The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-08-03
Gladstone and Disraeli.

The conflict between t0eSc llFsG ucA III
English politics has been alike the cause OF
disappointment aud modification: disap
pointment to all and modification to the
friends of Mr.. GLADSTONE. MoSCURE D.
CONWAY, in late letter to the Cincinnati
Commercial, says:
Gone of the most important features ci
the two ecclesiastical debates that have been
sprung upon Parliament-one relating TO
the Established Church Of Scotland, the
other 20 that Of Epgland-has been an oml-
nous announcement by Mr.. Gladstone that
he does not care for any established religion
except so far as it is established in the faith
and feeling Of the people, and that there Is
no page in bis own career to which he looks
back with greater satisfaction than to his dis
cstablis bmenl of the Irish Church. His NEIL
ton of the disrslabliShed Irish Church lii
connection with the Scotch and English
Churches can only be regarded as an lnt!na-
ton that he is prepared, should Things tend
that way, to lead the noncont0rm:>ts II their
great movement to place the Church 0! Eng
land in the rank Of mere sectS. This has
been the impression which his words have
made upon the country, and the practical
effect upon the state Of PARTIES will be some
thing Immense. The Times procaims that
GlaCstone's great speech vas one OF The
most destruc i've ever uttered in Parlia.
ment, and leads straight to one result-dlS-
establishment. 1t also reads him out of the
Liberal party. And what the Times does
vehemently the papers most friendly to
Gladstone formerly do indirectly. The 1eie-
qraph, formerly Gladstone's organ, which
used to talk of him as the Peoples VIII
liam, now sternly abandons him; and even
so does the Ne,rs. The latter paper has
in this matter been Influenced, suspect, by
Samuel Morley, NJ. P, its chief proprietor,
who represents the respectable common
Mace non.conformtism which likes to sink
differences between itself and the evangell-
calls of the church. However this may be,
certain. it is that Mr.. Gladstone, by basing
his opposition to this anti.ritualstlc move
ment in the church (thus far) on the lowest
ecclesiastical ground, has failed to get re-
sponse from those in Parliament who might
have been moved by demand that the law
should be applied impartially all around.
And the result is that be finds that in en-
barrassing the Tories he has embarrassed bis
own party no less and be will never again
be able to lead united Liberal party unless
that party shall have been recast. MIR.
Gl4dstone's future as political leader de-
pends upon his ability to lead the Radicals
on siege against the English church-a
siege which will gather to him all the Ritual
lists and Roman Catholics, just as much as
the Radicals"
And now we have what looks very much
like wet blanket to Mr.. GLADsToNE's politi-
cal aspirations in the following notice OF the
proceedings in Parliament:
"LoSDoN, July 1S.-One more such week
as this and people will begin TO call Mr.. Glad
stone impracticable. The sequel to the story.
of which I related the first two chapters in
two preceding letters, is very damaging
one to candidate, as DIR. Disraell called
him, for the Office of Prime Minister. After
the House had read the public worship bill
a second time, without division, on Wed
nesday, there was great curiosity to know
what Mr. Gladstone would do ABOUT bis six
resolutions. There were those who thought
| be would accept Mr.. Di<raelIs challenge, ad.
here 10 his resolutions, make great speech,
and 90 down with his fig flying. There
| we're others who thought his sense OF what
| was due 10 his party would lead him to with.
draw the resolutions after such an explanation
as should justify himself before the country,
and d,spel The gloss which Mr. Disraeli had en-
grated on them. To experienced politicians II
seemed that either of these two courses
might oe adopted, and that the latter offered
MIR, Gladstone the best chance OF retrieving
in some measure the ground which his rlVaFs
successful strategy had won away from him.
But MIR. Gladstone took neither. He with.
drew his resolutions, which was probably
wise, but he withdrew them in few color
less words which left upon mems minds the
effect of surrender at discretion. This wa:
on Thursday. On Friday the bill was again
TO come up in committee, and BIZ. Glad
stones friends supposed he would then make
the speech on which they counted. Agar
he disappointed them. He allowed the de
bate of Friday to begin and end, and he toos
no other purt in it than TO discuss briefly
two or THREE matters of detail. do not us'
too strong word when ! say that the efiec
of all this. has been to produce in the minds
of Mr. Giadstone's friends a feeling OF NOR
tification."
1t is not surprising That the following o.
dit should be found in the late LondoI
news:
"It is currently stated at the London Re
form Club that Sir. Gladstone, having neel
| informed by one OF his late colleagues tina
| his speech on the Church bill would seflousl,