Additionally, and perhaps as a result of the piecemeal approach, historians such as Coleman have argued that many of the reforms were simply a continuation of work done by the preceding Gladstonian administrations, and alterations thereof. Coleman stated that “that 'Disraeli, like other Conservatives, had seized the plentiful opportunities offered by Gladstone's First Ministry, but he did little to reshape Conservatism significantly in either thought or policy”. A notable example of this trend is the Friendly Societies Act, which was proposed simply as a modified version of law that had been set in train by the Liberals. This was also the case with Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act on picketing. Additionally, in the following year, the Merchant Shipping Act was passed due to Samuel Plimsoll: a Liberal MP. Also, this suggests that individual MPs (in this case a Liberal), were the true instigators of reform.
On the other hand, whilst some argue that the reforms were restricted in improving the condition of the people, by a lack of originality and active policy creation; this did not significantly hinder the impact of Disraeli’s reforms. Firstly, the majority of proposals were of Tory origin. Secondly, even if they were not of Tory origin they were still able to improve conditions. Although it may be argued as a sign of poor governance and reinforces the statement that Disraeli’s approach was piecemeal, the origin of proposals is irrelevant to the question, and a near Liberal policy, taken on by the Conservatives, still had potential to improve the condition of the people. The Friendly Societies Act attempted to establish registration and improve their financial stability and thus made a notable contribution. In addition, the Conservatives were able to significantly contribute to the development of a mature capitalist relationship between workers and employers, in Disraeli’s words, “settling the position of Labour for a generation”.
Many historians also criticise the reforms directly, sceptically stating that those that were produced, were either highly limited in their impact on the condition of the people or biased towards Conservative supporters; and thus Disraeli exaggerated the effects. Legislation such as the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the Artisan’s Dwellings Act were highly permissive in their nature, relying on the choices of local bodies to instigate change; by 1881 (6 years later) only 10 out of 87 towns (around 1 in 8) had taken any action under the Artisan’s Dwelling Act. Norton and Aughey argue that the social reforms provided “no opposition to established orthodoxies about the sanctity of property and the role of the state in the economy” and thus were limited in their impact. Despite the ‘Great Depression” and significant agricultural misery, Disraeli’s ministry did little to aid the farming community. Other commentators also believe that foreign and imperial concerns took precedence over the plans for reform. The neo-Marxian historians, such as Hobsbawm, believe that all the parties were at the mercy of economic trends, especially the Conservatives who had limited genuine plan for progress. Thus, these combined groups argue that the ministry did little more than respond in line with the increasing demands of the people, were driven by “electoral expediency” (Coleman) and provided no real progress to improve the condition of the people.
Conversely, some historians such as Gosh, Wilkinson and Jenkins are much more positive, citing a broad and impacting social reform programme. Whilst much legislation was permissive, this was in line with the laissez-faire approach of both parties, and some historians would argue that limitations of government expansion were necessary and helped improve the condition of the people in the long term, by preserving individual freedom, economic liberties, and focusing on more decentralised governing. Furthermore, whilst the Tories’ approach certainly favoured the Landlords in agriculture, and thus were limited in this respect, the Landlords are also people, and more importantly, many great improvements for the poor were provided in other areas.
Under the banner of One Nation Conservatism and Tory Democracy, Disraeli embarked upon what Jenkins described as a “systematic exercise in paternalistic social reform measures”. The Tory labour policies were high significant in their impact, by allowing peaceful picketing, recognising the relationship between employer and employees and reforming the law so that breaches of contract by employers and workers should be treaded under civil law. The importance of the measures is best shown by the comments of MacDonald, a Liberal MP, who declared that Disraeli’s ministry had done “more for the working classes in six years than the Liberals had done in 50”. In addition, working hours were limited to 10 hours a day, with a half-day on Saturday, and the Factory and Workshops Act began inspections.
Furthermore, to help the condition of the people, the Tories brought out significant plans to Housing, which provided powers to impose the compulsory purchase of slums and to oversee their replacement. Also, significant progress was made under the banner of Public Health, with the Public Health Act bringing all previous legislation together, and adding powers to improve sewage, draining, public lavatories and cellar dwellings. Steps were then made to regulate the adulteration of food, and the quality of river water. Together these measures helped improve sanitary conditions, and made steps against slum formation and entrenchment.
Education was also on the agenda, and the Education Act of 1876 set up School Attendance Committees. These increased pressures on working-class parents to enrol their children in schools, in attempt to reap the benefits of education, namely increases in human capital, and neighbourhood effects (positive externalities). Thus, the condition of the people was improved in the long term, as well as in the short term by the reforms mentioned above, and in the economy: in shipping, Friendly Societies, and through a general policy of limited duties and tax (although these fluctuated).
Whilst many historians criticise the lack of planning, and the origins of policy, this did not limit the effect of reforms. Furthermore, whilst some measures permissive in nature or limited, on balance it is clear that Disraeli’s government had great success in improving the condition of the people. Not only did they help the working classes through union and factory reform, but made significant measures that helped the general population, improved conditions around Britain, brought social issues to the forefront of current debate and addressed numerous areas with lasting impacts; ranging from housing to health, education and the economy.
