l, so often
repeated by him, to the common sentiment of the civilised world, to the
general and fixed convictions of mankind, to the principles of
brotherhood among nations, to their sacred independence, to the equality
in their rights of the weak with the strong. Such was his language.
'When we are asking for the maintenance of the rights that belong to our
fellow-subjects resident in Greece,' he said, '_let us do as we would be
done by_; let us pay all respect to a feeble state and to the infancy of
free institutions, which we should desire and should exact from others
towards their authority and strength.' Mr. Gladstone had not read
history for nothing, he was not a Christian for nothing. He knew the
evils that followed in Europe the breakdown of the great spiritual
power--once, though with so many defects, a controlling force over
violence, anarchy, and brute wrong. He knew the necessity for some
substitute, even a substitute so imperfect as the law of nations. 'You
may call the rule of nations vague and untrustworthy,' he exclaimed; 'I
find in it, on the contrary, a great and noble monument of human wisdom,
founded on the combined dictates of sound experience, a precious
inheritance bequeathed to us by the generations that have gone before
us, and a firm foundation on which we must take care to build whatever
it may be our part to add to their acquisitions, if indeed we wish to
promote the peace and welfare of the world.'

EXALTS THE LAW OF NATIONS

The government triumphed by a handsome majority, and Mr. Gladstone, as
was his wont, consoled himself for present disappointment by hopes for a
better future. 'The majority of the House of Commons, I am convinced,'
he wrote to Guizot, then in permanent exile from power, 'was with us in
heart and in conviction; but fear of inconveniences attending the
removal of a ministry which there is no regularly organised opposition
ready to succeed, carried the day beyond all authoritative doubt,
against the merits of the particular question. It remains to hope that
the demonstration which has been made may not be without its effect upon
the tone of Lord Palmerston's future proceedings.'

The conflict thus opened between Mr. Gladstone and Lord Palmerston in
1850 went on in many changing phases, with some curious vicissitudes and
inversions. They were sometimes frank foes, occasionally partners in
opposition, and for a long while colleagues in office. Never