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