Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:46:00.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of Unemployment Insurance in Edwardian Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

Tomoari Matsunaga
Tomoari Matsunaga*
Affiliation:
Yokohama National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 614 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research in Japan: 15K03910.

References

NOTES

1. Flora, Peter and Alber, Jens, “Modernization, Democratization, and the Development of Welfare States in Western Europe,” in The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, ed. Flora, and Heidenheimer, A. J. (New Brunswick, 1981), 50–52.Google Scholar

2. Gilbert, Bentley B., The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain (London, 1966), 233–88Google Scholar; Gilbert, , “Winston Churchill versus the Webbs: The Origins of British Unemployment Insurance,” American Historical Review 71 (1966): 846–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, Jose, Unemployment and Politics: A Study in English Social Policy, 1886–1914 (Oxford, 1972), 273–368Google Scholar; Harris, , William Beveridge: A Biography, rev. ed. (Oxford, 1997), chap. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Caldwell, J. A. M., “The Genesis of the Ministry of Labour,” Public Administration 37 (1959): 375–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Lowe, Rodney, “The Ministry of Labour, 1916–1924,” Public Administration 52 (1974): 432–33Google Scholar; Lowe, “The Ministry of Labour, 1916–19,” in War and the State: The Transformation of British Government, 1914–1919, ed. Burk, Kathleen (London, 1982), 127–29Google Scholar.

5. Hellwig, Timothy T., “The Origins of Unemployment Insurance in Britain,” Social Science History 29 (2005).Google Scholar There is also an important study by Isabela Mares from the comparative perspective between France and Germany. See Mares, Isabela, “Strategic Alliances and Social Policy Reform,” Politics & Society 28 (2000)Google Scholar.

6. Davidson, Roger, “Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith and Labour Policy, 1886–1916” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1971)Google Scholar; Davidson, , “Llewellyn Smith, the Labour Department and Government Growth 1886–1909,” in Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government, ed. Sutherland, Gillian (London, 1972).Google Scholar

7. Davidson, Roger, “The Board of Trade and Industrial Relations, 1896–1914,” Historical Journal 21 (1978)Google Scholar; Davidson, , “Social Conflict and Social Administration,” in The Search for Wealth and Stability, ed. Smout, T. C. (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Davidson, , Whitehall and the Labour Problem in Late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain (London, 1985).Google Scholar

8. Whiteside, Noel, “Welfare Insurance and Casual Labour,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 32 (1979): 508–18Google Scholar; Phillips, Gordon and Whiteside, Noel, Casual Labour: The Unemployment Question in the Port Transport Industry, 1880–1970 (Oxford, 1985), chap. 3.Google Scholar

9. Davidson, , Whitehall and the Labour Problem, 269–73Google Scholar.

10. Blackburn, Sheila, A Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work? (Aldershot, 2007), 112–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Seebohm Rowntree, B., Poverty: A Study of Town Life (London, 1901), 121Google Scholar.

12. King, Desmond, Actively Seeking Work?: The Politics of Unemployment and Welfare Policy in the United States and Great Britain (Chicago, 1995), 41–49.Google Scholar See also Hay, Roy, “Employers and Social Policy in Britain,” Social History 2 (1977)Google Scholar; Hay, , “Employers’ Attitudes to Social Policy and the Concept of ‘Social Control,’ 1900–1920,” in The Origins of British Social Policy, ed. Thane, Pat (London, 1978)Google Scholar; Melling, Joseph, “Industrial Strife and Business Welfare Philosophy,” Business History 21 (1979)Google Scholar; Fitzgerald, Robert, British Labour Management and Industrial Welfare, 1846–1939 (London, 1988), 220–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Thane, Pat, “The Making of National Insurance, 1911,” Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 19 (2011): 216–18.Google Scholar This interpretation is also congruent with a “state centered” approach by Theda Skocpol and James Cronin in that they stress the autonomous role played by bureaucrats. See Orloff, Ann Shola and Skocpol, Theda, “Why Not Equal Protection?: Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880s–1920,” American Sociological Review 49 (1984)Google Scholar; Cronin, James E., “The British State and the Structure of Political Opportunity,” Journal of British Studies 27 (1988)Google Scholar.

13. Percentage increases of expenditure 1913/14 over 1903/4 of the Board of Trade was 512 percent, compared with 97 percent of the entire civil services. Caldwell, J. A. M., “Social Policy and Public Administration, 1909–1911” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1956)Google Scholar, appendix 1 to chap 8.

14. Brown, Lucy, The Board of Trade and the Free-Trade Movement, 1830–1842 (Oxford, 1958).Google Scholar

15. Smith, Hubert Llewellyn, The Board of Trade (London, 1928), 278Google Scholar.

16. Cain, P. J., “Traders versus Railways: The Genesis of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1894,” Journal of Transport History, 2nd ser., 2 (1973)Google Scholar.

17. Smith, Llewellyn, Board of Trade, 69–76Google Scholar.

18. NA (National Archives, Kew, UK), BT 13/134, note on the organization of the Commercial Labour and Statistical Department, 30 March 1909.

19. Davidson, , “Llewellyn Smith, the Labour Department,” 262nGoogle Scholar.

20. NA, FO 881/9873.

21. The Board of Trade, “The Board of Trade: Its Origin, Authority, and Jurisdiction,” 5–6 (unpublished, Library of the National Archives)Google Scholar.

22. NA, BT13/134, “Report of Sir Clarendon Hyde’s Committee on the Reorganisation of the Board of Trade,” 1–2.

23. In 1886, the head of the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade, Robert Giffen, who was also a famous economist, made a speech in which he emphasized the great increase in working men’s income over the previous fifty years, insisting that “they should be prepared to some extent for a reduction in money wages” at the time of deflation. Giffen, Robert, “Further Notes on the Progress of the Working Classes in the Last Half Century,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London 49 (1886): 72–73Google Scholar.

24. NA, LAB2/1480/L555/1900.

25. NA, LAB2/1598/L263/1904.

26. NA, LAB2/1598/L263/1904, 19 March 1904.

27. NA, LAB2/1/L128/1902.

28. Blackburn, A Fair Day’s Wage, 111–12.

29. NA, CAB 37/91/26, 1908.

30. Cambridge University, Churchill College, Winston Churchill Papers, CHAR 11/3, 5 April 1909.

31. Morris, Jenny, Women Workers and the Sweated Trades (Aldershot, 1986), 224Google Scholar. Jerold Waltman also indicates that the operational proceedings of the Trade Boards Act were “seemingly designed to impede quick action.” Waltman, Jerold, Minimum Wage Policy in Great Britain and the United States (New York, 2008), 64Google Scholar.

32. NA, CAB 37/97/13, 1909.

33. Morris, , Women Workers, 229–32Google Scholar.

34. NA, LAB 2/1/L7673, “Memo on legal position created by variation of minimum rates of wages for hammered and dollied chain-making.”

35. Davidson, , “Board of Trade,” 589Google Scholar.

36. See Croll, Andy, “Strikers and the Right to Poor Relief in Late Victorian Britain,” Journal of British Studies 52 (2013).Google Scholar

37. The Times, 18, 30 November; 3, 14, 16, 24, 26, 27, 30 December 1901; 4, 16 January 1902.

38. Clegg, H. A., Fox, Alan, and Thompson, A. F., A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar, appendix.

39. Davidson, “Board of Trade,” 582.

40. McCord, Norman, “Taff Vale Revisited,” History 78 (1993): 257Google Scholar.

41. Saville, John, “The Trade Disputes Act of 1906,” Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 1 (1996): 37Google Scholar. See also Powell, David, The Edwardian Crisis: Britain 1901–1914 (London, 1996), 120Google Scholar; Thompson, James, “The Genesis of the 1906 Trades Disputes Act,” Twentieth-Century British History 9 (1998)Google Scholar.

42. Davidson, , “Social Conflict,” 188–89Google Scholar.

43. Ibid., 184–85.

44. Pedersen, Susan, Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914–1945 (Cambridge, 1993), 424Google Scholar.

45. Churchill Papers, CHAR 11/10.

46. Churchill Papers, CHAR 11/5.

47. Phelps Brown, E. H., The Growth of British Industrial Relations (London, 1959), 311–12Google Scholar; Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, History of British Trade Unions, vol. 1, 433–46.

48. McKinlay, Alan and Zeitlin, Jonathan, “The Meanings of Managerial Prerogative,” Business History 31 (1989): 34–38.Google Scholar

49. As for trade-union unemployment benefits, see Johnson, Paul, Saving and Spending: The Working-Class Economy in Britain, 1870–1939 (Oxford, 1985), 74–80Google Scholar; Boyer, G. R., “The Evolution of Unemployment Relief in Great Britain,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 34 (2004): 414–18.Google Scholar

50. Wigham, Eric, The Power to Manage: A History of the Engineering Employers’ Federation (London, 1973), 79Google Scholar.

51. In the Manchester District, which has an exceptionally long consecutive record of time rates for engineering workers, time rate of wages increased rapidly from 1906 to 1908. Yates, M. L., Wages and Labour Conditions in British Engineering (London, 1937), 103Google Scholar.

52. See Harris, , Unemployment, chap. 1Google Scholar; Flanagan, Richard, “Parish-fed Bastards”: A History of the Politics of the Unemployed in Britain, 1884–1939 (New York, 1991), chap. 1Google Scholar; Walters, William, Unemployment and Government (Cambridge, 2000), chap. 1Google Scholar; Levine-Clark, Marjorie, Unemployment, Welfare, and Masculine Citizenship (London, 2015), 32–35Google Scholar.

53. King, , Actively Seeking, 20–26Google Scholar.

54. Harris, , Unemployment, 298–99Google Scholar.

55. University of Bristol Library, Liberal Party Archive, National Liberal Club, Transactions, vol. 5, pt. 15, 1907.

56. Gilbert, , Evolution, 250–51Google Scholar.

57. The Nation, 7 March 1908, 812–13.

58. Hennock, E. P., British Social Reform and German Precedents (Oxford, 1987), 163Google Scholar.

59. Parliamentary Papers 1910, xlviii, Royal Commissions on the Poor Laws, Minutes of Evidence, 6–45.

60. Parliamentary Papers 1910, xlix, Royal Commissions on the Poor Laws, Minutes of Evidence, qq. 98912–39. Although board officials were not so enthusiastic about the reform of casual labor in 1908, their attitudes toward that problem turned radical after 1909, when Beveridge was promoted to the head of the newly established Labour Exchanges Department. Whiteside indicates that Llewellyn Smith, who was originally opposed to a compulsory measure, changed his attitude and became a supporter of compulsory decasualization by 1913. See Whiteside, “Welfare Insurance,” 512–13. This was likely a result of the labor situation at that time. During 1911 and 1912, large-scale strikes frequently occurred at the main ports in Britain, and in 1911 freight rates jumped to the highest figures since 1889, the year of the Great Dock Strike. See Clegg, H. A., A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1985), 33–41Google Scholar; Redman, Lydia, “State Intervention in Industrial Disputes in the Age of the New Liberalism: The London Docks Strikes of 1911–12,” Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 34 (2013)Google Scholar. It is highly probable that the dock industry’s critical situation caused the radicalization of board officials’ attitudes toward the reform of casual labor.

61. Parliamentary Papers 1910, xlix, Minutes of Evidence, q. 98844.

62. Ibid., qq. 98956–57.

63. Ibid., qq. 99080–81

64. Ibid., qq. 99138–39.

65. NA, T1/11093/6763/19536, 29 July 1908.

66. Beveridge, Lord, Power and Influence (London, 1953), 81Google Scholar.

67. Harris, , William Beveridge, 171Google Scholar.

68. King, , Actively Seeking, 22–23Google Scholar.

69. NA, CAB 37/96/159.

70. Harris, , Unemployment, 306Google Scholar; Toye, Richard, Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness (London, 2007), 57Google Scholar. See also Brown, K. D., Labour and Unemployment, 1900–1914 (Newton Abbot, 1971), 144Google Scholar.

71. BLPES (British Library of Political and Economic Science), Beveridge Papers, III 37/A.4., 11 January 1909.

72. Beveridge Papers, III 37/A.4., 22 February 1909.

73. NA, CAB 37/99/69.

74. NA, LAB 2/211/LE500/1909, Minutes of Conference with the Engineering Employers’ Association and the Shipbuilding Employers’ Federation, 18 August 1909, 29.

75. “Employer Objections,” in Morning Post, 12 May 1911, in Roy Hay, , ed., The Development of the British Welfare State, 1880–1975 (London, 1978), 39Google Scholar.

76. Parliamentary Papers 1910, xlix, Royal Commissions on the Poor Laws, Minutes of Evidence, qq. 99, 140–99, 141.

77. Beveridge Papers, III 37/A.2.

78. Smith, Hubert Llewellyn, “Economic Security and Unemployment Insurance,” Economic Journal 20 (1910): 521Google Scholar.

79. Ibid., 526.

80. Beveridge, W. H., Unemployment: A Problem of Industry (London, 1909), 223Google Scholar.

81. Ibid., 234.

82. Ibid., 236.

83. Ibid., 227.

84. TNA, LAB 2/211/LE500/1909, Minutes of Conference, 29–30.

85. Fraser, Derek, The Evolution of the British Welfare State, 4th ed. (London, 2009), 203–4Google Scholar.

86. NA, LAB 2/1483/LE(1)7150/1911.

87. Beveridge Papers, III 39/11, “Note on Malingering.”

88. BLPES, Braithwaite Collection, section II: 8.

89. Bunbury, H. N., ed., Lloyd George’s Ambulance Wagon (London, 1957), 149Google Scholar.

90. Churchill Papers, CHAR 2/42/50, November 1909.

91. Harris, , Unemployment, 323–27Google Scholar.

92. Churchill Papers, CHAR 2/52/60, 30 July 1911.

93. Bunbury, , ed., Lloyd George’s Ambulance, 149Google Scholar.

94. This argument does not contradict Robert Asher’s thesis that British workers generally preferred state welfare policies to employers’ dominance. He also observes that “National Insurance accomplished by legal fiat what British unions could not achieve through economic action: reduction of the employer’s role in private income-maintenance programs, hitherto dominated by employers.” Asher, Robert, “Experience Counts: British Workers, Accident Prevention and Compensation, and the Origins of the Welfare State,” Journal of Policy History 15, no. 4 (2003): 377–78Google Scholar.

95. Offer, Avner, “Empire and Social Reform,” Historical Journal 26 (1983): 122Google Scholar.

96. Price, Richard, Masters, Union and Men: Work Control in Building and the Rise of Labour, 1830–1914 (Cambridge, 1980), 246Google Scholar.

97. King, Actively Seeking, 36. A plan of farm colonies was suggested by the Webbs. Sidney, and Webb, Beatrice, English Poor Law Policy (London, 1910), 169–72Google Scholar.

98. Garside, W. R., British Unemployment 1919–1939 (Cambridge, 1990), 32–40Google Scholar; Harris, Bernard, The Origins of the British Welfare State (London, 2004), 204–7Google Scholar; Hennock, E. P., The Origin of the Welfare State in England and Germany, 1860–1914 (Cambridge, 2007), 304Google Scholar. See also Levine-Clark, , Unemployment, 88–106Google Scholar.

99. “The Unemployment Bill,” in The News-Letter, iv, 25 November 1933, 4.

100. As for the Liberal tax reforms, which mainly benefited the industrial middle class, see Murray, B. K., The People’s Budget, 1909/10 (Oxford, 1980), 295Google Scholar; Peden, G. C., The Treasury and British Public Policy, 1906–1959 (Oxford, 2000), 44Google Scholar; Packer, Ian, Liberal Government and Politics, 1905–1915 (London, 2006), 129–41Google Scholar. Concerning the importance of the connection between the Liberals and the business community, see Searle, G. R., “The Edwardian Liberal Party and Business,” English Historical Review 98 (1983)Google Scholar.

101. Cameron, David R., “The Expansion of the Public Economy,” American Political Science Review 72 (1978)Google Scholar.

102. Compare the sickness insurance (1883) and pension insurance (1889) in Germany, the sickness insurance (1888) in Austria, the pension insurance (1910) in France, with the state-funded pension (1908) and the sickness and unemployment insurance contributed by the state (1911) in Britain.