New-York tribune., 1879-04-01
GLADSTONE AND THE QUEEN
THE SLIGHT TO THE Ex-PREMIER.

IRON THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRTBUNE.l
LONDON, March 20.-Socety is still discussing
the ecccntrcites of the COnnaught wedding; and
not society only. | hear of the London tradesman
| as being much exasperated by the privacy with
which this ceremony was conducted, and by the
selection of Windsor instead of London as the scene
Of its solemnization If it had been held in London,
argues he it must have made public festival;
trade would have been promoted, and some of the
depression notOriOusly existing might have
been relieved. But it would be too
much to expect that Her Majesty should
pay attention to such trivial matters"
he remarks, not without bitterness In truth, |
suppose that the Queen, breathing only the Court at
mosphcre, hears little of such complaints She may
not know. nor care. that one of the fashionable
drcSsmakcls of the West End said passionately
" If this Is what we are to expect from the Queen,
! should be glad if we had "a Republic tomorrow"
Sir Charles Dixie himself never said anything more
| revolutionary in that Newcastle speech, now hap
! PLY forgiven, if not quite forgotten Anybody
who saw the condition of the London streets on the
evening of the wedding could perceive that
! the shopkeepers were in their sulkiest mood.
| There were almost no illuminations. Here
! and there Court tradesman had an old transpar-
ency or rusty ornament dimly lighted. A club or
| two shonc out amid the general darkness. But the
darkness only made more visible; and the dis
content not less so. The only smiling subjects of
Her Majesty among the tradng-classes were the
Windsor burgesses; more especially, If reports be
true that butcher to whom John Brown gave or
sold for accounts differ. but the latter seems more
probable, John being Scotchmanl the four tickets
! allotted him for the celebration.
! Why was moi Mr.. Gladstone lnvitedf One hears
! the question put on all sides. In large sections OF
! that coterie of eminent personages which L spoke
of moment ago giving it the name it assumesl as
society, Mr. Gladstone so far from popular that
not much anger Is felt on his account. Still. even
among his political and personal opponents Sentl-
ment of dccency Is not always wanting, and 1t IS
! felt to be a strange thing that the most distin-
guished of living Englishmen should not have been
asked to the wedding of the Queens son. 1t has
long been believed that the Queen does not like Mr..
Gladstone Lord Beaconsfed has, not too
handsomely. taken some pains to spread this
| belief as well as to spread the belief that
he himseIfi is exceptionally good terms with Her
| Majesty Some of the current anecdotes on both
points will perhaps be in your memory. 1t is GER
! tainthat the omission of MIR. GladstOnes name from
the list of invited guests not an act of forget
fu.ness. II was pretty certain that the omission
was brought directly to the Queens notice And it
is said that her reply was: 1t is my sons we'd
dngI shall pay all the expenses and shall my
own friends This seems so discreditabe to lady
whom one desires to respect that would not repeat
it if it rested on gossip But of the main fact the
neglect to invite Mr. Gladstone, there is. unhap-
ply no doubt. And the reason said to have been
given for it, if not actually given, is at least uni
yersally believed to bave been gwen The story has
been in circulation for days; repeated at every din
nertabe and at every reception Nobody has yet con-
! tradi,ted il, and nobody seems TO doubt that the
speech the Queen is alleged TO have uttered does in
fact represent her real feeling III the matter. AS
Mr. Gladstone may probably again be Prime Minis
ter of England during the present reign, the per
sOna relations between him and the Sovereign are
matters of some Importance. Nor is their IN
pOrtance diminished If il be also true that this want
of personal regard for Mr.. Gladstone is shared by
the heir to the throne aud by other members of the
royal family.
Perhaps one ought not to look too closely INTO the
origin of royal antipathies, where they exist. 1t
would III any case, be mistake to assign any sim
gle cause for the feeling the Queen is supposed to
bear 10 Mr.. Gladstone. But on one point there can
| be little doubt. The Queen looks upOn Mr. Glad
stone as the responsible author of the army reforms
for which her cousin. the Duke of Cambridge has
inspired her with his own dislike. The point is one
on which the Queen is believed to be peculiarly
sensitive. She rcsisted-Successfullyr resisted-the
| intended appointment of Mr.. Lowe as Secretary Of
War; IN 1865, only to find that Mr.. Cardwell, who
was believed to be more piiable to Horse Guard
influences, carried out Mr.. Gladstones scheme with
an unrelenting hand. In this, as in other
things the difficulty has been that MIR.
Gladstone was an unbendng guardian of what he
believed TO be public interests. To Her Majesty
| personally no man was more deferential. To the
SOycrcign's wishes he the less opposed his own
convictions of duty; and the woman has never
forgiven his occasional opposition to the Queen.
How differently Lord BeacOnsheld manages mat
ters NAV be seen in the ease of the Chelmsford dis
match which has been widely criticised, and which
| was mentioned in both Houses of Parliament on
| Tuesday night. Lord Truro put question to the
| Government about the Queens telegram expressing
| her unabated confidence in Lord Chelmsford.
! He wanted to know whether the Queen
| message WAS sent before Lord Chelmsfords account
had been received and before the result of the in
| ouiry had been made known; and whether TINS
| message was forwarded with the sanction OF the
Government and of the Fleld-Marshal commanding
| in-chief Sir Robert Pcel-not Liberal but a
| lingo TOry-put a similar question III the Com-
mons. Lord Beaconstcld got upon his high horse
TO answer Lord Truro. lie told their Lordshps that
II was unnecessary TO assure them, well acquainted
as they were with the constitution OF the realm
that nothing could be done publicly except under
the responsibility of Ministers. If that statement
had been the only one made the public would GER
tainlv have inferred that the Queens dis
match had been laid before the Cabinet,
! and had been approved by them. But when
! Colonel Stanley came to answer Sir Robert
Peel he admitted with a frankness due perhaps TO
| the shortness of his connection with this Govern
| ment that he sent on the dispatch on MS own re-
sponsibility and without consultation with his col
| leagues Technically, it comes to the same thlBg'