During the latter part of the nineteenth century party politics especially was beginning to emerge for the first time. Politics suddenly became important to people who could foresee an advantage to parliamentary reform, when after the Second Reform Act (1867) propaganda started to encourage the populous vote. This Act was a result of the first, thirty-five years previously which left people wanting more. Brett (1934) described it as, "the nation [beginning] to clamour for further extensions of the franchise".
In 1867 Disraeli surfaces as more radical than the Liberals but were the bills that he passed a success? With regards to legislation which leader was truly more successful?It appears that the legislation both Gladstone and Disraeli made can be distinctly characterised. In this Victorian period class-based politics are evident in recruiting voters, legislation is aimed at particular classes and the different classes represent the new politic parties and politicians. Gladstone uses it to adhere to his own religious beliefs (Licensing Act, 1872) or which primarily relates to the middle or upper classes (Civil Service Act). Furthermore he introduced a formal examination to enter the Civil Service which was very prestigious and did not attract the intellect of the working classes. The idea of maintaining high-entry standards at work can be mirrored in the introduction of the university test, immediately resulting in not only middle class students who can afford it but intelligent ones as well.
These Acts immediately discriminated against poorer and less educated backgrounds.Perhaps Gladstone wanted only the best to work for him, knowing most new politicians would come through university and pass any employment test. Contrary to this Disraeli firmly recognises the working classes as a group, a class neglected under Gladstone. His laws directly affected the working classes (slum clearance under the Artisan's Dwelling Act) and appealed to the mass populous. This is evident in The Public Health Act which, at the time, would have been encouraging for many people still living in poverty because they were now being identified and considered.
His party beliefs are maintained because he strives to the good of the country, maybe because he understood the situation many of them were in, coming from a less privileged background himself. The acts are more successful at beginning something new for society rather than anything specifically for his own moral stance. These two points can be emphasised by the initiative in cleaning up the rivers because it meant rivers nationally were now encouraged to be less polluted, thus legislation not just for the wealthy and not just for his government.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.
