The Liberal

Imperialists had supported the war and those such as Lloyd George and Campbell-Bannerman had opposed it. (See below for a different Lloyd George after 1914)

Balfour was aware of the continuing debate within the Liberals about Home Rule in Ireland and

felt that the Radicals would never come to terms with the more conservative elements of the party.

Furthermore, Balfour felt that the Liberals were not in a position to present a clear set of policies

to the electorate. He miscalculated and the 1906 election saw the Liberals win a handsome majority.

The Liberals under Campbell-Bannerman took office on December 4th 1905. The Unionists had

become rather unpopular and had become divided over the issue of tariff reform. Moreover, the Prime Minister, Balfour, had shown that he could not hold his party together and hence decided to resign.

The 1906 General Election New Liberalism The Liberals won 377 seats and the Unionists slumped to 157. Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal leader, had promised support for free trade, changes in trade

union legislation, education, licensing laws and there were some vague noises about social reform.

There was no hint of a series of radical welfare reforms in 1906. The major changes came after

1908. The Lib-Lab pact of 1903 had assisted both parties to defeat Unionists in certain constituencies

and the newly named Labour Party won 29 seats.

5

24 of the Labour victories were won in straight fights with the Conservatives. Historians have argued that Labour won votes as a result of questionable Conservative policies-

tough legislation against trade unions, tariff reform (the working classes feared huge rises in the price of food) and the issue of Chinese Slavery.

The Liberals had won the support of a wide range of voters from a variety of social backgrounds

– they won many seats in working class areas traditionally held by the Unionists (Lancashire, London and the South-East).

There was also a drift of some middle class voters to the Liberals. The reasons which brought these groups together never recurred. In the next election (Jan. 1910)

the Liberals lost 100 seats). In a speech at Nottingham in 1906, Balfour said: ‘The great Unionist party should still control,

whether in power or opposition, the destinies of this great Empire.’ The activities of the Unionist party in the years 1906-14 do indicate that it was unwilling to

accept defeat at the polls. Balfour wrote after the election that the Liberal victory would lead to the eventual break-up of

that party. He thought that there was an imminent socialist revolution and the Liberals would not be able to

withstand it. He was correct about the eventual fate of the Liberals, but wrong about the reasons behind its fall.

Moreover, Balfour had no intention of allowing the power of the Conservatives to be

diminished by a general election defeat. He intended to use the House of Lords to maintain the status quo. ( See speech above)

Campbell-Bannerman and the Liberal Ministry of 1905-8 Campbell Bannerman was the leader of a divided party. On the one hand were the traditional

Liberals, such as Grey, on the other the ‘New Liberals’, such as Asquith and Lloyd George. Campbell-Bannerman’s great success was that he was able to bring the Party together and make

the most of the talents of his ministers. Despite the possible weaknesses of the Liberals, Campbell-Bannerman was able to form an

extremely strong government- Asquith –Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George- President of the Board of Trade Grey- Foreign Secretary Haldane- War Secretary Morley- Indian Secretary Churchill- Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office

6

Were the Liberals in electoral decline pre-1914? Arguments in favour Liberal government lost its majority in 1910 and was now reliant on support from Irish and

Labour to hold power. The false position of 1906 had returned to the true picture of 1910. Liberal government faced a number of challenges: working class was dissatisfied with Liberals:

industrial unrest; wave of strikes 1910-14 including 40,890,000 working days lost in 1912. Reinforced with unpopularity of National Insurance Act which was opposed by Trade Union

movement who argued against employees having to make a contribution. The Parliamentary Liberal Party very much middle class professionals. 1909 budget had encountered fierce resistance within Liberal party. Many leading Liberals not committed to social reform. Much of Liberal social reform lacked goals of working class; e.g. National minimum wage,

legislation on living standards, right to work. Dislike of Lloyd George’s attachment to rich capitalists and Marconi affair. Middle class was alienated by level of social reform (thus explaining poll results in 1910). There was militant unrest from the suffragette movement. Cat and Mouse Act hardly a Liberal

measure. Ireland on the verge of civil war (gun-running, Curragh mutiny etc) Constitutional crisis between 1909-11 (House of Lords) Liberals blocked by House of Lords from 1912 onwards as a result of the 1911 Parliament Act. Most newspapers had Conservative sympathies. Northcliffe (Tory) owned Times, Daily Mail,

Daily Mirror and The Observer. Liberals only had News of the World and The Daily Chronicle. Electorally, Liberals seemed to facing mounting difficulties: Between 1905 –1910, Liberal seats

fell from 400 to 272. Conservative seats rose from 157 to 272. Labour seats rose from 30 to 42. Between 1910 –14, Liberals lost 15 by-elections to the Tories. Labour aiming to field 160

candidates at 1915 election (78 at 1910 election).

7

The Liberal Party’s response to the Labour challenge Although in retrospect the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the official opposition that was by no means clear at the time. Liberals had been victorious over Lords and had won the constitutional battle which had paved

the way for further reforms Women’s suffrage had not been solved but could be seen as a side issue: even the Labour Party

was uncommitted. Unrest had been dealt with by negotiation, legislation and compromise (e.g. 1912 Miners’

Minimum Wage). Liberals still seen by many working class as main progressive party with Labour as only a

partner. Asquith’s leadership was unquestioned. His government remained unified, strong and confident. Electorally there was plenty for Liberals to be confident about. Liberals still remained dominant in Celtic fringe, parts of industrial North, Midlands, industrial

Lancashire and even parts of London. Labour was not finding it easy to break into working class seats other than those that they were

given a free hand to fight under the 1903 pact. Even the accession of the Miners Union to Labour in 1909 had not resulted in a huge loss of

seats (mining areas potentially controlled c.80 seats). Liberals were very much the party of the working class; most manual working class voted

Liberal. Labour only had 56 candidates in 1910 and all but 11 had Liberal support. Labour lost 3 seats to the Liberals in 12 by-elections 1910-14. Labour had been bottom of the

poll in all 12 by-elections they had contested 1910-12 (max vote gained was 30%). 4 million men still lacked the vote and Labour might not reap their full electoral potential until

there was universal male suffrage. Labour was far from confident. In 1908, Ben Tillett published ‘Is the Labour party a failure’ –

his answer was yes. Phillip Snowden remarked in 1911 that he doubted that there could be a Labour government

within a generation. Ramsay MacDonald was very keen to continue with the electoral pact in 1915.

8

B: How did war and the problems it bequeathed affect political parties from 1918 to 1924? Asquith and Lloyd George as war leaders Herbert Henry Asquith

Born 1852, public school and Oxford educated, he became a barrister and was in the Liberal

Cabinet 1892-95. By the early twentieth century, Asquith was second in the Liberal party after Campbell-

Bannerman. Asquith had become a supporter of free trade and social reform. Asquith became Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Campbell-Bannerman ministry and

prepared the way for Old Age Pensions. He succeeded Campbell-Bannerman as Prime Minister in 1908 and oversaw the social and

political reforms of the pre-war years. He was a cautious leader and had a lively Cabinet of ministers, giving them scope within their own departments, especially Lloyd George who gave sterling support to Asquith.

As Prime Minister, Asquith saw the Liberals successfully through the Constitutional Crisis (see

above), he was prepared to take on the Conservative Party but was weak and ineffective in the Irish Question.

His policy of ‘wait and see’ served only to push Ireland to the brink of civil war. He never really

appreciated the fears and anxieties of the Ulster people throughout the crisis years. His innate cautiousness manifested itself with the suffragettes and the franchise issue- he was

not prepared to change the voting system and only gave support to this in 1915. Asquith sought compromise during the period of industrial strife 1910-1914 but it is impossible

to gauge what might have happened had not war intervened. At the beginning of the conflict in August 1914, Asquith felt that the war could be conducted

without compromising the beliefs of the Liberal Party. He was wrong. It was the conduct of the war and the extent of government intervention which was to rend the Liberal Party asunder.

His steady approach to events and refusal to be panicked had served him well before 1914, but

in the war these virtues seemed to give off an air of lack of commitment. Asquith brought Lord Kitchener into the Cabinet as War Minister and though this was a popular

choice with the public, it proved to be a political mistake. Asquith was prepared to allow the management of the war to fall under the aegis of Kitchener and the military experts.

Kitchener resented the Cabinet questioning his policies and though he anticipated a long war, he

was not always able to see what was required to prosecute such a conflict. Almost immediately there problems with the supply of shells and ammunition and Kitchener

balked at suggestions made by Lloyd George to overcome them.

9

The ‘shell scandal’ finally broke in May 1915. 'The Times’ war correspondent wrote that Britain’s failures were the result of a shortage of shells. The crisis grew when Fisher, First Sea Lord, resigned over the failures at Gallipoli.

The ensuing political crisis was solved when a coalition government was set up. Asquith’s

conduct of the war was easily criticised and he had no wish to surrender power. The forthcoming general election (under the Parliament Act, it was due at the end of 1915 or

January 1916) would not bring a Liberal victory. Moreover, Asquith could offer a coalition as a unifying move both for his party and for the country.

The formation of the Coalition still exemplified Asquith’s political sharpness. Key posts were

filled by Liberals- Grey was Foreign Secretary, Lloyd George was Minister of Munitions, McKenna was Chancellor of the Exchequer and Runciman was President of the Board of Trade. Bonar Law was kept out of the way at the Colonial Office.

After the formation of the Coalition, Asquith met Liberal backbenchers and in a clever speech

was able to win them over. However, Asquith now had to ensure that there were successes in the war if his new government was to continue.

The new government continued in the same way as the old one. The key exception was at the

Ministry of Munitions, where Lloyd George took charge. Asquith did not challenge Kitchener over the running of the war.

Conscription emerged as the issue which caused criticism to be heaped on Asquith. For many

people the issue of conscription was the symbol of winning the war. For Asquith it was the policy which contradicted basic Liberal philosophy- namely freedom and

voluntarism. In seeking to compromise, Asquith came up with the Derby Scheme in October 1915. The

scheme asked all men to ‘attest’ their willingness to serve in the armed forces on the understanding that married men would be called up after single men. It failed and conscription was introduced in 1916.

Asquith was losing support in his party and yet the party needed to come to terms with the idea

that there had to be a more pro-active approach to the prosecution of the war. David Lloyd George Born 1863 in Manchester, but raised and educated in Wales. (Welsh was his native tongue.) He

was articled to a law firm in 1879 and passed his law examinations (third class honours) in 1884.

He became M.P. for Caernarfon Boroughs in 1890. He developed his oratorical skills and, even

when Chancellor, was able to hold an audience of thousands. Spoke out on Welsh issues and after 1902 was a leading Liberal opponent of tariff reform. Appointed President of the Board of Trade in 1905, a position which he held until the enforced

retirement of Campbell-Bannerman in 1908. He then succeeded Asquith as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

10

Emerged as an effective administrator and leader at the Board of Trade- Professor Pugh’s view

is that this department was the most successful of Campbell-Bannerman’s ministry. Among the many acts he was responsible for were those concerning-

Merchant Shipping, the Census of Production, Companies Amendment, Patents and Designs, and the Port of London Authority.

As Chancellor of the Exchequer and a senior member of the party, Lloyd George became a key

partner for Asquith. Lloyd George was seen by many as part of the radical wing of the party- a New Liberal- who

was prepared to move towards reform whilst simultaneously attacking the privileges of the Conservatives.

In introducing the1909 Budget, Lloyd George denied that he was engaging in class warfare. He

was appealing to all those who earned their incomes. During the Constitutional Crisis, he was combative, shrewd and able to show he was a populist.

His actions have led some historians to suggest that he was something of an opportunist – events in 1915 and 1918 do seem to show that he was a politician who loved power and was something of an egotist.

Lloyd George was totally committed to the war once Britain entered. He even suggested that

Asquith broaden the makeup of his government. When Asquith’s government began to encounter problems in early 1915, it was to Lloyd George

that Bonar Law turned not the Prime Minister. He was responsible for two wartime budgets which doubled the rate of income tax and brought

in more taxpayers than ever before. As early as February 1915, Lloyd George was concerned about the consumption of alcohol by

British workers. He said ‘We are fighting Germany, Austria and Drink. The greatest of these foes is Drink.’

The Central Liquor Board was set up to control the sale of alcohol, restrict licensing hours and

dilute the strength of beer. In some munitions areas, the state took over the alcohol trade. The Treasury Agreements of 1915 were seen as crucial to the war effort. As result of these,

trade unions accepted no-strike deals and dilution (the employment of unskilled men and women in those jobs previously held by skilled workers) in return for better wages and working conditions. In Lloyd George’s own words, the agreements were: ‘the great charter for labour’.

Lloyd George was soon aware that there would have to be total commitment of the government

and people if Britain was to be victorious. After the ‘shell scandal’, he was appointed Minister of Munitions and was able to show how

effective a government department could be in time of war- if there was no interference and red tape.

11

He ensured that he brought in experts (he called these ‘men of push and go’) to help him and was not hidebound by his party affiliations.

Sixty more state munitions factories were built by the end of 1915 and more private companies

were brought under central control. He was an advocate of conscription as early as August 1915 and agreed with Conservatives

such as Curzon and Long that it must be introduced forthwith. Lloyd George was convinced that the war justified the introduction of not only conscription but

any policy which was in the national interest and above all which would help the nation defeat Germany.

Some historians have observed that Lloyd George was not always constant in his views and that

he used events to suit his own career. In 1911, one of Lloyd George’s Cabinet colleagues said of him: ‘His conscience is as good as

new for he has never used it’. The impact of total war on Liberalism By 1918, Asquith had lost his seat at East Fife, only 28 Independent Liberals had survived the

‘Coupon Election’, the Liberal party was split in two and Labour had increased its representation from 56 to 63 seats.

Whether the Liberals were in terminal decline before the outbreak of WWI is clearly a matter of

debate: what is certain, however, is that the war itself had a devastating impact on the party. However, historians are split as to whether it was inevitable that the nature of such a war would

impact upon the Liberals or whether it was merely their misfortune to be in charge in 1914. Two opinions as to why WWI had such an impact on Liberal fortunes: Accidentalist View Country was ill prepared for war. Despite Haldane’s army reforms, British Expeditionary Force

(BEF), naval reforms, high expenditure on defence in 1913. Doubtful if any government could have achieved a quick and decisive victory.

However, given the balance in the House of Commons, inevitably there would have to be a

coalition in 1915. 1915 coalition meant: Carson in, therefore nationalists were isolated and Irish movement fell into hands of extremists. This led to end of moderate Irish support for Liberals and Irish voters in England would no

longer feel obliged to vote for Liberals – many moved to Labour. Labour in coalition was no longer dependent on Liberals for toehold on government. Experience

of office gave Labour new credibility after war.

12

Henderson’s expulsion by Lloyd George in 1917 made Labour even more determined to overcome dependence on Liberals.

Personality of Asquith led to few jobs for opponents in the 1915 coalition; there was no small

war cabinet. Thus few owed Asquith personal loyalty. Lloyd George became a politician with links to Conservatives.

After Asquith was deposed in 1916, he remained leader of the ‘official’ Liberal Party. Asquith’s

Liberals opposed Lloyd George’s Liberals in the House of Commons (Maurice debate) and at the 1918 election.

Divided Liberal Party meant that Labour could claim to be party of progressive reform. ‘Rampant Omnibus’ theory Liberals were ill-equipped ideologically to deal with demands of a prolonged war. They were already under pressure in 1914 from Ireland, industrial unrest, suffragettes and WWI

effectively finished them off. Various principles had to be abandoned and this undermined the ‘raison d’etre’ of Liberalism: Protection (abandonment of free trade) Conscription (abandonment of the principle of personal freedom) Defence of the Realm Act (again abandoning the principle of personal freedom) Many despaired at Liberal foreign policy and joined MacDonald. Patriotic Liberals frustrated by Asquith’s ‘wait and see’ policy.

However, it is possible to over-emphasise the impact of war itself on the fortunes of the Liberal Party. Most Liberals (at grass roots) continued to support Asquith after the split with Lloyd George.

The final split came only after the distribution of the coupon. Conservatives also split over the best way to prosecute the war (Westerners v Easterners). Labour was also split: Independent Labour Party (ILP) against the war (MacDonald, Snowden). Undoubtedly, the most important factor in the Liberals failing to put up a more spirited defence

against the Liberal Party’s decline in fortune was the fundamental split between Herbert Asquith and his once loyal right hand man David Lloyd George.

The cause of the initial row is clear but less certain are the reasons for Lloyd George’s decision

to over-throw Asquith and the latter’s refusal to accept his change in political fortune.

13

Asquith and Lloyd George Whatever the ideological impact of WWI on the Liberal Party there can be no doubt about the

impact of the split between Asquith and Lloyd George. The personal animosity between the two men was decisive in Liberal Party failing to remain

united at a time of significant political, social and economic change in Britain. What caused the dispute? Why was Asquith unable to accept his removal from office? Why did

this dispute lead to irreconcilable differences in the Liberal Party? What caused the split between Asquith and Lloyd George? The continued poor performance of Britain in the war meant that Asquith’s leadership was

considered inadequate. Events leading to the split Easter Rising in Dublin led to a compromise over Home Rule which satisfied neither Liberal

nor Conservative extremes. The Somme was a disaster. Jutland was scarcely an unqualified success. U boat sinkings were

putting a huge strain on the economy. Surrender of a British force at Kut (Mesopotamia) after a campaign characterised by outstanding incompetence.

The failure of the Brusilov Offensive and Britain’s reluctance to explore an Eastern offensive

meant that there was no end in sight of the war. The resignation of Sir John Simon (Home Secretary) and possible resignations of Grey (Foreign

Secretary), Runciman (Board of Trade) and McKenna (Chancellor) over conscription There was also the death of Kitchener in June, which meant that Lloyd George had gone to the

War Office putting him in a more powerful position. Asquith’s own son had also been killed in September whilst serving on the Western Front.

The circumstances Asquith was dependent on support from the other parties within the coalition. By December

1916, it is clear that he had lost that support, though Asquith does not seem to recognise the fact.

There was a need for a new dynamism. The clear alternative was Lloyd George. As minister of

munitions he had: Galvanised production. He had increased the rate of production of ammunition 18 fold;

grenades four hundred fold, machine guns 12 fold and trench mortars 20 fold. Taken over several hundred factories and used the latest machinery and techniques. Standardised production. Used modern financial controls and production analysis.

14

Looked after the welfare of the munitions workers including the use of canteens, washing facilities, recreational facilities.

Was a rift inevitable? Lloyd George offered a compromise to Asquith that he could remain as Prime Minister but

would be excluded from membership of the small three-man war committee responsible for prosecuting the war. This was unacceptable to Asquith.

Unfortunately, whether deliberate or not, details of the compromise were leaked to the press and

Asquith accused Lloyd George of betrayal and ambition. The impact of the war on society: a summary For the first time, the resources of the nation were mobilised for total war. Edwardian and

Victorian society was destroyed forever. DORA (Defence of the Realm Act) gave the government unheard of powers, most of which

were never used. 1.2 million women took up work for the first time. Many were employed in jobs from which

they had been excluded before. Women enjoyed a degree of freedom that had been impossible before 1914. Wearing trousers

and going out alone became acceptable. From 1919, the ‘heroines to scroungers’ campaign took back most jobs, but women retained

much of their freedom 10 million people (including women) served in the armed forces; from 1916, conscription was

introduced for the first time. 704,000 British servicemen lost their lives. In some areas, ‘Pals’ Battalions’ destroyed whole

generations. There war had comparatively little effect on people in Britain. There were 107 air-raids and

about 1500 people were killed. German ship shelled some ports on the east coast. In 1917, War Socialism took over five key industries, coalmining, railways, shipbuilding, food

production and directed labour was introduced to ensure supplies of workers for key industries. Rationing was introduced from the winter of 1917-18, but was never severe. By 1916, it was obvious that many soldiers had lost the right to vote because they no longer met

the requirements of the household franchise. In February 1918, all men were given the right to vote at the age of twenty-one (eighteen if they

had served in the war for the December 1918 election). This was the first time that the vote was available as a right.

15

Women were also given the vote for the first time at the age of thirty if they were householders

or married to householders. The household franchise was therefore retained for women until 1928. Significant numbers of new voters were created and increasingly the trend was to vote Labour

or Conservative. The state of Liberalism in 1918 Asquith was not ready to retire– he had an unshakeable belief in himself. He insisted that he

remain party leader. The timing of the ousting of Asquith meant that it was impossible for the Liberals to hold an

official leadership contest to sort out the row. Other, older, senior Liberals disliked Lloyd George and also disliked the compromise

concerning traditional Liberalism they were having to make to prosecute the war. Simon, Runciman, McKenna all resigned with Asquith.

Lloyd George was able to continue to serve as Prime Minister with the backing of the

Conservative and the Labour parties. Liberals began seeing themselves as the ‘official opposition’ to Lloyd George (Maurice

Debate). Asquith refused offers to become Lord Chancellor and heal the rift in the party under Lloyd

George’s leadership. With the end of the war approaching, Lloyd George accepted the need to hold an election.

However, he had no wish to lose his post as Prime Minister, which he would have to concede if he fought as a Liberal under Asquith’s leadership. His own ambition wouldn’t allow this to happen.

Therefore, with the agreement of the Conservative, he fought under the banner of the Coalition

Government. This led to the issuing of ‘coupons’ to those candidates fighting under this banner. 88% of those endorsed were returned.

The result of the election was a disaster for the Liberal party. 484 National Coalition MP’s were returned (338 Cons, 136 Lloyd George Liberals, 10 Lab), 63

Lab but only 28 Squiffites (Asquith lost his own seat). This increased the hatred felt by the two wings of the party for each other at a time when the

new changes in franchise (1918 Act) together with the huge social and political changes throughout post-war Europe meant that the Liberals needed to be united.

The Labour Party was now clearly the opposition.

16

How and why was the Labour Party able to take advantage of the Liberal Party’s weakness from 1918-24? Factors favouring Labour In 1918 Labour fielded 447 candidates, 63 MP’s returned. Gained 22% of the vote (only gained

8% of vote in 1910). It was the largest opposition party. Doubling of the electorate meant that all working class men enfranchised (together with all

women over 30); Labour had an outstanding opportunity. TU membership had risen to over 8 million (45% of the workforce by 1920). The Party had a clear manifesto ‘Labour and the New Social Order’. It sought nationalisation of

coal, electricity, railways and land. Clause Four became part of party’s constitution. The 1918 Constitution To organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.

To co-operate with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, or other kindred organisations, in joint political or other action in harmony with the party constitution and standing orders.

To give effect as far as may be practicable to the principles from time to time approved by the party conference.

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life.

To co-operate with the labour and socialist organisations in the Commonwealth overseas with a view to promoting the purposes of the party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries.

To co-operate with the labour and socialist organisation in other countries and to support the United Nations Organisation and its various agencies and other international organisations for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation of judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.

Factors hindering Labour MacDonald, Henderson and Snowden all lost their seats in 1918 election. There were big

defeats for anti-war Labour men Parliamentary party dominated by Trade Union sponsored MP’s (all but 8).

17

Parliamentary party was poorly led by W.M.Adamson then J.R.Clynes. Labour’s progress 1918-24 Whilst the Liberals may have been in disarray throughout this crucial period, the efforts made

by the Labour party to displace them as the alternative to the Conservatives should not be under-estimated.

There were over 8 million TU members. TUs affiliated to the Labour Party gave Labour an

organisational and financial base. Labour leaders knew that to be overly-identified with the left would mean that they would be

unelectable unless they had the support of the middle class. Unless they were careful, Labour would be identified as simply the party of the TUs and the

extreme left. Thus they would have to show moderation in language, tactics and membership. Labour leader’s backgrounds MacDonald had originally sought to be a Liberal candidate Henderson had been a Liberal agent and mayor Dalton had been a Fabian at Cambridge Attlee had been a member of the ILP believing the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) to be

too extreme. In Labour’s first government, 8 members of the cabinet had been to Public School including two

to Harrow and two to Winchester. There were also many ex-Liberals in the 1924 administration (including Haldane, Wedgwood-Benn, Trevelyan).

Leadership of Labour was in the hands of those who believed in socialism due to humanitarian

and ethical reasons rather than Marxism or Leninism. Relationship with Communists Communism feared by middle class especially after the events in Russia. Communist party applied for affiliation to Labour Party three times in 1921 – rejected. 1924: communists were barred as candidates and party members. 1928: communists were barred even as delegated to Party conference. Labour was right to distance itself from the communists. When Labour lost votes they tended to

go to the Conservatives.

18

Labour and women The Labour Party made a significant attempt to attract women members and voters. Working class women were the subject of Labour propaganda. Lowering of the franchise age benefited Labour. Membership of the Women’s Labour League

rose from 5,500 to 200,000. Labour’s constitution allocated 4 seats to the women’s section. Labour appointed women agents. Labour and Irish Catholic communities Labour actively sought the Irish catholic vote. Education policies supporting catholic education; supporting the Irish military and enlisting

catholic community leaders. This had electoral benefits in Glasgow (for example) Labour went from 1 seat to 10 seats.

In local elections Labour made significant gains. Between 1913 and 1927 they gained seats at

every local election. Between 1913 and 1924 they averaged 85 gains per year. Labour’s First Administration 1924 Aims MacDonald recognised the over-whelming importance for Labour to demonstrate responsibility

in government and not to fall into the trap set by Liberals. Labour lacked experience; only two Labour MP’s had ministerial experience; MacDonald first

Prime Minister never to have previously held a cabinet post. Labour had to deal with expectation. MacDonald’s prime aim was the annihilation of the

Liberals at the subsequent General Election. Policies No provocative legislation; Wheatley’s Housing Act was both responsible and responding to

need of working class. Minor increases in welfare provision including increase in pensions. Snowden was an orthodox Chancellor. Hard line taken with TUs: e.g. troops would have been used if dock strike had continued. State of Emergency pronounced over tram strike (March).

19

Only a slight reduction in naval expenditure (5 new cruisers instead of 8) Hard line taken with Egyptian nationalists. Indian anarchists, Iraqi rebels bombed. MacDonald (also acting as Foreign Secretary) also signed Geneva Protocol and Dawes Plan –

seen as great successes. There was also de jure recognition given to Bolshevik government. Results Whilst there was some scandal in the Campbell case and controversy over the Zinoviev letter,

nevertheless MacDonald did achieve his electoral aim in the 1924 General Election.

Seats %votes Conservative 419 48.3 Labour 151 33 Liberal 40 17.6

Labour vote had increased slightly. Liberals decimated and could no longer claim to be the alternative government. Young intellectuals and radicals who were politically ambitious now saw their future with the

Labour Party. Labour had experienced power and handled itself creditably. Labour not seen as the poodle of the TU movement. What other factors contributed to the decline of the Liberals from 1918-24? Analysis of Voting Patterns Regional The Liberals continued to do best in the rural areas; Scotland and Wales, the South West.

Unfortunately, whilst these areas are geographically large, the residential population is comparatively small.

However, their decline in industrial areas throughout Britain is evident. Nowhere is this best

demonstrated than in Wales where the percentage of seats won changed from being the fourth best area for Liberals pre-war to the worst area post-war.

Almost all these seats (mainly mining areas) went to Labour. The Liberals also suffered in other

industrial areas such as the Forth Valley (providing the highest percentage of success pre-war), Lancashire, Southern Scotland and Yorkshire.

The influence of the Chamberlains continued to make an impact in the West Midlands (the

Liberals never regained their electoral position after the split in 1886).

20

The southern counties around London had been traditionally a poor hunting ground for Liberals pre-war and this trend continued post-war.

Men Whilst there was a larger electorate after 1918, the Liberal vote didn’t grow proportionately. Within a family, the father, who would have been a Liberal pre-war, by 1922 40% of men were

voting Conservative and 34% Labour. Amongst former Liberals; 25 % had defected to Conservatives and 19% to Labour. This runs

against the hypothesis of a single progressive vote switching its allegiance from the Liberal Party to Labour.

Therefore, the Labour Party must have been able to mobilise support that had not been

previously available to the other two parties. The Working Class Liberals were unable to mobilise working class support. C. 30 % of working class has voted

Conservative in the 20th C. Birmingham returned 77 Unionists and 7 Labour MPs in the inter war period, in 7 elections. Harold Macmillan was MP for Stockton

Not until the 1945 General Election did the majority of the working class vote for the Labour

Party. Women The 1918 Act meant c. 8.4 million women had the vote. By 1924, the Conservatives claimed to have recruited 1 million women members. The Labour

Party had 250,000-300,000 members. Surveys of voting behaviour invariably show that, as a group, women give a higher level of

support to the Conservatives than do men. Women demonstrate a more pronounced religious affiliation than men and this is results in the

tendency to vote Conservative. This resulted in the Conservatives being cushioned against the rise of Labour. Women showed no desire to form their own party. The number of women candidates remained

small. In 1918 there were 17 female candidates representing 1% of the total. By 1929 this figure had

risen to 69 but still only represented 4% of the total number of candidates. In no election until 1987 did the number of women candidates reach more than 10% of the total

figure.

21

Electoral system Tories benefited from 3 cornered fights: 1922 and 1924 Tories in on a split vote. (NB ending of

pre war Liberal-Lab Pacts.) 1922 and 1929-Tories won similar %age of the national vote, but they won 85 seats fewer in

1929 because anti Tory vote was distributed in a different way. Tories could gain a majority in 1922 with 5% less of the national vote than in 1906. Liberal + Labour in 1922 had c. 60% of the vote but only 260 MPs. Labour was unwilling to concede electoral reform to Liberals. Lloyd George refused the opportunity to introduce proportional representation 1918-22. In 1924 MacDonald realised that PR would reduce Tories’ support BUT would give a lifeline to

the Liberals. Balance of constituencies: due to suburban development, Tories may have gained c. 35 seats. Loss of Ireland after 1921: disappearance of Ireland from GB politics benefited Tories. Party organisation There can be little doubt that the Tories produced the most effective political machine of the

three ensuring that their own vote held up at the expense of the other two parties (and the Liberals in particular).

Tories responded better to increase in numbers after 1918. Rules were rationalised and

procedures of national union were formalised. Created Bonar Law Memorial College and the Conservative Research Department, which

supplied the Tories with information even when in opposition. The Tory Party was well financed: it had 352 agents and 99 women organisers! Tories established themselves as the anti-Socialist party. Labour was still based on Union organisation. In 1923 there were only 111 agents. But they did

have a local party in all but three constituencies. 1918-24 – Peacetime revisions and reunion This was the decisive period in the decline of the Liberals. A period of civil war was followed by reunification but this was also the period in which the

Labour Party made its definitive break-through in British politics and established a position that they were never to surrender and from which the Liberals were unable to reassert themselves.

22

A key factor to electoral fortunes was the new voters established by the 1918 Representation of the People Act.

Electorate doubled to 21 million. Industrial working class became the majority in the new mass electorate. 2/3rds of constituencies had a working class majority of 80% or more. Reduction in plural voting; 160,000 business votes; 70,000 university votes 40% of new electorate were women (over the age of 30)

There were a number of factors which determined the final demise of the Liberal Party as an

organisation with genuine aspirations to hold office. Central was the internal bickering and their increased inability to put together a programme

which appealed to the electorate. However, it would be wrong to under-estimate the efforts of the Labour Party to take advantage

of what might have been short-term problems for the Liberals. It is also easy to over-look the role of the Conservative Party in the inter-war period. Finally,

Britain’s electoral system needs to be analysed for it too had a role to play in the ruin of the Liberal Party.

How did the Liberals contribute to their own decline from 1918-24? 1918-22 was a period of civil war. This was exacerbated by defeat in 1918 for many senior

Squiffites including Asquith himself and Sir John Simon. The impact of the split on the Liberal Party’s organisation 2 separate party organisations: Liberals and Asquith’s Independent Liberals (Wee Frees)

Asquith assumed control of Party Central Office (and party activists). Liberal local organisation withered; angered by split. There was little interest taken in

constituencies. The Leamington Liberal conference (May 1920) saw coalitionists walk out after prolonged attack by the Squiffites.

200 Coalition associations set up 1921-22. But 9 losses in by elections of which 8 were to

Labour. Liberal v Liberal at 1919 Spen Valley by election resulted in Labour victory. Liberals came third in 15/24 by-elections where three candidates stood. Coalition Liberals very

much a ‘Ministerial Party’ not a parliamentary one. Lloyd George was keen to fuse Liberal coalitionists and Conservatives but the latter were not

interested. Therefore, attempts at reconciliation not seen as genuine or in time. Why did the Liberals find it difficult to develop new policies? A major problem facing the Liberals was that they didn’t seem to represent anything. The great

pre-WWI causes seemed irrelevant and out of date. WWI brought massive changes in land ownership. 1917-21 25% of England changed hands;

destruction of old aristocratic landholding pattern.

23

By 1924, 36% of land was owned by farm proprietors (only 12.3% in 1908). Liberals pre-war

Land campaign now seemed one of persecution. Welsh church settled on a compromise basis in 1919. Tighter restrictions on licensing hours

during WWI meant there was less now for Nonconformist conscience to worry about. In Ireland, there was outcry over the use of Black and Tans and coercion. Troops were also used

by Lloyd George government in industrial disputes. Reconciliation 1922 Election result:

Votes % Candidates Seats Conservatives 5.5m 38.5 482 344 Labour 4.2m 29.7 414 142 Liberal 2.6m 18.9 333 60 Nat Liberal (Lloyd George) 1.4m 9.4 144 53

Why were the Liberals in third place? The working class saw Labour as radical alternative rather than Liberals. Liberals no longer had

an electoral base. Liberal electoral collapse continued at local elections. Liberal activists were getting older. In Wolverhampton, the average age of a Liberal councillor

was 49; for Labour it was 39. However, Baldwin called an election in December 1923 over the issue of Free Trade. This was

probably the one issue that could unite the Liberals. Lloyd George and Asquith shared the same platform in Paisley.

Lloyd George prepared to contribute £160,000 to Liberal election fund (though less than asked

for by Asquith causing resentment). 1923 Election result:

Votes % Seats Conservative 5.5m 38.1 258 Labour 4.4m 30.5 191 Liberal 4.3m 29.6 159

Liberals won 13 seats from Labour but also lost 23 seats to Labour. Crucially, they lost seats in

areas like Derby, South Wales and Leicester where they were unlikely to win them back. Most gains were made in rural or cathedral constituencies which were likely to return to the

Conservatives. Over 100 Liberal seats had majorities under 2000, which made them very fragile. Labour in power 1924 Labour could only take office if supported by Liberals.

24

Asquith believed that Lab in power would be irresponsible and would pander to the TUs. Liberals would be in control of the timing of a Labour government’s defeat and the subsequent

election. Asquith misjudged both MacDonald’s ability and his agenda – didn’t realise that MacDonald’s

prime objective was the elimination of the Liberals. Asquith and Lloyd George were still divided; Lloyd George the only ‘ideas man’ in the party

but Asquith still leader. Moderate Labour and radical Liberalism now looked very similar. Labour government eventually defeated but had acquitted themselves well. In the 1924 election campaign, Liberals lacked organisation and Lloyd George was reluctant to

part with money ensuring that there were over 100 fewer candidates. Asquith lost his seat (again!).

1924 Election Result:

Votes % Candidates Seats Conservative 47.3 552 419 Labour 5.4m 33 500 151 Liberal 17.6 340 40

Was the decline in the Liberal Party inevitable? The argument in favour The Liberal Party never recovered from its war time divisions. The Liberal Party would have

been better off had it suffered electoral defeat as a united party in 1918 rather than enduring the schism with many continuing in a coalition government dominated by the Conservatives.

At the very least this would have sorted out the leadership crisis and allowed the Liberals to

fight as one party at subsequent elections. Lloyd George’s Liberal credentials were under-mined during his period of office by the

atrocities committed by the ‘Black and Tans’, his handling of industrial relation and the honours’ scandal.

Lloyd George’s ‘fund’ was a continual sore for the Liberal Party. His refusal to hand over to

official Liberal Party coffers this fund until the Party had been reorganised to his own satisfaction was seen for what it was – a blatant device for increasing his own power. It was deeply resented by Asquith’s supporters.

The ‘fund’ also meant that the ability of the Liberals to be the guardians of public morality was

severely under-mined. The ‘fund’ also meant that other potential financial donors to the Liberals were reluctant to

contribute to the Party’s coffers. The refusal of Asquith to renounce the leadership of the Liberals even after he had lost his seat

yet again (1924) but to continual as nominal leader form the Lords with Lloyd George leading the parliamentary party in the Commons continued the schism.

25

By the time the leadership crisis had been resolved and the Liberals were able to fight a well

organised, spirited, well funded campaign backed by a thoughtful and rational manifesto the damage had already been done and their base level was too low from which to recover electoral credibility.

Even Lloyd George himself believed the best that could be achieved was that the Liberals might

hold the balance of power in the next parliament. Liberal factionalism was a symptom of a deeper problem. To what extent was Lloyd George

really committed to the Liberal cause? His failure to fuse the Liberal Coalitionists to the Tory Party meant that he returned to the Liberal fold reluctantly.

Liberal ideology was not suited to the post-war world. The increase in the franchise was always

likely to be far more beneficial to the Labour Party than to the Liberals. Labour was able to exploit its class appeal. Liberals tended to appeal to more educated votes.

Very few Liberal MPs had a working class background giving the appearance of being a party

on the right. Some MPs and many activists were upset by Asquith’s decision to allow MacDonald to form an

administration in 1924. These disaffected Liberals were later to join the Tories. The great Liberal causes of the past, Free Trade, Irish Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment,

ownership of land etc no longer seemed relevant in the post-war world. The Liberals needed to re-invent themselves and proved incapable of doing so.

The patronising attitude towards the Labour Party meant that Asquith and Lloyd George under-

estimated both their threat and their ability. No where was this more clear than the disastrous decision to let Labour into power in 1924.

Labour set a trap for the Liberals into which they willingly fell with consequences from which they never recovered.

The loss of several thousand disillusioned radicals to the Labour Party shifted the political

centre of gravity within the Liberal Party making it less likely to appeal to working class voters. Liberal strong holds now consisted on sparsely populated rural areas – their three strongest areas

only returned thirty-two MPs. The Liberals lacked the security of the electoral base of the other two parties; for example the

mining seats (Labour) and Outer London (the Tories). The argument against In 1923, the Liberals received 4,311,147 votes compared to Labour’s 4,438,508 votes. This

shows that the Liberals had a very healthy support. What denied them their rightful representation was the electoral system. Liberalism had a post-war relevance. The League of Nations was popular amongst the public as

was the Liberal approach to international affairs particularly amongst women voters.

26

Lloyd George gave the Liberals an economic direction. Liberal Summer Schools (begun 1921) gave them an intellectual base and Lloyd George used

them from the mid-1920’s as a ‘think-tank’. Liberals had the boldness and energy to confront what was an unprecedented economic

situation. Liberals were seeking to go beyond simple class division over the future of British industry. Instead of there being an inevitability about the decline, a series of mistakes was made that were responsible for the decline of the Liberals. As late as 1923-4 there was a good chance of the Liberals re-establishing themselves. In 1924, Asquith’s plan was to put Labour into power, for the Labour administration to perform

disastrously which would result in the King turning to him as the clear alternative; the most experienced and able of the party leaders.

This didn’t happen, of course. The rot set in once Labour had been put into office. Both Asquith and Lloyd George failed to ensure that a proper deal was struck with Labour so

that either the Liberals could be clearly seen to influencing the Labour government or the public could clearly see who had responsibility.

The internal squabbling that took place between the Liberal factions was at the root of the

Liberal decline but it wasn’t based on a deep-rooted ideological divide. The Asquith- Lloyd George dispute was largely a personal vendetta and the Liberals can be said

to be the creator of their own misfortunes. The Liberals had the opportunity to introduce proportional representation. The Speaker’s

Conference, whose report laid the foundation of the 1918 Representation of the People Act, unanimously recommended PR.

It was Lloyd George’s (as Prime Minister) decision not to take these recommendations further.

It was the failure of Liberal leaders to grasp the importance of electoral reform that led to their party’s undoing.

Had they had a system of PR then they would have gained 217 seats in 1923 and 74 in 1924. Throughout the 1920s, the Liberals would have held the balance of power. Votes for Liberals

would not have been seen as wasted votes. Liberalism could have continued had the Liberals and Tories fused under Lloyd George.

Ironically, the collapse of talks occurred because of the hostility of most Liberal coalitionist MPs and ministers rather than senior Conservatives.

All these factors created a chain of events leading to the demise of the Liberals.

27

C: What demands were there for constitutional change and how important were they for democracy and the future of political parties Constitutional Conflict: the Liberals and the House of Lords

Why was there a crisis? There were a number of long term reasons for the crisis. The Conservatives had used the House of Lords to block the First Home Rule Bill. In 1906-8 a series of key acts of policy (education, licensing, plural voting) had been defeated in

the Lords. Balfour made no secret that he was using the massive majority of the Unionists in the Lords to

stop the Liberals. But the key factor in the crisis was the 1909 Budget. A crisis flared up for the Liberals in 1909 because of the budget- the so-called ‘People’s

Budget’. It was estimated that about £6 million would be needed to pay for the introduction of the old age pensions.

The government had underestimated the number of people who would be entitled to claim Old

Age Pensions.

The budget was presented by Lloyd George as a ‘war budget’ which would fight poverty and would do so by raising taxes.

Monies also had to be raised in the budget to pay for the defence of the country by building the

new class of battleship- the ‘Dreadnought’. The budget proposed an increase in:

Death duties Income tax for those earning more than £3,000 Duties on petrol, spirits, tobacco (a new road fund licence was introduced)

Furthermore: Supertax was imposed on those earning more than £5,000 per year. A tax of 20% on land sold at a higher value than the purchase price.

The budget seemed to be aimed at the rich. It was opposed by the Conservatives and rejected by

the House of Lords, which in doing so broke a constitutional convention of 200 years. There is debate about Lloyd George’s motives in introducing the budget:

Did he engineer a crisis in order to reduce the power of the Lords? Was the budget part of his plan to revive the fortunes of the Liberal Party?

28

Was the budget a means to introduce reforms which had been previously blocked? (See above)

There was fierce argument and debate in parliament throughout 1909. The Conservatives

complained that the budget was a ‘class budget’. In all aspects they said the proposed taxes were aimed at the rich especially the landowner.

A Budget Protest League was set up and it was promoted in the Harmsworth Press. Its

counterpart was the Budget League with Churchill as its President. There was much vitriol in the speeches of the leading protagonists in the summer and autumn of

1909 and Balfour was prepared to accept advice from the extremists in his party and thus the budget was rejected.

The budget was not passed and Asquith called a general election in January 1910. The result was: Liberals 275 seats Conservatives 273 seats Irish Nationalists 82 seats Labour 40 seats.

The Liberals remained in office with the support of the Irish Nationalists who expected Home

Rule to be introduced whenever the power of the Lords was reduced. The budget became law following the election. Asquith then introduced a Parliament Bill which would limit the power of the House of Lords

and would prevent them from rejecting a money bill. Other bills would only be delayed by two years.

Asquith intended to ask the king (Edward VII) to create new peers so that the Conservative

majority in the Lords would be surpassed. However, King Edward died in May 1910 and the crisis was held in abeyance for a period.

A Constitutional Conference in July 1910 failed to break the deadlock and a second general

election was held in December that year. There was reduced interest in the election issues this time and the number of people voting fell

by one million. Some of the constitutional issues at stake were not always fully understood by the electorate. The result was:

Liberals 272 seats Conservatives 272 seats Irish Nationalists 84 seats Labour 42 seats.

The Liberals continued in office.

29

The King had agreed before the December 1910 election that he would create more peers but Balfour and Lansdowne (leader of the Unionists in the Lords) were unaware of this.

The Parliament Bill received its third reading in the Commons in May 1911 but it was savaged

in the Lords. The Unionists were informed in early July that King George was prepared to create as many

peers as were necessary in order to secure the passage of the Parliament Bill through the Lords. Two groups emerged within the Conservatives in the Lords- The ‘ditchers’, led by Lord Curzon, who were prepared to fight all parts of the bill The ‘hedgers’, led by Lord Halsbury, who were prepared to abstain and thereby accept the

bill, knowing that they would retain some residual powers.

The third reading of the Parliament Bill in the Lords saw the Liberals win by a majority of 17, 37 Unionists and 13 bishops had voted with the Liberals. There was now no need to create new peers.

The Parliament Act of 1911 ensured that in future, finance bills could not be rejected and other

bills could be delayed for only two years. In addition, the life of a parliament was reduced to five years.

The Unionists could console themselves that they could reduce the power of a government to

three years- the final two years could be subjected to the new veto. At the same time, the Commons voted a Resolution which was to pay MPs a salary of £400 per

annum. Together, Asquith and Lloyd had provided an excellent partnership for the Liberal Party.

Asquith had dealt with the monarchy with aplomb and Lloyd George had been able to put forward the issues to the people at large.

There were now no obstacles to further Liberal social reforms and the government was also in a

position to introduce Home Rule for Ireland.

The NUWSS This was run in a democratic way with committees and a chairwoman to prepare women for

when they would actually choose their MPs. Their main aims was to use peaceful tactics that would persuade the general public and

parliament that women ought to have the vote because they could act in a responsible and sensible way.

They achieved publicity through their newspaper, The Common Cause, and organised marches

and petitions. In 1910 they raised a petition of 280,000 signatures. Four years later, they arranged a

‘pilgrimage’ with women marching on London from several different directions and meeting in London on 26 July.

30

From 1909 there was a large increase in membership of the NUWSS. Martin Pugh believes this was because it allowed women to express their support for the vote while, at the same time, showing their disapproval of suffragette tactics.

The number of NUWSS branches rose from 33 in October 1907 to 478 in February 1914. In 1912 the NUWSS made a pact with the Labour Party under which the woman’s organisation

set up an electoral fighting fund and pledged itself to support Labour candidates in elections where they were fighting against known opponents of women’s suffrage.

Through this pact the NUWSS became involved in a number of by-elections between 1912-14

in which the Liberals lost a number of seats. The Women’s Freedom League (WFL) This was set up by Charlotte Despard in 1907. She had been a member of the WSPU but

believed they had become too violent. It soon had 64 branches throughout Britain and used tactics half-way between the peaceful

methods of the NUWSS and the militancy of the WSPU. Members took part in marches and organised petitions but were prepared to break the law as

long as it did not lead to violence. In 1911 members refused to take part in the census using the slogan ‘No vote, No Census. From 28 October 1909, WFL members chained themselves to the railings outside the House of

Commons and picketed the members. A total of 3,000 hours were spent picketing in all weathers.

They also picketed Downing Street and were arrested and imprisoned. Others chained

themselves to the ‘grille’ of the ‘ladies gallery’ in the House of Commons. They refused to pay taxes arguing that they were not represented in parliament. Muriel Matters, a member of the WFL, hired an airship and flew over the Houses of Parliament

throwing out carrots and propaganda leaflets. The WFL certainly gained much publicity for votes for women. Unfortunately, many saw their

actions as irresponsible and it convinced many men and some women that women were not ‘sensible’ enough to deserve the vote.

The WSPU The Women’s Social and Political Union, known as the suffragettes, was set up in Manchester

in 1903.by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters, Christabel and Sylvia. Emmeline’s husband, Richard, had been involved in the establishment of the Women’s

Franchise League. Emmeline became an active member of the Independent Labour Party. In 1903 Emmeline left the ILP, disillusioned with its half-hearted approach to women’s

suffrage. She wanted an organisation which would concentrate exclusively on votes for women.

31

Emmeline also believed in more militant methods. She argued that the peaceful persuasion of the suffrage societies had achieved very little and that these societies were in decline in the later nineteenth century.

This claim was mainly suffragette propaganda and was not justified. The NUWSS was set up in

1897 whilst some women gained the vote in local elections. Emmeline realised that only a government-sponsored suffrage bill had any chance of success.

WSPU tactics were to pressurise the government into such a bill. In 1905 the WSPU moved to London and with their tactics aimed at the Liberals who won a

landslide victory in the general election of 1906. WSPU methods and tactics These changed and became more extreme during the period of 1905 to 1914. From 1905 to 1908 the emphasis was on marches, rallies and pestering Liberal candidates at

elections. This began in October 1905 when Annie Kenney and Christabel Pankhurst were arrested after interrupting a Liberal free trade meeting.

Such tactics did little to convert the Liberal Government who argued that the suffragettes only

represented a small proportion of women. From 1908 to 1910 the suffragettes began to throw stones at the windows of Downing Street

and London clubs. They ambushed Cabinet Ministers and sometimes attacked them. How did the Liberals attempt to deal with the WSPU? The government responded from 1909 by longer jail sentences and suffragettes retaliated with

hunger strikes. The authorities responded with force-feeding, which, in turn, provided even greater sympathy

and publicity. The problem was that the Liberals were divided over the issue of women’s suffrage. Lloyd

George and Churchill favoured giving women the vote, but Asquith appeared to be against. In 1910, a compromise was suggested and suffragette activity was suspended when the

government offered to introduce legislation to give women the vote. It was intended to be a cross-party initiative.

MPs from all parties joined the ‘Conciliation Committee’, which then produced the Conciliation

Bill. This was a compromise that was intended to give some women the vote. There were only two main clauses in the Bill. The first would give the vote to all women who

owned a house, part of a house or just a room. The only condition was that they must have complete control over it. This meant that a husband and

wife could not both vote if they lived in the same house.

32

The owners of shops would also be able to vote, providing their premises were worth at least £10 a year in rent.

These were strange conditions and would have meant that almost all working women would be left

without the vote. The Conciliation Bill was supported by the WSPU. The Suffragettes were interested in getting the

vote for some women. They believed that there was a principle at stake. But the Bill was attacked by Lloyd George and Churchill, amongst others. They believed that the

Bill would play into the hands of the Conservative Party by creating many more Conservative voters.

In the end the Conciliation Bill passed its Second Reading by a majority of 299 votes to 189, but

then, like all of the others, got no further. The government refused to make time available for it in the House of Commons.

The crisis between the Commons and the Lords led to a second general election in December 1910.

The results were very similar to those of January. Immediately after the election the Conciliation Committee was reformed and a second Conciliation

Bill was produced. This suffered the same fate as the first. It won a majority of 167 in the Commons, but then got no

further. Asquith promised that in the next session of Parliament he would introduce a bill in favour of adult

suffrage. An amendment would then be introduced giving the vote to women. This would be the Franchise

and Redistribution Bill Asquith’s proposal was attacked by the WSPU. Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst both

condemned it as betraying women. The reason for their opposition was that they wanted women to be given the vote on their own,

rather than have it tacked on to a bill in favour of men. The result was a new outbreak of violence by the Suffragettes. Only a few days later, the WSPU

organised a rally outside the Houses of Parliament, which ended in a fight with the police. 200 women were arrested, including Emmeline Pethwick-Lawrence. Emily Wilding Davison also

invented a new form of militancy in December 1911, when she set light to letterboxes by dropping rags soaked with paraffin into them. But the real campaign began in the New Year.

The Suffragettes smashed the windows of property in the West End stores of London and

carried out arson attacks on buildings. They set fire to the country houses of Cabinet ministers, attacked golf courses with acid and

setting fire to pillar-boxes. Asquith and colleagues were assaulted.

33

In 1913 Emily Wilding Davison was killed when she threw herself in front of the King’s horse

at the Derby. Many more suffragettes were arrested and went on hunger strike. The government responded, in

1913, with the Prisoners Temporary Discharge Act (Cat and Mouse Act). This allowed hunger strikers to be released on licence if their health was threatened and then re-

arrested if their health improved. Other violence included slashing works of art in art galleries, pouring acid on golf greens,

cutting telegraph wires and destroying plants at Kew gardens. Differing views about the reasons for Suffragette failure Some historians such as Liddington and Norris argue that membership of the WSPU was

confined almost exclusively to upper and middle-class women. The suffragettes failed to attract working class support. This view, however, has been

questioned by Paula Bartley and June Hannam who point out that there were leading, working class members of the WSPU such as Annie Kenney.

The WSPU also built up strong branches in working class areas of London. Indeed many of the

activitists who were arrested and went on hunger strike were working-class women. The work of other suffrage societies Why did the Liberal Party fail to give women the vote? There was lack of agreement on the impact of the suffragette movement on the aims and

reactions of the Liberal governments and leaders. One school of thought believes that it forced Asquith, an opponent of female suffrage, to make

concessions, especially in 1912. Others believe that the violence made it almost impossible for Asquith to give way. Government reaction to the violence – forced feeding and the use of force against Liberal

demonstrations – is seen as a typical, traditional male reaction – an attempt to put women in their place.

At first, especially 1903-8, the Women’s Liberal Federation gave support to Liberal candidates

and the Liberal governments. However many female members began to resign from the Federation, especially 1912-14, and

change their allegiance to the Labour Party, believing it offered greater prospects for female suffrage.

34

Why was the franchise reformed in 1918? Loss of the household suffrage • In 1916 a new register of voters was compiled. The government realised that many men who had

served in the war were no longer able to vote. • All of the volunteers and conscripts had lost their property qualification, as they had not been

resident in the country. • Men got the vote because they had been conscripted during the war and forced to fight and die for

their country. • It would have looked very unfair if men who had fought for their country had lost the right to vote. • A special clause in the Representation of the People Act (1918) actually allowed men aged 18 and

over to vote in the December 1918 general election if they had served in the armed services during the war.

Votes for women In 1918 all men got the vote at 21 and women got the vote at 30. But women had to be

householders or married to a householder. This was a good opportunity for the government to give the vote to women as well. Herbert

Asquith, who had been against votes for women before 1914, spoke in favour in 1916. Women also got the vote because of all the work that they had done during the war. They had

proved that they were responsible. It did not appear as if the government was giving in to the threats of the Suffragettes.

The government may also have been concerned at the possibility of a revival of the Suffragettes. Activity had been suspended in 1914, but Christabel Pankhurst had kept the Suffragette movement

going during the war. At the last minute the government realised that although women had been given the vote, they had

not been given the right to stand to be MPs. The Eligibility of Women Act was passed, which allowed women to stand for Parliament. Ireland The Liberals had introduced Home Rule Bills in 1886 and 1893 but on both occasions had been

unsuccessful. The Conservative Party opposed both Bills and the first was defeated in the House of Commons and the second in the House of Lords.

The first bill in 1886 had also split the Liberals and condemned them to opposition for most of

the next twenty years. In Ireland, the impact of the attempts to provide Home Rule had been to polarise the two

religious communities in Ireland. This polarisation could also be seen in politics.

35

The fear of Catholicism grew in the Ulster and the idea that ‘Home Rule’ was ‘Rome Rule’

developed. Ulster Protestants had no wish to be dominated by a Catholic majority and were keen to oppose any bill which threatened the union.

There had been a change in Irish nationalism in the early twentieth century. There was a growth

of Gaelic clubs and a revival of the Gaelic language. Sinn Fein was formed in 1905 and the Ulster Unionist Council also appeared that year set up by

Sir Edward Carson. Ireland had not been a key issue in the 1906 election and Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith

were in favour of changes but only if they were introduced gradually. An attempt to introduce an Irish Councils Bill had failed in 1907.

The elections of 1910 meant that the Irish Nationalists (led by Redmond) held the balance of

power at Westminster and once the Parliament Act was passed the following year, the introduction of the bill was not far away.

April 1912, the Third Home Rule Bill was introduced. The Bill proposed that: Ireland was to send 42 MPs to Westminster Westminster was to have jurisdiction over finance, defence and foreign affairs Parliament in Dublin was to have two houses- Senate and an elected House of Commons.

The Bill was despised in the north where the Ulster Unionists, led by Edward Carson, were

determined to reject it. Bonar Law and the Conservative Party were ready to give support to them.

Asquith felt that Carson’s threats about resistance were examples of bluff and that Carson was a

politician who believed in democracy. Asquith was less sure about Carson’s deputy- James Craig.

Bonar Law’s tactics were understandable. He sought to delay the introduction of the Bill and

hoped to bring about an election which he felt that the Unionists would win. He addressed a meeting in Belfast of over 100,000 people in early April 1912 which set down

his intention of opposing Home Rule and supporting the people of Ulster. In September 1912, opposition to Home Rule in Ulster was shown in ‘Covenant Day’, when

500,000 men and women signed the ‘Solemn League and Covenant’. The Covenant openly stated that signatories would use ‘all means necessary to defeat the

conspiracy to set up a Home Rule parliament in Ireland’. The signatories of the Covenant also indicated that they would not recognise the authority of the

Dublin parliament and would make their own arrangements for the running of Ulster. In January 1913, the Ulster Volunteers (U.V.) was set up in and was led by ex-soldiers from the

British army.

36

The U.V. began to arm and drill and the Ulster Unionists hoped the force would be able to resist the government and would also force Asquith to withdraw the Home Rule Bill.

The response of the nationalists in the south was to form their own paramilitary organisation-

the Irish Volunteers. Its Chief of Staff was Professor Eoin Macneill and by May 1914, the I.V. had about 100,000

members. The I.V. sought to ensure that Home Rule was introduced. The growing crisis 1912-1914

The Conservative leader, Bonar Law, continued to support publicly the Ulster Unionists. In July

1912, at a meeting held at Blenheim Palace, he said:

‘I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster can go in which I would not be prepared to support them, and in which, in my belief, they would not be supported by the British people.’

It appeared to some that Bonar Law and therefore the Conservatives were advocating armed

insurrection in Ulster. The Conservatives pointed out that the Liberals had no mandate to grant Home Rule and that the

government was, in forcing Ulster to accept change, ignoring the rights of a large number of British people.

In June 1912, a Liberal backbencher (Agar-Robartes) put forward a compromise to the Home

Rule Bill. It was suggested that four counties of Ulster should be excluded from the Bill. Asquith did not

support the amendment and Redmond certainly did not countenance it. A possible solution was missed.

The situation grew increasingly bitter not only in Ulster, but in the House of Commons. Asquith

offered no solution and was prepared to ‘wait and see’ what transpired. He did nothing to stop the development of the paramilitary groups and did not arrest those

politicians who openly spoke of open insurrection. Asquith’s inaction seemed to exacerbate matters- his strength in the Constitutional Crisis was

absent here. Party leaders held talks with King George V in September 1913 but they came to nothing. In October 1913, the Irish Citizen Army was formed in Dublin and its socialist leader, James

Larkin, put forward ideas which seemed to herald revolution and violence. By January 1914, the Ulster Unionist Council was acting almost like a government and had

committees which dealt with food, transport and communications. Asquith was able to persuade Redmond in early March 1914 to accept an Amending Bill which

would permit any Ulster county to opt out of Home Rule for six years. Carson immediately rejected this and his comment reflected the view of the Unionists-

37

‘We do not want a sentence of death with a stay of execution for six years’.

The Amending Bill was a compromise which failed and the Liberal government was faced with

enforcing Home Rule. Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, moved destroyers to the north-east coast of Ireland

and troops were moved to defend munitions stores. There were rumours that the government was about to arrest Ulster Unionist leaders and

Churchill’s combative speech at Bradford in March indicated the mood of the Cabinet. Churchill said the Ulster Council was

‘…engaged in a treasonable conspiracy. Let us …put these grave matters to the proof.’

The Curragh crisis

The British army based in Ulster now faced direct involvement in the question of Home Rule.

The issue here was that many of the officers were, in fact, Ulstermen and there was some concern about asking them to take action against their fellow countrymen.

The Commanding Officer in Ireland, General Sir Arthur Paget, met the Secretary of State for

War, Colonel Seely, in London and it was agreed that if action was taken against Ulster, then those officers who had homes there could ‘disappear’ and those officers who refused to obey orders would be removed.

When Paget returned to Ireland, he informed his officers of the decision made in London. 58

officers of the Cavalry Brigade reported to Paget that they would rather resign than be called upon to fight in Ulster.

Asquith could not rely on the army and so any military plans he had were immediately dropped. Asquith was severely criticised over the so-called Curragh Mutiny. Seely resigned and Asquith

took over as Secretary of State for War. Asquith was criticised on all sides and Bonar Law put down a vote of censure on the

government in the Commons, but events overtook this. By the end of April 1914, the Ulster Volunteers were armed. About 25,000 rifles and 3 million

rounds of ammunition were smuggled in at Larne, Bangor and Donaghadee without the British government knowing about it. Asquith was aware that the Nationalists in the south were incensed by the gun-smuggling.

The Amending Bill was introduced on June 23 (this repeated the offer of March) and after

further changes, all nine counties of Ulster were to be excluded from Home Rule. Asquith was keen to have a solution but neither Carson nor Redmond was in the mood for

compromise. A conference was held at Buckingham Palace from 21-24 July but it achieved nothing.

Two days after the end of the conference, the Irish Volunteers attempted to smuggle guns at

Howth, outside Dublin.

38

The police and British troops did try to stop them and when the troops returned to Dublin

fighting broke out and three Irish Volunteers were killed and thirty-eight were injured. The Irish Volunteers were not slow to see that the authorities had done nothing when the Ulster

Volunteers had been smuggling guns. Civil war in Ireland now seemed the only possible outcome but the British government was

‘saved’ by the outbreak of war in Europe. The Home Rule Bill became law on 18th September 1914 but it was not put into operation as a

result of the war. A Suspensory Act delayed it ‘until the end of the European War.’ The Liberal government had not really understood the nature of the problem in Ireland and

Asquith never really appreciated the fears of the people of Ulster. Moreover, he had been too ready to let things happen rather than pursue a pro-active policy.

Ireland continued to be a source of trouble for the government during and after the war- the

Easter Rising 1916, problems over conscription in 1918 and the War of Independence showed the issue would not go away.

Ireland during the First World War The majority of Irish Volunteers joined the ‘National Volunteers’, which had been formed by John

Redmond in support of the war effort. 135,000 southern Irish volunteered to fight, but Kitchener refused to allow the symbol of the harp

on the badge of the Irish Division, while the Red hand was on the Ulster Division. Eight Unionists were in the Coalition Government in 1915. These events began to turn the tide against Westminster. A minority of Irish Volunteers (10,000 out of 180,000) backed the IRB opposition to the war and

supported the decision to use the opportunity for insurrection against Westminster. In 1914-15, Republican newspapers opposed recruitment and encouraged the use of force. Money

was raised in the USA and Casement made contact with Berlin. The Germans promised to send arms to Ireland between 20 and 23 April 1916. After a strike in Dublin, the ‘Citizen Army’ had been formed; it was led by James Connolly. He

planned a rising on Easter Monday after German arms were landed, along with Casement. Easter Monday was chosen because many British officers would be at Fairyhouse Races. What went wrong with the Easter Rising? The German ship was intercepted on 20 April and destroyed. Casement was arrested along with

several commanders.

39

Eoin MacNeill, leader of the Irish Volunteers, who knew nothing of the planned Rising, called off all demonstrations, but extremists went ahead regardless.

About 1,500 turned up and seized the post office but all forces surrendered on 29 April. Rebels

were booed as they were marched through the streets. The public mood changed when three rebels were executed by General Maxwell. Further

executions were stopped by Asquith, but the damage had been done. Lloyd George’s Plan In the aftermath, Lloyd George drew up a plan for home rule. It would be introduced at once but

with the Six Counties (Ulster) remaining in the United Kingdom until after the war. An Imperial Conference would then decide the permanent fate of Ireland. All parties at first agreed, but the Nationalists withdrew when they realised that there would be no

hope of the inclusion of Ulster in a united Ireland and that the military rule of Maxwell would have to continue until the end of the war.

Irish sympathies were further alienated by the imposition of conscription in 1918 and the failure to

offer any acceptable form of Home Rule. Ireland after the war In the Coupon Election, the Nationalists were almost wiped out. The results in Ireland were: Sinn Fein 73 Unionists 26 Nationalists 6

In January 1919, 37 Irish MPs met in Dublin and announced the formation of the Irish Republic.

On the same day, two policemen were shot dead. This was the beginning of a hit and run war which lasted for the next year. The Republicans

attacked the army and the police to seize weapons and to destroy the morale of the forces of law and order.

British reactions attracted support in the USA and de Valera went their in 1919, after escaping from

prison in Britain. Some extreme US politicians actually wanted to declare war on Britain and use Ireland as a base.

This was one reason why British politicians were very wary of home rule: Ireland had been used by

foreign powers in the past as a conduit for an attack on Britain. The British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, solved the problem by dividing Ireland in the

Government of Ireland Act of 1920. Ulster, with its predominantly Protestant population, would remain part of the United Kingdom,

but the remainder of Ireland was given independence.

40

In fact the solution was not quite as simple as that. Ulster had nine counties, but only six were separated to form Northern Ireland, as the new province became known. Three counties of Ulster were allotted to the new Irish Free State.

The Act was not accepted by the Republicans, who continued their attacks. The British

Government replied in kind by organising the ‘Black and Tans’, ex-servicemen, who used the same tactics.

After a year, the Republicans were forced to the negotiating table in June 1921. Agreement was

reached in December. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed. This settled the relationship between the Irish Free State

and Britain. The Free State became a dominion of the British Empire and Commonwealth, with a Governor-

General appointed by Westminster. This gave it exactly the same status as Australia and Canada In Britain, the Government of Ireland Act was accepted with grudging approval. Most

politicians accepted that Lloyd George had made the best of a bad job. In Ireland the reaction was very different. A civil war broke out between republicans who

supported the terms of the Act and those who did not. The supporters won, but a fundamental problem had been created. To many Irish the division

into North and South was unacceptable. When the Irish constitution was written it included a clause that stated that Ireland laid claim to

the whole island. This implied that Ireland intended to take possession of Northern Ireland in some way or another.

41

D: What were the causes, nature and impact of social reform in the period from 1900 to 1924? The work of Booth in London and Rowntree in York indicated that there was probably about

one third of Britain’s urban dwellers living in absolute poverty. The publication of their reports in 1901-2 showed that the main cause of poverty was low pay

and not idleness or profligacy. There was therefore little that the poor could do to improve themselves. Many Liberals were shocked by these findings.

Rowntree also showed that poverty was cyclical. Other than as a result of low pay, the most

likely occasions when extreme hardship would be faced were when a family was growing, unemployment and sickness and old age. These were to be the main targets of the Liberals from 1908.

The main form of help for the poor was the Poor Law, which had been set up by the Poor Law

Amendment Act in 1834. In 1900 there were about 140,000 people receiving poor relief in workhouses and another 840,000 receiving outdoor relief.

The extension of the franchise in 1884-85 meant that the Liberals had to offer policies which

would be attractive to the working class voters. The case for the state to provide some kind of assistance for these people was growing stronger. Why did the state become involved? The Boer War (1899-1902) showed the poor health of recruits. 37% of recruits were refused

entry to the army on grounds of physical unfitness. In some city centres the number who failed the medical reached 90%.

The medical issue revealed by the Boer War was so serious that the results were kept secret

until after the war. It then contributed to the debate over ‘National Efficiency’. At the turn of the century there was a fierce debate about ‘National Efficiency’. The argument

presented was that if Britain was to continue as the leading world power, then steps would have to be taken to ensure the health and fitness of the population.

The state of the nation’s health was contrasted with that of the German people, who enjoyed

various social benefits, including unemployment and sick pay.

There had already been some attempt to improve the health of the nation. School medical inspections had been introduced in 1907 after teachers had reported that pupils were unable to concentrate in class.

The Committee on Physical Deterioration reported in 1905 and this had led to the 1907 Act.

Medical inspections had resulted in the discovery that working class children were as much as 8 cm shorter than those from the middle class.

There was some questioning of past Liberal taxation policies. The previous Liberal government

of 1893-5 had followed a policy of taxing ‘unproductive’ wealth. This prompted some Liberals after 1906 to advocate financing social reform by such a means of taxation.

42

The concept of ‘New’ Liberalism – this emerged from changing attitudes within the Liberal Party. It was held that state intervention was justifiable. Many Liberals could number themselves as ‘New’ and some were also influenced by those ideas mentioned above.

There was growing belief that collectivism could solve some of the social issues of the time. Moreover, some Liberals realised that there had to be policies which would attract the vote of

the working classes. There were about 53 working class MPs in parliament in 1906. The publication of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1909 meant that the issue of

poverty was quite high profile and remained on the political agenda. When the Commission published its findings, two reports were issued- the Majority and

Minority Reports. Both were in favour of a complete reorganisation of the Poor Law. The Majority Report of the Commission was in favour of moving away from the principle of

deterrence and suggested that in future, the Poor Law should prevent and cure destitution rather than approach it in a punitive manner.

Lloyd George was a catalyst. There is much debate whether Lloyd George was a ‘New’ Liberal,

but he was aware that Liberalism would have to change if it was to succeed in the future. He could offer a radical way forward which would tackle the political and social issues of the

time. The formation of the LRC, the Liberal-Labour electoral pact of 1903 with the resulting 30 seats

gained by Labour in the 1905 election meant that the two party structure was facing a genuine threat from a third party.

There are differing views of Campbell-Bannerman as Prime Minister. Some historians see him as cautious and have said that he allowed the Liberals to drift

aimlessly. Others see him as an able politician who maintained the unity of the Liberal Party and laid the

foundations of the reforms of 1906-11. There were some pieces of reforming legislation passed in the early years of the ministry. These

concentrated on trade unions and the welfare of children. 1906- Workmen’s Compensation Act (extended the 1897 Act) 1906- Trades Disputes Act. This reversed the Taff Vale Judgment (workers were now not to be

liable for damages incurred in a strike). These two acts have often been interpreted as a means of appeasing the Labour MPs and also

the Labour Movement. The Liberals had been committed to some sort of action after the MacDonald-Gladstone Pact of 1903.

1906- -Education (Provision of School Meals) Act, local authorities could provide free school

meals for children if their parents were too poor to do so.

43

However, there were no funds provided to pay for them, nevertheless by 1914, the School Meals Service was providing more than 14 million school meals for about 158,000 children. This even included holidays and Saturdays.

This act followed Labour pressure and seemed to indicate that the Liberals were not masters of

their own fate. 1907-Education (Medical Inspection) Act. This provided an annual inspection for all elementary

school children in an effort to counteract diseases such as tuberculosis. This act resulted in the establishment of a medical department within the Board of Education.

1908- Children and Young Persons Act (Children’s Charter) – borstals and juvenile courts

introduced, buying of alcohol and tobacco by children banned and parents became legally responsible for their children’s welfare for the first time.

These Acts were passed as part of an attempt to improve the ‘health of the nation’ and increase

‘National Efficiency’ (see below). They were also a response to the problems which had been revealed during the Boer War (see below).

Although the Act was not passed until 1908, much of the groundwork for Old Age Pensions was

completed by Asquith under Campbell-Bannerman. However during these two years, the Liberals experienced the rejection of several bills by the House of Lords- 1906-Education Bill. This was rejected by the Lords, which had a huge Conservative majority.

The Lords saw the Bill as an attack on the Church of England. 1906- Licensing Bill. This proposed to restrict the number of public houses, and the brewing

interests in the House of Lords ensured its rejection. The Conservative party received funds from many of the brewing families in the country.

1906- Plural Voting Bill. This aimed to limit property owners from voting more than once in a

general election. The Conservatives soon rejected this in the Lords. 1907- Four Land Bills were rejected. 1907- The Irish Councils Bill was rejected after there were furious protests from the Nationalists

leaders. These were all important Acts and their rejection by the Lords signalled the beginning of the

constitutional crisis that was to break out in 1909. What were the results of Campbell-Bannerman’s ministry? By 1908, the Liberals had achieved little and, importantly, began to lose by-elections (including

the stronghold of Colne Valley). Many backbenchers were becoming rather dismayed at the lack of success despite a huge

Commons’ majority and morale was undermined.

44

There was rising unemployment, businesses experienced bankruptcies and the Liberals had to face the resignation of Campbell-Bannerman who was terminally ill.

The Liberals seemed to be facing a crisis- they had achieved little but they still had an imposing

Commons majority which was being thwarted by the House of Lords. Churchill said that the Lords ‘…were a fortress of negation and reaction’. Lloyd George said

‘…the House of Lords has ... become Mr. Balfour’s poodle’. The impact of the resignation of Campbell-Bannerman Campbell-Bannerman was replaced as Prime Minister by Asquith and Lloyd George became

Chancellor of the Exchequer. Asquith was the natural successor and had been waiting in the wings for several years: indeed

some senior Liberals had not wanted Campbell-Bannerman as Prime Minister in 1905.

Churchill entered the Cabinet as President of the Board of Trade.

The Liberals now embarked on a ‘Radical crusade’ which was led by Lloyd George- he sought to blunt the power of the House of Lords and at the same time maintain and increase the appeal of the Liberal Party.

Lloyd George increased the appeal of the Liberal Party by pursuing a policy of social reform. Social Reforms 1908-1914

1908 Old Age Pensions (first paid 1909). Non-contributory, giving 25p per week to single

people over 70 and 37.5p to married couples. Income could not exceed £31, and those earning between £21 and £31 were on a decreasing sliding scale.

1908 8½ hour working day for miners 1908 The Children’s Charter (The Children’s and Young Person’s Act) set up juvenile courts and

juvenile prisons called ‘Borstals’. Children were also banned from buying tobacco and alcohol. Parents became legally responsible

for the upbringing and welfare of their children by. 1909 Trade Boards set up to assist workers in the ‘sweated’ industries. These consisted of

representatives of employers and workers and were intended to set minimum pay levels in occupations where there was no trade union representation. Further trade boards were set up by a second act in 1913.

1910 Labour Exchanges were set up to assist the unemployed find out about job vacancies.

Until then the only way of finding work was to walk from factory to factory. About 410 Labour Exchanges were set up. While at first they were greeted with enthusiasm,

there were soon complaints of queues and excessive bureaucracy. 1911 National Insurance Act (Part One) provided a payment of 50p a week to a person who

was off work because of illness. This was for 26 weeks. There were to be free medicines and

45

medical treatment for the insured person. This was for all workers earning up to £160 per year and was funded by payments from the worker-4d, employer- 3d and the state- 2d

1912 National Insurance Act (Part Two) was for those in industries where there was a high

risk of unemployment e.g. shipbuilding, construction and engineering. This covered about 2.5 million workers. Unemployed workers allowed 35p per week for 15

weeks. 1911 Shops Act granted shop workers a half day’s holiday per week. 1912 Miners’ Minimum Wage Act – this was on a district basis. 1912 School clinics set up to provide treatment after medical inspections 1913 Trade Union Act – Osborne Judgement reversed. This allowed trade unions to make a

political contribution from a member’s subscription unless the members refused permission. This had been the only way that Labour MPs could be provided with a salary before the

Parliament Act of 1911. To what extent were the Liberal Reforms a revolution in the treatment of poverty and ill health? For the first time the government had accepted responsibility for the well-being of some of the

people of Britain. By 1913, the Liberal government had shown that it was prepared to interfere in many more areas of an individual’s life.

The role of the state was changing and becoming greater. Issues such as poverty, unemployment, the old, the sick and the young had been tackled. The driving force of Lloyd George and Churchill had moved Liberalism forward.

Many now regard these social reforms as the beginnings of what became the welfare state. The Health Insurance legislation covered 13 million people by 1914. By 1914, almost one million people were claiming the old age pension and the cost to the

exchequer was about £12 million. This was indicative of the new ‘collectivist’ role of government.

The O.A.P. act virtually ended outdoor relief to those over the age of seventy. The reforms brought about a shift in attitudes to some of the most distressing social issues. It

has been pointed out (Aikin) that the reforms of the Liberals softened the impact of the 1930s depression and assisted the Labour Government after 1945 in establishing the Welfare State.

But Old Age Pensions were only paid at the age of 70, when average life expectancy was about 47. Only the lowest paid workers were covered by National Insurance, and it only included men.

46

A distinction was still made between workers who were sick and those who were unemployed. The benefits provided to the former were significantly higher than those for the latter.

Health Insurance was not administered on a national basis. There was as yet no Ministry of Health

– this was set up in 1919. The medical treatment offered by the act did not include dentists and opticians and only covered the

worker, NOT his family. Hospital treatment was only provided for TB, the most dangerous disease at the time.

The Poor Law and the workhouses were not abolished. When benefits ended after 26 weeks or 15

weeks, the worker had to go to the workhouse. The Poor Law remained in place until 1929. In conclusion The Liberal reforms were a start. There had been nothing beforehand except for the Poor Law and

it is therefore easy to be critical. The Liberals had never intended to take over complete responsibility for the welfare of the British

people; they had wanted to provide some sort of a safety net to prevent people falling into absolute poverty. Lloyd George had made this clear on many occasions.

Professor Gilbert has stated that the unemployment insurance scheme- ‘…took the State beyond the

area of social welfare and into the area of social service.’ Left of centre historians have pointed out that the reforms were introduced to prevent ‘socialist

attack and that the health and unemployment reforms were financed by the workers themselves. They argue that many of the reforms were palliatives rather than attempts to address the root causes

of distress. Post-war changes In 1918 David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, spoke of a ‘land fit for heroes to live in’ and

a ‘war to end all war’. He planned the introduction of secondary education for all, an extension of National Insurance and a massive building programme of 1,000,000 new homes.

Lloyd George’s plans were not fully carried out. The Fisher Education Act, 1918 The Act raised the school leaving age to 14 and allowed local authorities to raise the age to 15 if

they wished to do so. Local authorities could build Continuation Schools, which would provide education until 16. These schools could be made compulsory and would be supported by government grants.

Students would study in the evenings, or on a day release basis. In 1920 the government began to provide state scholarships for university entrants.

47

For the first time it was now possible for children from poor families to gain places at secondary schools and then to get into university.

They still had to be able to afford the uniform, however, and their parents had to be able to do

without their earnings. What difficulties did the government meet after the Fisher Act? The government soon ran short of money and there was a big cut in spending in 1922 resulting

from the ‘Geddes Axe’. The Continuation Schools suffered and education was only made compulsory until the age of

14. Women did benefit from the Maternity and Child Welfare Act in 1918. This set up child

welfare clinics and ante-natal clinics all over the country. But women had to pay for treatment. In 1919, the Ministry of Health was set up, with Christopher Addison as the first minister. This

was intended to look after public health and health insurance. In 1919, Addison’s Housing Act provided subsidies to private builders to and placed

responsibility for dealing with housing shortages on local authorities. Addison’s scheme proved expensive and was opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

Austen Chamberlain. It transpired that houses costing £800 could be built for £300, but nevertheless h the scheme

did result in 213,000 being built and 110,000 in 1922 alone. Addison was sacked in 1921 and used as a scapegoat for the overall failure of Lloyd George’s

plans and the need for retrenchment, which resulted in the ‘Geddes’ Axe’. Although Addison’s scheme failed in the longer term, it committed the state to housing as a

social policy. In 1923, Neville Chamberlain’s Housing Act offered a subsidy to private builders of £6 a

house for twenty years. This was intended to allow workers to buy cheaply priced houses. This scheme resulted in 438,000 new houses being built. In 1924, John Wheatley, a minister in the first MacDonald administration, offered a subsidy of

£9 a house for forty years for houses built to rent at controlled rents subsidised by local authorities.

This scheme resulted in 520,000 houses being built Unemployment After a short post-war boom in 1919, unemployment rose in 1920. It never fell below 1 million

throughout the decade.

48

The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920 extended the 1911 scheme and gave unemployment insurance to all workers and also did away with the period of benefits for only fifteen weeks. Everyone who earned less than £250 a year was included.

This came at a time when unemployment was rising and was insufficient to meet the needs of

the unemployed. Consequently, governments began to fall back on ad hoc methods, which had already been

tried in by Addison’s ‘out of work donation’ which was offered to demobbed soldiers and later to civilians.

The system was extended by creating the ‘Dole’, or uncovenanted benefit. This offered

payments to the unemployed to tide them over extreme difficulty. It became widespread, and very unpopular, in the 1930s.

It was not part of National Insurance and therefore created a deficit in government finance. It

assumed that there would be a recovery in the economy at some point and that therefore the books would eventually balance.

In fact, this was simply a means of protecting the unemployed from resorting to the Poor Law,

which in any case could not cope. A further reason for offering the Dole was the fear of revolution, which grew in the wake of

the Russian revolutions of 1917. In 1922 unemployment benefit was extended for an unlimited number of weeks. Some benefits could also be paid to the wives and children of unemployed workers for the first

time. In 1925 the age for pensions was lowered to sixty-five, and 50p a week was paid to everybody.

However, to get a pension at sixty-five, people had to pay contributions. Pensions were also paid to widows and orphans and allowances for the children of widows. In 1913 only 5.5% of national income went on health and welfare, but by 1924 the figure had

risen to 10.3%.