To what extent were Gladstones social and economic reforms in his first ministry a success?

However, another interpretation of these reforms is that they were not part of a ‘programme’ at all; more that they were a series of unplanned reforms that alienated supporters. The aforementioned Education Act is a good example of one of the main problems with even the most successful reforms made by Gladstone’s ministry: while they may have appeased or please one faction of the population, they served to alienate or anger another. Sometimes reforms alienated two sides: the 1872 Licensing Act drew criticism from temperance groups like the United Kingdom Alliance for not being harsh enough on drinking, but also incurred the wrath of the working classes whose access to beer was restricted. This mild piece of legislation had highly adverse consequences for the Liberal Party, and they further irritated the working classes through economic reform, namely the Trade Union Act and Criminal Law Amendment (1871). This Act and Amendment, which gave trade unions full legal rights before banning strikes and picketing, cost Gladstone a great deal of working class support, and shows a distinct lack of success in his aim of ‘reform’. However, the introduction of the Trade Union Act allowed for support of the whole labour movement, and can therefore be seen as a long-term answer to an omnipresent problem. Reduction in income tax in 1874, from 6d. to 3d. in the pound may have satisfied the people and given stimulus to the economy through higher general spending, follows the Gladstonian aim of ‘retrenchment’ in one sense, as it gives the government less to spend, but it may also mean that more progressive measures are not taken as a result of cost. In terms of Gladstone’s aim at ‘peace’, his ministry was again arguably unsuccessful. While the Irish Church Disestablishment Act was a progressive concession to the Irish, it heightened expectations in Ireland, which in turn increased the chances of future unrest. Again, Gladstone’s ministry fail to preserve ‘peace’, then. Cardwell’s abolition of the purchase of commissions caused outrage in the elite classes and obscured the far-sightedness of other army reforms. A pattern is emerging: Gladstone’s reforms seem to irritate every single faction of the population (even Queen Victoria, who opposed the Cardwell Reforms), and this cost his ministry so much support that the Liberals lost the 1874 elections. This is not the mark of a successful ministry, and it can thus be said that, although Gladstone’s ministry may have had good intentions, the haphazard and unstructured programme of reforms single-handedly lost them the subsequent elections, qualifying these reforms as unsuccessful.

Perhaps it would be most prudent to argue that although Gladstone lost support in the short-term, his ministry reformed with regards to the future. Theirs was a far-reaching and innovative programme of reform, and it covered a wide breadth of areas, from women’s rights to army reform. At the cost of support and a consecutive term in government, in a fashion similar to Peel and his Corn Law Repeal, Gladstone’s ministry pushed through many unpopular but effective reforms. And although to proclaim that his first ministry was ‘one of the finest instruments of government that ever were constructed’ may be rather hyperbolic, it worked with honest aims at progressive reform, rather than the more cynical reform of the preceding Disraeli administration. A successful programme, then, with bad consequences for the party.