Both yes and no. Some significant pieces of legislative reform and institutional reform introduced by Gladstone in his Great Ministry.
Forster’s Education Act established the principle of universal elementary
education. The state was taking on board the responsibility and the costs of
educating all children up to a certain age.
This had a link with
meritocracy because Gladstone wanted the working classes to be aspiring:
education would encourage workers to be more reflective and focus on moral and
ethical progress. This was not necessarily appreciated by the working man and
woman. Gladstone’s high-minded ideals was very far removed from the daily
experiences of the ordinary family who were trying to scrape together a living.
Ensuring that children had to receive schooling meant that there was less money
coming into the family household. Disraeli’s Education Act 1876, clarified
Forster’s Act and made employment of children under 10 illegal. Arguably,
Neither Gladstone or Disraeli had any significant understanding of the plight
of working class lives especially in a pre-welfare age.
Gladstone was the first PM to
recognise the rights of Trade Unions to exist. His legislation of 1874 gave the
unions legal protection and the freedom to exist and collect subs. On first
reading, then, it would seem that Gladstone truly understood the concerns of
working men and collective security against unscrupulous employers. However,
the Act did not allow Unions to go on strike which irritated the Radicals. It
was a half-hearted measure that alarmed the Whig-conservative elements and frustrated
the hopes of working men. Many saw it as a pointless decision, and it took
Disraeli in 1875 to allow Union the right to strike.
Disraeli’s legislation
differed from Gladstone’s in that he was much more practical in his social
reforms. Gladstone’s reforms required cooperation from the working classes; it
places demands on them to respond. Disraeli’s approach was to provide
non-controversial legislation that was benefit to all in society.