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