New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-09-02

ever Mr.. Gladstone should retire. If he had com
pettor for this place. il Mr. Cardwel, who IL so
no longer being now Lord Cardwell. There grew
up however between Mr. Forster and the Radicals
an estraDgement of singular kind. They divided
on the question of Education Mr. Forsterlwas I'M
sparingiy attacked by the Birmingham League, that
is, by the secular party in education Into the de-
tails of that dispute it is needless to enter. Mr.
Forster declined to submit to the dication OF his
old friends or to sacrifice he thought, general
scheme of national education to the demands OF the
Nonconformists for equal rights with the Church.
/ cannot but think those demands were just
and Mr. Forsters position on the 18th clause and
other matters untenable. But the warfare which on
that account was begun and carried on against him,
became of such a character to put his assail-
ants in the wrong, whether he were right or not Ii
went to the extent of deliberate conspiracy to
unsea him at the last election, which happily failed.
and which left him stronger than before with the
country in general. The Tory victory, the dsor-
ganization of the Liberal party which followed, the
pitiable spectacle it presented in Parliament when
Mr.. Gladstone left his followers without leader,
produced healthful reaction. The most violent
were sobered. Then the line which Mr. Forster took
in the Endowed Schools debate following DECLARE
tion which showed willingness to make all posi-
Bile concessions III respect to the Education act con-
ciated his opponents in some degree. There were
many among them who watched with apprehension
the sudden rise of Sir William Harcourt and his
aspirations for the craftsmanship of the party.
The foundation think, has been laid for a recon-
ciiatlOn, and in another session we may expect to
see Mr. Forster in that relation to all sections of his
party to which his services, his character, his
capacity, and his fitness for leadership entite him.
He is, in my Judgment, the broadcast man in the
party. With the exception Of Lord Granville he is
almost the only one who cares much for foreign
affairs, or knows much about them. Were / an
Englishman and question arose between England
and another country. should be perfectly content
to trust English interests to Mr. Forster. No part
Of the friendship he showed to America was based
on carelessness about the interests of his own
country. He is one of the most English of English
men understands his cOuntrymen; is devoted to
them in a sense which mere party politician never
rises to; and has shown himself capable of judging
fairly between hostile class interests, even when
one class was his OVID. writer who bitterly
misudged him in the controversy above mentioned,
speaks of him Justly as possessing robust common
sense, sagacity which, though fine. is seldom over
SUBTLE and a hearty recognition of the historic
greatness and future destiny of England. 1t is i'm
possible to estimate too highly what he has done for
the education of the people The United States may
teach him much in respect to school systems, nor
will anything be lost on man so open-minded. Or
purely political lessons to he learned there say
nothing. 1t would be mistake to expect to find in
Mr.. Forster, in any other of high position in
England what we should call Republican opinions.
The Monarchy here is on its good behavior, but
meantime is Loyalty supported But the Monarchy
does not govern. Government by the people for the
people is a doctrine to which Englishmen and Ameri-
cans may both assent. The dispute between them
would be which carries it best into practice. You
will not be sorry to hear what can be said on that
question by a man who is likely to be at some day
Prime Minister of England. G. IS.