This leads me to my next point. Disraeli’s legislation was concerned with “the condition of England” and this preoccupation is skilful in representing himself as a politician whom sincerely believed in the good of the people. It is successful; the legislation marks out fresh thinking in politics and creates mass appeal from the working classes who suddenly are faced to force their wages higher due to the Factory Act 1874, probably the most significant change in all of Disraeli’s legislation. Despite this it may have created anger amongst the new industrialists who were now advised to reconsider their pollution disposal methods. Gladstone also has a preoccupation with enforcing equality. Although he was concerned with the upper classes he does make an attempt in evening out standards and making jobs rewarded on merit not on purchase (Cardwell’s army reforms). “Equal opportunities” is a frequent concept throughout his legislation and is still very much a popular concept today with the European Court of Human Rights and the Sex Discrimination Acts of the 1970’s. Disraeli was abovementioned in beginning something new for society and perhaps now it is also possible to attach the label to Gladstone.
In any piece of poetry or newspaper the wording can often define the success of a writer’s efforts and this can also parallel a Government and its new bills. Therefore it is necessary to remark upon the phraseology of both leaders legislation. In comparison with Disraeli, Gladstone and his party make quite defined legislation. For example, the Licensing Act states that public houses have to be closed by 11pm in the country. This could be described as absolute legislation and does not allow much lenience. Gladstone does not seem to shy away from compulsory law. Restrictions are specified so that he can regulate society and give a consistency and just level of regulation. This would have meant that everyone faced the same laws regardless of where they live, thus avoiding confrontation and living standard differences. Disraeli takes a different approach in legislation and seems to back off from being specific in his acts. The Public Health Act, 1875 shows how he used permissive legislation to give merely guidelines to the new councils. This insecurity and lenience gives a tendency to not especially help the situation because councils are not compelled to give their extra cash to employ health inspectors, for example, so for the most part many hindrances which could have been solved with absolute legislation continued to be a problem. In addition, Disraeli often passes authoritative decisions across to councils whereas Gladstone provides a successful direct Government.
Of course, expense is a key issue here because by passing on the bigger issues to councils Disraeli was successful in passing costs away from his party and Government into the boroughs. Disraeli tackled issues which notoriously required funding to address and in this respect was courageous in simply passing ideas along to councils in permissive legislation because it resulted in action which he could imply and not reinforce (Sale of Foods and Drugs Act 1875). He managed to gain support without doing too much in the way of absolute change. Gladstone in relation to this passed legislation that came from above and did not cost more than the minimum because his ideas were rules rather than sustained action. The Ballot Act would be relatively cheap because voting was infrequent and minimised to 2 days so bureaucratic costs were low also.
It is difficult to measure the success of a leader- for whom is it successful and to what extend is their legislation effective and positive? Generally, Gladstone’s laws were drafted to encourage Party Unity whereas Disraeli attempted to capitalise on the vote of the newly enfranchised working masses. Each leader had his own principles to uphold and each appealed to a different audience and is successful in relation to that class. It is obvious from looking at the acts each approached leadership with a different attitude but did have a significant influence on the future of the country though in different ways- Disraeli on the condition of England and Gladstone on equality. The legislation they pass is successful in being new and addressing situations which went disregarded previously. They both address themes important to them.
Disraeli’s legislation was more expensive, permissive and less class based than Gladstone whom was much more absolute in law and less concerned with being popular, more so trusted and respected. Disraeli’s work impacted more on ordinary lives because he was starting to introduce a so-called “clean up Britain” campaign. Gladstone focused on the fortune of his own moral beliefs and highly religious beliefs which are reflected in the Licensing Act. I do not think Gladstone can claim establishing individual liberty because he began restricting people and minimising their opportunities rather than allowing them freedom. However this may have had a positive effect in the long term because society could be regulated and controlled rather than left to its own devices which Disraeli appears to have done. Disraeli had established an alternative way of ruling by being liberal and not reinforcing laws.
In conclusion I think Disraeli left the more enduring legacy due to the fact he started to implicate guidelines in areas which had not been addressed previously and left a set of acts for other leaders to build upon and maintain. He stated “we came in on the principle of not harassing the country” and therefore Disraeli was personally successful as well. Unlike Gladstone whom in 1873 criticised his own party, “there is now no cause on which the liberal party are agreed and combined”, thus emphasising the unionism and success of the Tories.
philippa treverton-jones