william ewart gladstone-第6章

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！


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　occasion　（in　1890）　he　remarked　to　a
colleague　who　had　said　something　about　the　prime　minister's
offensive　language：　　〃I　have　never　felt　angry　at　what　Salisbury　has
said　about　me。　　His　mother　was　very　kind　to　me　when　I　was　quite　a
young　man；　and　I　remember　Salisbury　as　a　little　fellow　in　a　red
frock　rolling　about　on　the　ottoman。〃　　His　leniency　toward　another
violent　tongue　which　frequently　assailed　him；　that　of　Lord　Randolph
Churchill；　was　not　less　noteworthy。

That　his　temper　was　naturally　hot；　no　one　who　looked　at　him　could
doubt。　　But　he　had　it　in　such　tight　control；　and　it　was　so　free　from
anything　acrid　or　malignant；　that　it　had　become　a　good　temper；
worthy　of　a　large　and　strong　nature。　　With　whatever　vehemence　he
might　express　himself；　there　was　nothing　wounding　or　humiliating　to
others　in　this　vehemence；　the　proof　of　which　might　be　found　in　the
fact　that　those　younger　men　who　had　to　deal　with　him　were　never
afraid　of　a　sharp　answer　or　an　impatient　repulse。　　A　distinguished
man　（the　late　Lord　Chief　Justice　Coleridge）；　some　ten　years　his
junior；　used　to　say　that　he　had　never　feared　but　two　persons；　Mr。
Gladstone　and　Cardinal　Newman；　but　it　was　awe　of　their　character
that　inspired　this　fear；　for　no　one　could　cite　an　instance　in　which
either　of　them　had　forgotten　his　dignity　or　been　betrayed　into　a
discourteous　word。　　Of　Mr。　Gladstone　especially　it　might　be　said
that　he　was　cast　in　too　large　a　mold　to　have　the　pettiness　of
ruffled　vanity　or　to　abuse　his　predominance　by　treating　any　one　else
as　an　inferior。　　His　manners　were　the　manners　of　the　old　time；　easy
but　stately。　　Like　his　oratory；　they　were　in　what　Matthew　Arnold
used　to　call　the　grand　style；　and　the　contrast　in　this　respect
between　him　and　most　of　those　who　crossed　swords　with　him　in
literary　or　theological　controversy　was　apparent。　　His　intellectual
generosity　was　a　part　of　the　same　largeness　of　nature。　　He　always
cordially　acknowledged　his　indebtedness　to　those　who　helped　him　in
any　piece　of　work；　received　their　suggestions　candidly；　even　when
opposed　to　his　own　preconceived　notions；　did　not　hesitate　to　own　a
mistake　if　he　had　made　one。　　Those　who　have　abundant　mental
resources；　and　have　conquered　fame；　can　doubtless　afford　to　be
generous。　　Julius　Caesar　was；　and　George　Washington；　and　so；　in　a
different　sphere；　were　Newton　and　Darwin。　　But　the　instances　to　the
contrary　are　so　numerous　that　one　may　say　of　magnanimity　that　it　is
among　the　rarest　as　well　as　the　finest　ornaments　of　character。

The　essential　dignity　of　his　nature　was　never　better　seen　than
during　the　last　few　years　of　his　life；　after　he　had　retired　（in
1894）　from　Parliament　and　public　life。　　He　indulged　in　no　vain
regrets；　nor　was　there　any　foundation　for　the　rumors；　so　often
circulated；　that　he　thought　of　reentering　the　arena　of　strife。　　He
spoke　with　no　bitterness　of　those　who　had　opposed；　and　sometimes
foiled；　him　in　the　past。　　He　gave　vent　to　no　disparaging　criticisms
on　those　who　from　time　to　time　filled　the　place　that　had　been　his　in
the　government　of