Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T13:39:24.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of the ‘People's Budget’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Bruce K. Murray
Bruce K. Murray
Affiliation:
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The view that Lloyd George designed his ‘People's Budget’of 1909–10 so as to invite its rejection by the House of Lords has fallen very largely out of favour with scholars, and it is now generally accepted that he devised his Budget as an alternative to rather than as a means to a battle with the Lords. As argued by Roy Jenkins and others, Lloyd George assumed that the peers would not dare tamper with a finance bill, and he consequently looked to his Budget as a way around the veto of the Lords: by means of it he hoped to attain some radical objectives against the wishes of the Lords.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1973 , pp. 555 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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.)

References

1 For the view that Lloyd George designed his Budget for rejection by the Lords see Cambray, Philip, The Game of Politics (London, 1932), pp. 42–4Google Scholar; Dangerfield, George, The Strange Death of Liberal England (London, 1936), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Thomson, Malcolm, David Lloyd George (London, 1948), pp. 178–83Google Scholar. For the view that the Budget was intended as an alternative to a battle with the the Lords see Jenkins, Roy, Mr. Balfour's Poodle (London, 1954), pp. 40–2Google Scholar; Cross, Colin, The Liberals in Power 1905–1914 (London, 1963), pp. 101–2Google Scholar; Rowland, Peter, The Last Liberal Governments: The Promised Land 1905–1910 (London, 1968), pp. 215–21.Google Scholar

2 See Jenkins, , Mr Balfour's Poodle, pp. 63–4Google Scholar; and Gollin, Alfred M., The Observer and J. L. Garvin 1908–1914 (London, 1960), pp. 94–7.Google Scholar

3 Manchester Guardian, 25 November 1908, p. 6.

4 Asquith to the king, 9 December 1908, Asquith Papers 5, fos. 71–4.

5 Diary, Burns', 11 December 1908, B.M. Add. MS 46326.Google Scholar

6 ‘The Approach of the Budget’ in The Economist, 23 01 1909, pp. 150–1.Google Scholar

7 Chamberlain, Austen to MrsChamberlain, Joseph, quoted in Chamberlain, Austen, Politics from Inside (London, 1936), pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

8 The Times, 21 11 1908, p. 9. Memorandum by Lord Cromer on the position of the Unionist Free Traders, December 1908, Cromer Papers, Public Record Office F.O. 633/18.Google Scholar

10 Grey, to Bryce, , 25 December 1908, Bryce Papers U.S.A. 28, fos. 191–2.Google Scholar

11 George, Lloyd to George, William, 17 March 1909Google Scholar, quoted in George, William, My Brother and I (London, 1958), p. 223.Google Scholar

12 George, Lloyd to George, William, 25 November 1908,Google Scholaribid. p. 222.

13 Manchester Guardian, 28 November 1908, p. 8; Wedgwood, Josiah C., Memoirs of a fighting Life (London, 1940), pp. 66–9.Google Scholar

14 Ilbert, to Bryce, , 4 July 1909, Bryce Papers 13, fos. 160–3.Google Scholar

15 On 26 December 1908 Winston Churchill wrote to Asquith: ‘I learn that Lansdowne in private utterly scouts the suggestion that the Lords will reject the Budget Bill, and this confirms Beach's interesting speech in Gloucestershire ten days ago. ‘Asquith Papers 11, fos. 239–41.

16 The Times, 22 12 1908, p. 10.Google Scholar

17 George, Richard Lloyd, My Father Lloyd George (London, 1960), p. 120.Google Scholar

18 Lloyd George Papers Series C 26/1/2.

19 ‘The Taxation of Land Values’, 13 March 1909, P.R.O. Cab. 37/98/44.

20 Lloyd George Papers Series C 26/1/2.

21 Asquith to the king, 19 March 1909, Asquith Papers 5, fos. 92–4.

22 ‘Income Super-Tax’, 25 March 1909, P.R.O. Cab. 37/98/49.

23 Harcourt, to Asquith, , 12 April 1909, Asquith Papers 22, fos. 136–8.Google Scholar

24 Asquith, to the king, 31 March 1909, Asquith Papers 5, fos. 100–1.Google Scholar

25 Dairy, Burns', 1 April 1909, B.M. Add. MS 46327.Google Scholar

26 Asquith, to the king, 6 April 1909, Asquith Papers 5, fos. 102–3.Google Scholar

27 Asquith, to the king, 7 April 1909, Asquith Papers 5, fos. 104–5.Google Scholar

28 ‘Balance Sheet 1909–1910’ sent by SirMurray, George to Asquith, , 7 April 1909. Asquith PapersGoogle Scholar 22, fos. 127–31.

29 ‘Inland Revenue Account 1908–1909’ with estimates for 1909–1910 added, Asquith Papers 22, fos. 139–41.

30 Murray, to Asquith, , 7 April 1909, Asquith Papers 22, fos. 127–31.Google Scholar

31 Runciman, to Asquith, , 7 April 1909, Asquith Papers 22, fos. 132–5.Google Scholar

32 Murray, to Asquith, , 7 April 1909, Asquith Papers 22, fos. 127–31.Google Scholar

33 House of Commons Paper No. 115 of 1909.Google Scholar

34 Diary, Burns', 29 April 1909, B.M. Add. MS 46327.Google Scholar

35 Samuel, to Gladstone, , 29 April 1909, Viscount Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MS 45992.Google Scholar

36 Chamberlain, Austen to MrsChamberlain, Joseph, 30 April 1909Google Scholar, quoted in SirChamberlain, Austen, Politics from Inside, pp. 176–8.Google Scholar

37 Hansard, 5th Series, rv, pp. 501–2.

38 The Times, 24 04 1909, p. 8Google Scholar. In its summary of the situation on the eve of the Budget, the Annual Register said: ‘It was already predicted that the House of Lords would throw out the Budget and thus endeavour to force a dissolution; and there was reason to believe that considerable progress had been made in the country by Reform, Tariff. Annual Register 1909, p. 78.Google Scholar

39 Cromer, to Strachey, , 14 May 1909, Cromer Papers, P.R.O. F.O. 633/18.Google Scholar

40 Hansard, 5th Series, vi, p. 41.

41 The Times, 23 09 1909, p. 7.Google Scholar

42 Gollin, Alfred M., The Observer and L. Garvin, pp. 112–5.Google Scholar

43 Young, Kenneth, Arthur James Balfour (London, 1963), pp. 287–8.Google Scholar

44 In late September 1909 Jack Sandars, Balfour's private secretary, told Lord Esher that the general election would ‘practically’destroy the Liberal majority. ‘The whole thing’, Lord Esher noted in his journal, ‘is a political gamble’. Brett, Reginald, Esher, Viscount, Journals and Letters of Reginald Viscount Esher (4 vols., London, 1934–1938), 11, 410Google Scholar. The Conservative Party Central Office, it seems, never firmly predicted a Unionist victory in the general election. On 31 December 1909 J. L. Garvin, the editor of The Observer, wrote to Sandars that the memorandum on the general election prepared by J. Percival Hughes, principal agent of the Central Office, was of ‘no use ’ for circulation among newspaper offices as ‘H guards himself so completely every way that fear of compromising himself or the Central Office by risking an estimate suggests fear of the result – that is the impression made by the document as it stands’. Balfour Papers, B.M. Add. MS 49795.

45 MrsChamberlain, to MrsEndicott, , 17 November 1909Google Scholar, quoted in Fraser, Peter, Joseph Chamberlain (London, 1966), p. 293.Google Scholar

46 Dicey, to Strachey, , 1 October 1909, Strachey Papers 1909.Google Scholar

47 The Times, 11 12 1909, p. 8.Google Scholar

48 See, for example, Lloyd George's speech in the Queen's Hall, London, on 31 December 1909. The Times, 1 01 1910, p. 6.Google Scholar

49 The Times, 3 01 1910, p. 10.Google Scholar

50 Webb, Beatrice, Our Partnership (London, 1948), pp. 433–5.Google Scholar

51 In his Budget Speech of 29 April 1909, Lloyd George had estimated that his Budget would bring in a total of £162,590,000 – £148,390,000 from existing taxes, £13,600,000 from his proposed new taxes, and, £600,000 from a new duty on petrol and a new graduated scale for motor car licences to go nor to the regular revenue but to a special fund for the improvement of roads. By 19 April 1910 receipts totalled £131,697,000 and arrears to be collected £30,036,000, giving an overall total of £161,733,000. Hansard, 5th Series, xvi, 1906–16.

52 Hansard, 5th Series, xxxvi, 1056–69.

53 The Economist, 20 May 1911, pp. 1054–6.Google Scholar