parliament of 1906 was the election of fifty-three
Labour members, though that number owed
much to an electoral arrangement with the Liber-
als. Among this Labour group were a few genuine
socialists, such as Keir Hardie and Ramsay Mac-
Donald, who had nothing in common with the
Liberals; but other Labour members were less
interested in socialism than in securing legislation
to benefit the working men – for example, the
Trade Disputes Bill which protected union funds
from employers’ claims for compensation after
strikes.
In 1908 Herbert Asquith succeeded to the
premiership. In the same year, one of the few
major reforms was introduced – old-age pensions,
which removed fear of the workhouse from the
aged. The famous budget of 1909, however,
sparked off a political crisis. Introduced by the
Liberal chancellor of the exchequer, David Lloyd
George, it increased indirect taxes on spirits and
tobacco – which was unpopular with the poor –
but also modestly increased the burdens on the
better-off. The House of Lords – quite unjustly
- sensed in these measures the thin edge of the
wedge that would destroy their privileges. The
Liberals pressed the issue of constitutional reform
as a means of reviving the party’s popularity in
the country. The power of the Conservative-
dominated House of Lords to veto bills passed
by the Liberal majority in the Commons was
to be curtailed so that within the life of one
parliament, the House of Commons majority
would prevail.
An impasse was reached in Britain’s political
life, not dissimilar from that in imperial Germany
at about the same time. Should the Conservative
hereditary lords have the power to block even the
mild reforming legislation of an elected Liberal
majority? Unlike in Germany, the constitutional
turmoil was resolved. In November 1909 the
House of Lords threw out the budget with the
intention of submitting the issue to the electorate.
This readiness by government and parliament to
accept the wishes of the people on the one hand,
and the constitutional monarch’s acceptance of
the same verdict (though George V did insist
unnecessarily on two elections) on the other, was
the essential difference between imperial Germany
and Britain. The Liberal tactic of taking the con-
stitutional issue to the country misfired. They lost
their overall majority and now ran neck and neck
with the Conservatives. By the close of the second
election in December 1910, each party had
precisely the same strength in the House of
Commons. But the Liberals, supported by Labour
members and the Irish Nationalists, commanded a
substantial majority over the Conservatives. The
House of Lords in the summer of 1911 gave their
assent to the bill limiting their powers. No social
upheaval threatening the influence of wealth and
property followed. But common sense, and a
respect for the wishes of the majority of the House
of Commons on which parliamentary constitu-
tional government was based, prevailed. Britain
would continue to follow the political and social
path of evolution, not revolution.
A National Insurance Bill of 1911 covered
most workers against ill health, but only those in
the cyclical building and engineering trades
against unemployment. What Liberal policies
did not do was to satisfy the working man who
resented paying (with employers) compulsorily
for national insurance and whose real wage in the
recent years had not risen. The years 1911 and
1912 witnessed an unprecedented number of
strikes and an increase in the power of the trade
unions. The Liberal Party did not win the support
of organised industrial labour. Nor did it seize the
chance to earn the gratitude of potential women
voters by granting their enfranchisement. The
Liberals, for all Lloyd George’s dash and clamour
as chancellor of the exchequer, were simply not
ready to embark on bold social policies.
The majority of Britain’s leaders believed that the
future safety and prosperity of Britain depended
on revitalising and drawing together the strength
of the empire. Only in this way, they thought,
could Britain hope to face the other great powers
on an equal footing. But the questions were also
asked: Will the empire last? Does it rest on per-
manent foundations or is it only a political organ-
ism in a certain state of decomposition? Will the
younger nations, as they grow to maturity, be
content to remain within it, or will they go the
way of the American colonies before them.. .?
1
THE BRITISH EMPIRE 35
