Old Liberalism vs New Liberalism (1906-1911)

The impact of social investigation and survey on the issue of poverty

In the later year of the 19th century, there had been a growing interest in the poor, poverty,
and the cost of supporting the paupers. For example Henry Mayhew wrote a series of article
for the morning chronicle, alerted the reading public to the plight of the poor.
There were many locals surveys of the needs of the poor and Christians groups like the
salvation army began bringing practical help to the needy and outcast (=marginaux).
By the early years of the 20th century, more quantitative scientific surveys were being carried
out:
-

First survey, the one of Charles Booth, focused on London; he was responsible for the first
scientific estimate of poverty and the development of survey methods in social
investigations. He refused to accept officials statistics that about 25% of the working
population were living in poverty. He conducted his own investigations between 1886 and
1903 into the life and labor of Londons poor and published his findings in 17 volumes.
His research did not only focus on poverty but also on Industry, employment and religion. He
find out that the proportion of Londoners living in poverty was closer to 30.7% than 25%.
These people living below the poverty line could not afford shelter (=habitat), clothing, food
(Defined in The poverty act of 1834). Booth determined causes for poverty determined to
employment, that is to say unemployment, short time working and low paid.
Second survey Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree: in York.
He made that in York because his family business was based in this city, and because he
wanted to give more precisions to Booths poverty line. He found that around 28% of the
population in York were living in obvious want and squalor (=insalubrit). His main criterion
to measure poverty was income. Secondly, Rowntree made a clear distinction between
primary poverty and secondary poverty.

Both studies had an impact on the public and politicians. Thats why the conservative government set
up the Royal Commission on the poor laws in 1905 to inquire into the workings of the poor laws and
to advise the government on the best ways of releaving the poor. The Commission consisted of
people with a wide change of appropriate expertise. That is to say poor law guardians members of
charitable organizations, religious and trade union leaders, as well as Booth and Beatrice Webb
(Fabian= socialist intellectual). When they came to make their final report and make
recommendations to the government, they could not agreethey wrote two opposite reports. The
government did not know which report to choose. But the two reports were important as the
Commission has collected a vast amount of evidences and has succeeding in giving the problem of
poverty a higher profile. This had to be link with fears of the national efficiency of the economy.
Why? Because of:

The speed with which American and Germans industries were overtaking British industry in
production levels.

The second problem was the growth of highly mobile European armies and the ship building
programs of France, Russia and Germany that emphasize the vulnerability of Britain.
The revelation about the physical State of those who enrolled in Britain to fight in the Boer
War (1899-1902 South Africa try to have his independence). British soldiers were suffering
of malnutrition and poor diet.

The liberal government: social reforms

In 1908:the pension act
In 1911: National insurance act

The newly elected liberal government embarqued on of white ranging welfare reforms that were
designed to lift the most vulnerable members of the society: the sick, the infirm, the children and the
elderly out of poverty. These reforms were to change radically the ways in which governments dealt
with poverty. The liberal parties campaign has been largely negative. In so far as, it attacked the
conservative reform, but giving few clues as giving what it would do if elected. Indeed Prime Minister
Henry Campbell-Bannerman (from 1906-1908) was quiet vale to his election address should we be
confirmed in office it will be our duty, whiles holding fast to the time honored principles of liberalism,
that is to say principles of peace, economy, self-government, civil and religious liberty, whiles
resisting with all our strength the attack upon free trade, to repair the mischief wrought in recent
years and by a course of strenuous legislation and administration to secure those social and
economic reforms which have been too long delayed. He defends the free trade and wants to enact
a social legislation.
1) What reforms did the liberal government carry out?
When Asquith took over as Prime Minister in 1908, reforms was pushed by two preeminent figures in
the government. It was first, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George and the President of
the board of trade Winston Churchill. Asquith and the rest of the cabinet approved of their proposals
which could vast be seen as a government initiative, despite some oppositions within the cabinet.
The 1909 Old Age Pension Act (voir doc). This legislation was promised in the 1908 budget and was
implemented in 1909. Pensions were paid to men and women over the age of 70 on a sliding scale
according to the rest of their income. Life expectancy was much under 70 and if someone was still
earning money (renting a house), his pension was going to be quite low. The first condition was that
men and women had to be British citizen who had been resident in Britain for 20 years. They had to
be of good character, that is to say pension were not paid to people who had been in prison during
the previous ten years or people who continually failed to find work, or to people who had claimed
poor relief during the last ten years, and it was not paid to people who were drunkards.
What is really a break with the past?
Before, there were two solutions for the elderly: going
People claiming pensions was around 600.000 and it was almost the same number of the elderly
claiming poor reliefs before 1909. Secondly, the payments were roughly the same. The usual weekly

outdoor reliefs payment was 5 schillings per person. That was the same as a full pension for a single
person. The idea of the deserving and underserving poor was still there.
How revolutionary was the prevision of the old age pensions?
First argument, payments were paid as a right and not as discretion of poor law officer. Secondly,
pensions were now paid at local post offices, so it mends a divorce from the poor law. Third,
pensions were funded from national taxations and not from poor rates (local taxations).
1911: National Insurance Act.
The law was implemented in two ages. The first part of the legislation was an attend to provide help
from the poor when ill health struck demand bread winner while at the same time not arming vasted
interest like insurance companies and doctors who might lose income with a stage insurance
program. Employees, employers and the State all contributed and health cover was provided to
workers in certain selected industries. That was not a universal aid. This measure was seen as quite
unpopular because most workers resented paying 4 schillings from their wages.
Second problem: payments were at a flat rate (everyone pay the same thing). This measure hit the
poorest workers the hardest. Last argument, many workers regarded national insurance payments as
nothing more than a paid cup arguing that it was a waste of money to insure against illnesses they
might never have.
Despite this resistance to the legislation by 1913, 13 million workers were insured in the scheme and
a very important safety net had been set up.
An insurance against unemployment. Employers, employees and government contributed to an
equal measure to the scheme. Workers could claim benefits for up to 15 weeks in any one year
unless unemployment was the result of a person being sacked for misconduct. The act first applied to
a group of trades (corps de mtier) where the pay was quite high but work was prone to seasonal
unemployment. Here we could think of ship building. Insurance in these trades was compulsory and
by 1920, 2.25 million men were insured.
Together with pensions and health insurance, it established the principles that providing reliefs for
the poor and the vulnerable was a national, and not local, responsibility.
To what extent can we argue that the liberal government social reforms represented the beginning
of the welfare State?
There are two arguments. When you talk of a welfare state, it means that every citizen can be
covered. Its not the case here. The welfare State emerges after the WWII, with the Beveridge report
in 1942.
How were the reforms to be paid for?
Clearly the liberal reforms were expensive and equally clearly, there were not self-funding. There
were going to cost about 16 million pounds. It has to be raised in the 1909 budget. This came at a
time where additional money had to be found in order to fund the Naval ship program, intended to
keep the Royal Navy more powerful than the German One. Could Lloyd George raised all this
additional money and could the Parliament agree? The main philosophy of Lloyd George was that the

rich and the better off had to be taxed to help the poorer. He decided to increase taxes on tobacco
by 25%, spirit by 33%. He introduced a new tax on cars (caleches) according to the horse power. Then
he increased taxes on petrol (essence). Then he raised income tax on a sliding scale. People earning
more than 3000 pounds a year were going to pay more. People earning over 5000 pounds a year
were going to pay an additional super tax. Lloyd George increased death duties, which is now called
inheritance tax.
He introduced a new tax from profit gain from selling lands.
How did the Parliament react?
There are two Houses in Parliament. The House of Common was composed of liberal people so it
wasnt hard to convince them. But the House of Lords refused. Their veto triggered a political crisis.
The first one was that the liberal party has won the elections so that was not unacceptable that the
House of Lords which are not elected in a democratic way could oppose this legislation.
Secondly, the liberal party had been elected because they promised social reforms.
How was the situation solved?
Asquith decided to dissolve Parliament and to call a new election because his government was in a
dead lock (impasse). The outcome of the election was roughly the same, the liberals had the
majority. In April 1910, the lords were compelled to accept this legislation.

We can now compare old liberals and new liberals.

Role of the State

Welfare provision

Taxes

Old liberals
The state should interfere as little
as possible. Market forces should
be free.
The state should not intervene
because people would have no
incentives to help themselves.

New liberals
In certain circumstances, the State should
act. To implement new insurance.

Taxes should be as low as possible

because people should be free to
spend their money the way they
want.

Taxes should be raised to finance the

different welfare schemes for the
poorest Lloyd George.

Poor people should be helped because the

State would provide them from their
liberty.

Conclusion: We could say that even though this table establishes differences, the old liberalism and
the new liberalism were not so different. The main idea in both periods was freedom. The new
liberalism wanted to distant themselves with the Labor Party. The new liberal wanted to appeal to
different voters; it would aloud the liberal party to widen his electorate. They had the support of the
middle classes. They have had contact with left wing intellectual such as the Fabians.
They also agreed on the importance of the individual initiative. For all of them, self-help was still
crucial. They were deserving an undeserving poor. When it was possible, social services should be
funded by voluntary contributions. The liberals wanted to leave individuals free to help themselves
and so to improve their own conditions, to achieve middle class living standards.

To what extent was the 1926 general strike a failure?

Intro texte 8
This text is an article called The Old Age Pensions Bill (1908) and After. It was written by Dudley
Cosby and published in the Westminster Review in September 1908.
When the Liberals came to power in 1906, they had no idea what to do toward the issue of the old
age pension. In spite of the rise of the New Liberals, the popular pressure was not so high because
few factors were not favorable at that time. For example Friendly Societies, which have an important
influence, were not giving their full support because there were fostering their pension scheme,
based on the free choice.
But in 1908, the Liberals realized that destitution was quite widespread among the elder. In addition
it would have an electoral magnitude; it would be beneficial for the Liberals.
So they introduced an old age pension bill in 1908.
In this article, the author tries to convince the reader by taking each argument stated in favor of the
old age pension bill and then showing, according to him, that these arguments have no recognition,
claiming this bill would be a costly mistake for the country. Cosby is committed, he makes no
concession.

The body of the text divided in 4 paragraphs work to divide the text in 4 parts. First an introduction,
then he takes 3 different arguments in favor of the bill (one in each paragraph) and he tries to show
that each one is an aberration.
Problmatique : On what grounds does the author dismiss every parts or every justification of the
bill?

Plan: 1. to what extent were his arguments based on the liberal philosophy of the individual

2. On the economic system itself, British economy based on free trade/laissez faire, if it is the case
the state should not intervene but also the private system should play a crucial role.
1. The author uses the entire philosophical heritage he had and he used arguments on the
philosophy at the time we could guess that because some people paid and others didnt, people
should be free to contribute or not. In friendly societies, workers were free to contribute or not if
they wanted to be covered.
2. Intervention of the state for security and building of infrastructures.
In 1921, 11.3% unemployment1.58M
British society more democraticworking classes and women more powerful
1918vote right and aloud to be elected in Parliament for women

With war, end of laissez faire, power to requisite buildings, run factories the way they
wantcollectivism. End of freedom of the citizens= rationing (rationnement).

The 30s
there were differences between the North (industries) and the South (services and new industries).
The working class was badly hit. There were two laws, in 1930 (it and 1934. The idea of means testing
was introducedwhen they had to prove how much money the household was earning in order to
claim unemployment benefits. It was rough at the time because if in the household, there were still
one person having a job, there was not having unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits
were reduced of 10%, in 1934.

Unemployment was noticeable in the areas where the staple industries were concentrated. It is
possible to identify 4 areas:
- The manufacturing centers of Birmingham, the black country.
- Yorkshire and Wales, where coal and steel were produced.
- Textiles in Lancashire
- Ship building on the Tyne and in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
More MPs were elected in the South, where there was prosperity, MPs came from constituencies
not really affected by the crisis, the North complained that the government wasnt doing anything to
help them.
In order to understand the different disparities due to the crisis in Britain, some authors travelled
throughout Britain to describe the differences within British society in the 30s. One of them is very
well known: JB Priestley, his book: English journey.
1. Old England: cathedrals, inns (=taverne), etc
2. 19th century England: ideas of the industrial revolution
3. New post war England influenced by the US and this new post war England was characterized by
cinemas, dance halls cafes, cocktails bars, swimming pools, factory girls American England.
Richard Roundtree found that 52% of young children lived below the poverty line. 20M people were
underfed food diet.
The Jarrow demonstration (1936) to denounce the desperate economic conditions slogan = the
town has been murdered.
HEALTHY YEARS
Some people have seen their standard livings growing Affluence.
At the time Britain was the second biggest car producer in the world. The electrical ingeenering was
growing and there was a housing boom. By 1939, car owners had reached 3M. There were also most
congestion on roads from London to Brighton especially.

There were low interest rates easy to buy a car.

Radios, fashionable clothes There was an improvement in real wages.
Unemployment act of 1934In order to help unemployed workers to retrain ort or to move to areas
where job where found.
In 1935, The Special Areas Act to provide 2M to depressed areas in Wales, Scotland and Northern
England. To fund training or create public jobs.
British left the Gold Exchange Standard in 1931. For exports, it was a penality.
Sort of beginning of the consumer society in the late 1930s in order to forget starvation.
There are ambivalent interpretations of this decade, it was quite difficult to have a clear cut or black
and white picture of the situation in Britain. Depression hit Britain because of the 1929 Wall Street
crash.
For some people, this decade was a very though decade and thats why the 30s was called the
hungry years because people were poor, starving, unemployed. Idea of the devils decade whereas
other people highlighted the fact that people enjoyed good standards of living and especially
entertainment, money to spend on leisure (cinema, theater). This decade could also be called a
healthy decade, straightforward sense that people had money to spend on their food, good food
diet, healthy, people enjoyed prosperity.
2 sorts of disparities:
- social type: the working class was badly hit, especially people working in old industries, but we
should add a geographical split that is to say the north where many old industries were located
(badly hit) whereas the south with services.
The US great crash of 1929 marked the beginning of an economic depression that was to last for a
decade and which hit Britain in particular. In order to limit a severe industrial decline the US
immediately introduced restrictive measures. For instance it erected prohibitive trade barriers to
keep out foreign goods and at the same time it recalled foreign loans. We could talk of
protectionism.
Britain was one of the first countries to be harmed by these policies.
Since the American market was now largely closed, the British manufacturing industries could not
sell their goods in what had been their biggest outlet (=debouch). Britains stapled industries which
were already in decline were particularly badly hit.
Britains trade with the US allowed her to raise capital to pay off loans, without this option Britain
saddled with debt and could not raise capital to meet them.
As other European countries were also the victims of the international depression there was little
chance of their being able to pay what they owed to Britain.

Revisionist historians suggest that it is inaccurate to speak of the hungry 30s as the depression was
not a universal experience in Britain. The depression was severe in the North whereas there was a
remarquable growth in the Thames valley. There was also an increase in house building and the
purchasing of cars and domestic commodities could be seen as the effect of the good times

prevailing in these areas. Therefore those in the depressed regions complained that a southern
dominated parliament and government did not fully appreciate the sufferings of their countrymen in
the north. We could clearly talk of a North West / South East divide between two nations.
In 1845 he wrote a novel entitled Sybil or the two nations in which he defined what he meant by the
two nations. For him they were the rich and the poor. The origin of the concept was clearly a social
divide.
The number of unemployed people never dropped under 2M people.

In 1929, the Labor Party came back to government, and he was unable to face the crisis. So there was
a national government with ministers of several parties. They came back to laissez faire.