按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
directly his work； though he took a leading part in piloting the
former through the House of Commons。
His action in the field of foreign policy； though it was felt only
at intervals； was on several occasions momentous； and has left
abiding results in European history。 In 1851； he being then still a
Tory； his powerful pamphlet against the Bourbon government of
Naples； and the sympathy he subsequently avowed with the national
movement in Italy； gave that movement a new standing in Europe by
powerfully recommending it to English opinion。 In 1870 the prompt
action of his government； in concluding a treaty for the neutrality
of Belgium on the outbreak of the war between France and Germany；
saved Belgium from being drawn into the strife。 In 1871； by
concluding the treaty of Washington； which provided for the
settlement of the Alabama claims； he not only asserted a principle
of the utmost value； but delivered England from what would have
been； in case of her being at war with any European power； a danger
fatal to her ocean commerce。 And； in 1876； the vigorous attack he
made on the Turks after the Bulgarian massacre roused an intense
feeling in England； so turned the current of opinion that Disraeli's
ministry were forced to leave the Sultan to his fate； and thus
became the cause of the deliverance of Bulgaria； Eastern Rumelia；
Bosnia； and Thessaly from Mussulman tyranny。 Few English statesmen
have equally earned the gratitude of the oppressed。
Nothing lay nearer to his heart than the protection of the Eastern
Christians。 His sense of personal duty to them was partly due to
the feeling that the Crimean War had prolonged the rule of the Turk；
and had thus imposed a special responsibility on Britain； and on the
statesmen who formed the cabinet which undertook that war。 Twenty
years after the agitation of 1876； and when he had finally retired
from Parliament and political life； the massacres perpetrated by the
Sultan on his Armenian subjects brought him once more into the
field； and his last speech in public （delivered at Liverpool in the
autumn of 1896） was a powerful argument in favor of British
intervention to rescue the Eastern Christians。 In the following
spring he followed this up by a spirited pamphlet on behalf of the
freedom of Crete。 In neither of these two cases did success crown
his efforts； for the government； commanding a large majority in
Parliament； pursued the course it had already entered on。 Many
poignant regrets were expressed in England that Mr。 Gladstone was no
longer able to take practical action in the cause of humanity； yet
it was a consolation to have the assurance that his sympathies with
that cause had been nowise dulled by age and physical infirmity。
That he was right in the view he took of the Turks and British
policy in 1876…78 has been now virtually admitted even by his
opponents。 That he was also right in 1896 and 1897； when urging
action to protect the Eastern Christians； will probably be admitted
ten years hence； when partizan passion has cooled。 In both cases it
was not merely religious sympathy； but also a far…sighted view of
policy that governed his judgment。 The only charge that can fairly
be brought against his conduct in foreign； and especially in
Eastern； affairs is； that he did not keep a sufficiently watchful
eye upon them at all times； but frequently allowed himself to be so
engrossed by British domestic questions as to lose the opportunity
which his tenure of power from time to time gave him of averting
approaching dangers。 Those who know how tremendous is the strain
which the headship of a cabinet and the leadership of the House of
Commons impose will understand； though they will not cease to
regret； this omission。
Such a record is the best proof of the capacity for initiative which
belonged to him and in which men of high oratorical gifts have often
been wanting。 In the Neapolitan case； in the Alabama case； in the
Bulgarian case； no less than in the adoption of the policy of a
separate legislature and executive for Ireland； he acted from his
own convictions； with no suggestion of encouragement from his party；
and in the last instancesthose of Ireland and of Bulgariahe took
a course which seemed to the English political world so novel and
even startling that no ordinary statesman would have ventured on it。
His courage was indeed one of the most striking parts of his
character。 It was not the rashness of an impetuous nature； for；
impetuous as he was when stirred by some sudden excitement； he was
wary and cautious whenever he took a deliberate survey of the
conditions that surrounded him。 It was the proud self…confidence of
a strong character； which was willing to risk fame and fortune in
pursuing a course it had once resolved upon； a character which had
faith in its own conclusions； and in the success of a cause
consecrated by principle； a character which obstacles did not
affright or deter； but rather roused to a higher combative energy。
Few English statesmen have done anything so bold as was Mr。
Gladstone's declaration for Irish home rule in 1886。 He took not
only his political power but the fame and credit of his whole past
life in his hand when he set out on this new journey at seventy…
seven years of age； for it was quite possible that the great bulk of
his party might refuse to follow him； and he be left exposed to
derision as the chief of an insignificant group。 It turned out that
the great bulk of the party did follow him； though many of the most
influential and socially important refused to do so。 But neither
Mr。 Gladstone nor any one else could have foretold this when his
intentions were first announced。
Two faults natural to a strong man and an excitable man were
commonly charged on himan overbearing disposition and an irritable
temper。 Neither charge was well founded。 Masterful he certainly
was； both in speech and in action。 His ardent manner； the intensity
of his look； the dialectical vigor with which he pressed an
argument； were apt to awe people who knew him but slightly； and make
them abandon resistance even when they were unconvinced。 A gifted
though somewhat erratic politician used to tell how he once fared
when he had risen in the House of Commons to censure some act of the
ministry。 〃I had not gone on three minutes when Gladstone turned
round and gazed at me so that I had to sit down in the middle of a
sentence。 I could not help it。 There was no standing his eye。〃
But he neither meant nor wished to beat down his opponents by mere
authority。 One of the ablest of his private secretaries； who knew
him as few people did； once observed： 〃When you are arguing with
Mr。 Gladstone； you must never let him think he has convinced you
unless you are really convinced。 Persist in repeating your view；
and if you are unable to cope with him in skill of fence； say
bluntly that for all his ingenuity and authority you think he is
wrong； and you retain your own opinion。 If he respects you as a man
who knows something of the subject； he will be impressed by your
opinion； and it will afterward have due weight with him。〃 In his
own cabinet he was willing to listen patiently to everybody's views；
and； indeed； in the judgment of some of his colleagues； was not； at
least in his later years； sufficiently strenuous in asserting and
holding to his own。 It is no secret that some of the most important
decisions of the ministry of 1880…85 were taken against his
judgment； though when they had been adopted he； of course； defended
them in Parliament as if they had received his individual approval。
Nor； although he was extremely resolute and tenacious； did he bear
malice against those who foiled his plans。 He would exert his full
force to get his own way； but if he could not get it； he accepted
the position with dignity and good temper。 He was too proud to be
vindictive； too completely master of himself to be betrayed； even
when excited； into angry words。 Whether he was unforgiving and
overmindful of injuries； it was less easy to determine； but those
who had watched him most closely held that mere opposition or even
insult did not leave a permanent sting； and that the only thing he
could not forget or forgive was faithlessness or disloyalty。 Like
his favorite poet； he put the traditori in the lowest pit； although；
like all practical statesmen； he often found himself obliged to work
with those whom he distrusted。 His attitude toward his two chief
opponents well illustrates this feature of his character。 He
heartily despised Disraeli； not because Disraeli had been in the
habit of attacking him； as one could easily perceive from the way he
talked of those attacks； but because he thought Disraeli habitually
untruthful； and considered him to have behaved with incomparable
meanness to Peel。 Yet he never attacked Disraeli personally； as
Disraeli often attacked him。 There was another of his opponents of
whom he entertained an especially bad opinion； but no one could have
told from his speeches what that opinion was。 For Lord Salisbury he
seemed to have no dislike at all； though Lord Salisbury had more
than once insulted him。 On one occas