Liberal Reforms Essay Example for Free

Liberal Reforms Essay By the early twentieth century the Liberal Government was worried that Britain’s military capability and general military power was not as strong and it once was. Therefore, the Government’s concern over national security definitely influenced the decision for the reforms. However, there are three main factors that also need to be taken into account when deciding if concern over national security was the real reason for the reforms: the Social reasons, concerns for Britain’s Empire and the Political motive. The Social reasons played a large part in persuading the Liberals to reform. The detailed reports of Booth and Rowntree, and the evidence which was brought to light, highlighted that nearly a 1/3 of Britain’s population lived in poverty. This needed to be addressed by the Government. In addition, criticisms of the Poor Law effectively put pressure on the Liberals. The Boer War shone light on the ineffective and malnourished British Army. Britain’s embarrassing performance and recruitment in the War raised concerns over Britain’s overall military capability and the general health of Britain’s populace. In addition to this, the Liberal Government was concerned that Britain was losing its status as a major industrial power. Political motives for reform include the changing attitudes within the party, New Liberalism, the fear of the ever increasing popularity of the Labour Party and the party advantage which the Liberals would have received from introducing reform. In 1899, Britain became involved in a war, known as the Boer War, in South Africa, which was part of the British Empire at that time. As a result of Britain having a relatively small army, volunteer recruits were needed to increase the army size. However, the British Government became alarmed when almost 25% of the volunteers were rejected because there were physically unfit to serve in the armed forces. This figure was even higher among volunteers from the industrial cities. Politicians and the public alike began to ask if Britain could survive a war, or protect its empire against a far stronger enemy than the South African Boers, if the nation’s fighting stock of young men were so unhealthy. The national reforms introduced a variety of bills which would hopefully solve this problem. The 1906 Bill was passed, allowing local authorities to provide school meals to children. In 1914 this was extended to becoming compulsory to offer school meals. This bill meant that poorer children, who previously could not afford a proper nutritious meal, were now receiving regular, healthy food. This would hopefully improve the health of Britain’s army as in the long term, the children who would eventually make up Britain’s army, would be nourished, fit and able to serve their country. The 1907 Bill made the medical inspection of schools compulsory. Doctors had to the Board of Education on their findings which resulted in the introduction of the 1912 bill which saw to the establishment of school clinics. The improved lifestyle and eating habits of Britain’s youngsters, combined with the introduction of medial inspections for them were the result of the Liberal reforms. Therefore, the Liberals concern over national security played a major role in achieving reform which would effectively benefit the country as a whole. However, there are still other reasons which influenced the Government’s choice to reform. Through the Poor Law of 1845 (1834 in England), local rate-payers provided â€Å"poor relief† for destitute people. This help was often provided in a poorhouse. Conditions in these poorhouses were designed to be very harsh indeed. Conditions in poorhouses were extremely harsh because it was to deter people who were just lazy and thought of the poorhouses as the â€Å"easy option†. Glasgow had three poorhouses: One in the city centre, Barhill in Springburn and Govan. The percentage of the public relying on the Poor Law relief, by 1900, was 2. 5%. This may seem very little but this figure does not represent the number of people in Britain who were in poverty. Destitute people who accepted help from the Poor Law became â€Å"paupers† and automatically lost many civil rights such as the right to vote. By 1900 many critics of the Poor Law believed that it failed to deal with poverty adequately. In addition to criticism of the Poor Law, the evidence discovered from both Booth and Rowntree’s studies concluded that there was a large percentage of Britain’s population living in poverty. Charles Booth, a London businessman who doubted the claims of socialist that a quarter of the population lived in extreme poverty. Working with a team of researchers from 1886-1903, Booth’s work was based on hard, statistical facts, and not opinion. His book, â€Å"The Life and Labour of the people of London†, consisting of 17 volumes, showed that 25% of London’s population lived in extreme poverty. Much more than the socialists claimed. The second investigation into poverty was carried out by Seebohm Rowntree, in the city of York. After two years of research, he published a book in 1901 which showed that almost 30% of York’s population lived in extreme poverty. If York had such poverty problems as a â€Å"typical English city† then as did other cities in Britain. The reports of Booth and Rowntree produced solid evidence to suggest that sections of society-regardless of hard work- would never pull themselves out of poverty. The reports showed poverty to have causes and the cities were beyond the individual efforts of the poor. The concept of â€Å"deserving poor†, an ideal created by Rowntree, was important and took root, becoming an important theme of the Liberal Reforms. Finally, evidence which suggested that the scale of poverty in Britain was much larger than the figure of 2. 5% suggested by Poor Law Records, indicated to politicians that the Poor Law was not working. When the Liberals came to power they had a majority of 400. In the elections in 1910 this majority dropped to 2. The Labour Party threatened the Liberals hold onto power. Labour promised pensions, action against unemployment and other welfare reforms. Following voting reform from 1980 the majority of voters were working class. Liberals worried that Labour would win working class support and threaten the position of the Liberals. In 1900, the Labour Party formed with 2 seats in parliament, by the 1905 election, Labour had increased this to 29 sears. It was becoming more increasingly aware that the Labour Party was a direct threat to the Liberals. In 1907 the Liberals lost 2 ‘safe’ seats in Jarrow and Colne Valley to Labour. David Lloyd George recognised the need for welfare reforms for political survival and to maintain working class support. In addition to the fear of the Labour Party, the Liberals also faced the problem of trade unionism and radical socialism. Radical Socialism called for the destruction of capitalism. From 1910-14, there was a wave of miners’ and dockers’ strikes. Liberals realised welfare reforms could prevent political unrest. Historians argue that the sudden increase in the Labour Party’s popularity and the problems the Liberals faced regarding trade unionism and radical socialism persuaded the Liberals to introduce pensions the next year, and furthermore, encourage the Liberals to reform. Before 1905, many Liberals believed in ‘Lassiez-faire’. However, new groups in the party believed that it was the duty of the Government to take action to help Britain’s poorer citizens. This group was called â€Å"new liberals†. It included David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. Churchill aimed â€Å"to draw a line below which we will not allow people to live and labour. † The Liberals, wanted to help the deserving poor out of social conscience but they recognised the political advantages it could bring too. The Labour Party was offering such reforms that would bring them political success. This could be soon through their increased popularity. Therefore it is likely that the Liberals reformed due to the pressure put on them by the ideal of New Liberalism. In conclusion, the Liberal reforms came about as the result of many influences from both different areas of the Government and the public. On one hand, the embarrassing performance by the British army in South Africa and the lack of able volunteers to increase Britain’s army’s capability was definitely a main influence why the Liberals introduced the reforms when they did. On the other hand however, the evidence brought to light by Rowntree and Booth cannot be disregarded as not being an influence to the introduction of these reforms. In addition, other factors such as the Liberal’s fear of losing votes to the new Labour Party and the political readiness to pass reforms influenced by new ideas about New Liberalism made the reforms a more pressing necessity. Overall, it cannot be seen that concern over national security was the only reason for the Liberal reforms, as there were other influences which encouraged the Governments decision.