On 26 December 1933 the front page of the socialist daily Vooruit (Forward) carries a lyrical description of the Christmas Congress of the Belgian Labour Party, already glorified by its old patron Emile Vandervelde as “the most wonderful socialist convention of the past 25 years”. In a long speech on the first day of session “comrade Rik de Man” has elaborated the Plan of Labour. When he leaves the rostrum he is embraced by Vandervelde and flooded by the acclamations of the delegates.

In a well known study of the building industry written some years ago, Richard Price argued that the institutionalisation of trade unions and general formalisation of industrial relations that occurred during the latter half of the nineteenth century were influences that tended to restrict the capacity of work groups to regulate the conditions of their working lives. Whereas earlier labour historians, from the Webbs onwards, had emphasised the part played by formal organisations in the improvement of working conditions, Price stressed the capacity of informal groups to control the way work was conducted. Price's approach, and that of other writers adopting a similar perspective, has been extremely influential, not least because it accorded well with developments taking place in the modern industrial relations setting of the 1960s and 1970s, where interest was focussed upon autonomous work group activity. In the context of the mid-nineteenth century, however, Price certainly pushed his argument a long way. The capacity of craft workers, possessing a strong corporate tradition, to regulate autonomously conditions in their trade was one thing, but Price suggested that work group formation and activity extended to labourers, in building and other industries. Dock labourers, in particular, were held to have been capable of such regulative activity, “long before unionisation”. If this was indeed the case, then the argument regarding the negative contribution of formal union organisation and collective bargaining must presumably be held to apply even in those sectors of employment where the new unionism of the 1880s and 1890s made its appearance.

Among the various theoretical insights which seek to explain the emergence (and, for our purposes, the amendment) of ‘social’ legislation, the interpretation advanced by Oliver MacDonagh to explain nineteenth century governmental developments is widely known. This approach, which ascribes legal changes to the ‘pressure of events’, is built upon a five-stage model, progressing from the ‘discovery’ of an ‘evil’, to its administrative solution by means of legislative enactment. MacDonagh's formulation attracted, in turn, the criticism of those students of nineteenth century government growth, who pointed to the influence of Benthamite ideas as the forcing-house of change. Latterly, John Goldthorpe has sought to place emphasis on the role of social movements in galvanising legal reforms, suggesting how different interest groups might vie with one another in a pluralistic struggle for success.