IT is a great thing to be a Cabinet Minister. Every man when he begins a life of politics feels that. He feels it when he gets into Parliament, and when he joins a Government in some subordinate office. It is the goal to which his hopes aspire1, and the success to which his ambition ventures to look. The young politician hardly expects to be Prime Minister, but he does, within his own bosom2, think it possible that he may achieve an entrance within those doors which enclose that mysterious entity3 which we call the Cabinet. The Cabinet is essentially4 English in its abnormal constitution, having grown to its present enormous responsibility without any written rules or defined powers. There is nothing to prescribe its numbers, which do indeed vary very greatly; nor indeed is there any law requiring that this or that officer of the Government should be a member of it,—as there is no law by which its very existence is made necessary. It is considered essential that the Chancellor5 and the Secretaries of State should be of the Cabinet, but we have no law which would be broken were it to be completed without them. But it is understood by all men that the governing of the country is in the hands of a small junta6 of individuals who form the Cabinet, and it is equally well understood that all members{29} of the Government who are not in the Cabinet are responsible for nothing beyond the proper performances of their own official duties; though they, too, are bound to resign when their betters resign, and are bound also to support their betters by parliamentary aid and judicious7 backing in all but the very few matters which are regarded as “open questions.” In fact, the Cabinet Minister is a governing power, and the Minister not in the Cabinet is simply the servant of the Premier8. It is therefore undoubtedly9 the ambition of every political servant of his country to make good his claim to a seat in the Cabinet. And although there may now be some little advance in the thorough distinction of the two places since the days in which Lord Palmerston was first enlisted10 as a servant of the Crown, rather more than seventy years ago, yet even then the feeling as to the power of the Cabinet Minister existed as it does now. It has been told how, in 1809, Mr. Percival offered to make Lord Palmerston Chancellor of the Exchequer11. “Annexed to this office he offered a seat in the Cabinet, if I chose it,” he said in a letter to Lord Malmesbury, asking for advice. “And he thought it better I should have it. I, of course, expressed to him how much honoured I felt by this very flattering proof of the good opinion he was pleased to entertain of me; but also my great fears that I should find myself wholly incompetent12 for the situation, both from my inexperience in the details of matters of finance, and my want of practice in public speaking.” From this we see how much surprised Lord Palmerston had himself been by the offer. But with that wonderful reliance on his own power which always marked him, and which was as conspicuous13 when he doubted his power as when he relied{30} on it, he declined the offer. And he added, “A bad speech, though tolerated in any person not in a responsible situation, would make a Chancellor of the Exchequer exceedingly ridiculous, particularly if his friends could not set off against his bad oratory14 a great knowledge and capacity for business.” Actuated by these reasons, Lord Palmerston declined the offer, and then came into office simply as Secretary at War without a seat in the Cabinet. His self-diffidence was repaid by sixteen years of comparative exclusion15. Mr. Percival had been murdered, and Lord Liverpool, who became Prime Minister in Mr. Percival’s place, had either thought less of Lord Palmerston or had been thought less of by him. The fact probably was that as Palmerston grew in years he had learned to discard many of the ideas of Toryism, and that he became year by year less palatable16 to so thorough a Tory as was Lord Liverpool. Be that as it may, we can fancy that before he reached the age of forty-three he must occasionally have looked back with watering lips at that offer which had once been made to him. Governor-Generalships and peerages were not to his taste. Such rich rewards would have removed him from that central and busy life which he intended for himself in the House of Commons. But the fruition of the central and busy life, though it had been offered to him young, had been long delayed before it came again within his grasp. I can fancy that he must have felt this, though in his letters there is no word of baulked expectations or of disappointed hopes. He took it all as it came, resolving to be useful after his kind, and resolving also to be powerful. Wherever he might be, he would be interfered19 with by none, by Kings or Kaisers, by Prime Ministers or Commanders-in-Chief, nor would{31} he interfere18 with any others in their line. I am far from saying that in this manner a servant of his country, who is anxious to be useful rather than powerful, may best do his duty. Lord Palmerston was a man with whom it must often have been difficult for a colleague to serve. The lines of demarcation between one officer and another, and between one class of duty and another class, are not so plain as to make it easy if practicable, or to make it always pleasant; but this was a man with whom such a theory was a determined20 principle, and acting21 upon that he went to the end with greater success than might have been possible in the hands of another. He had shown his stubbornness even when not in the Cabinet, and now that he was to be in the Cabinet, it was not probable that he would become more malleable22 than before. I do not say that a determination so to act had come from that process of mind which we call thinking a thing out. It was not in his nature to think many things out beyond the matters which he had in hand; but given the matter, it was so that he acted. In a book just published,[F] the author speaks of “the childish perversity23 which marked Lord Palmerston’s dealings with Greece in these years, from his stubborn defence of Count Armansperg down to his disputes about etiquette24.” This perversity was an essential part of Lord Palmerston’s character,—and of his strength.
In 1827 Lord Liverpool died, and new arrangements of the Cabinet and Government became necessary. Mr. Canning was selected as Prime Minister, and proceeded to form that combination which led to the adoption25 of Catholic Emancipation26 in 1829, and to the passing of the Reform Bill in 1832. It has been customary to say that{32} certain of the Whig party joined the Tories when Mr. Canning became Prime Minister. But it would perhaps be more correct to describe that which then took place as a fusion27 in the minds of men caused by natural changes, as in the course of years the old Tory convictions gave way to new ideas as to the liberty of the subject. The last really Tory Government in England, which had now become extinct, was that of Lord Liverpool and Lord Eldon; and even their Toryism grows pale when compared with that of the Ministers who had assisted George III. in taxing the Americans.
When Mr. Canning became Prime Minister, he was desirous of keeping the seals of the Foreign Office in his own hands, and with this object offered to Lord Palmerston the place of Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a seat in the Cabinet. This Lord Palmerston at first accepted. But there were difficulties in the way. “George IV., who personally hated me,” said Lord Palmerston, “did not fancy me as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted to have Herries in that office.” Whether this be true or not, or whether Canning changed his mind, the arrangement was never carried out. “Some weeks after this Canning sent for me again, to say he had a proposition to make to me, which he should not himself have thought of, but that the King had said he knew, and was sure, that it was just the very thing I should like, and that was to go as Governor to Jamaica. I laughed so heartily28 that I observed Canning looked quite put out, and I was obliged to grow serious again.” Canning then offered him the Governor-Generalship of India; but Lord Palmerston refused, with sundry29 excuses as to his health (which he would by no{33} means allow when the same office was offered by him many years afterwards to Canning’s son), and alleging30, also, that he had no family for whom he was desirous of amassing31 a fortune. In the end a Cabinet was made up by expedients32 intended only to be temporary. Canning was Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as First Lord of the Treasury33; Lord Granville, retaining his embassy at Paris, became for the time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; Palmerston, still keeping some hold on the Chancellorship34 of the Exchequer for the future, remained Secretary at War, but with the additional plum that he was to have the patronage35 of the army, no new Commander-in-Chief having been appointed in place of the Duke of Wellington, who had thought it necessary to resign with his brother Tories. “As to the Tories, who would hardly vote for our measures before, we must not look for any cordial support from them now. Not but that, by degrees and one by one, they will all by instinct come round to the oat-sieve.” Come round to the oat-sieve! Alas36, it is sad to see a public servant, who had already served his country for nearly twenty years, and who was yet destined37 to serve it for forty years more, speaking in such language of those by whom Cabinets are formed! But though we may believe it of Lord Eldon, we do not believe it of the Duke of Wellington or of Sir Robert Peel,—three of the men of whom Lord Palmerston was then speaking; nor, in truth, do we believe it of Lord Palmerston himself.
Of this period of Lord Palmerston’s life, we have the record left to us in a partial autobiography38 which he drew out afterwards, and which has been made known to us by Lord Dalling. In reference to this autobiography, the{34} memory of Lord Palmerston has been laden39 with some reproach, which seems not altogether to be undeserved when we look at the purposes for which it has been used. But we must remember that it was not written, like the journal by which it is preceded, at the time of the occurrences which it relates, but many years afterwards, when it was prepared, probably at the request of Lord Dalling to whom it was at any rate given by Lady Palmerston. Mr. Herries had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Goderich’s Administration. In this autobiography the name of Mr. Herries is mentioned with disrespect,—and we must certainly say with inaccuracy, after the defence which has lately been published by his sons. This vindication40 has been occasioned, as is stated in the first words of the memoir41,[G] by the appearance of Mr. Spencer Walpole’s “History of England,” and is an attack on Mr. Walpole rather than on Lord Palmerston. But Mr. Walpole has founded his objectionable assertion partly on Lord Palmerston’s words; and though we may think ourselves entitled to declare that Lord Dalling should be made accountable for inaccuracies so published, and not the writer of an autobiography, who after nearly forty years has trusted to his memory when his journal failed him, still there are the written words, not intentionally42 false when written, but still imbued43 with that venom44 to which political feelings are at any rate as subject now as they were then.
The passage in the autobiography of which complaint is made was as follows. The period alluded45 to is the formation of the Cabinet by Canning on Lord Liverpool’s{35} death, the spring, namely, of 1827. “In the meanwhile intrigues46 were set on foot. George IV., who personally hated me, did not fancy me as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted to have Herries in that office. There were questions about palaces and crown lands which the King was very anxious about, and he wished either to have a creature of his own in the Exchequer, or to have the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer held by the First Lord, whose numerous occupations would compel him to leave details very much to George Harrison, the Secretary, and to Herries, Auditor47 of the Civil List.” To this a note is appended by Lord Dalling, stating that Mr. Herries was also Joint48 Secretary of the Treasury. One sees here the acrimony displayed by the Whig of the day in which it was written against the Tory King and the Tory financier, whose party he had already left. But the character of George IV. suffers more than that of Mr. Herries from the words of the autobiographer49. An insinuation about the “palaces and crown lands” is no doubt made, which we surrender to the filial feelings of Sir Charles and Mr. Herries. To have heard such words quoted from the old memoirs50 of an old man is fairly admitted by them both not to have required such a measure of vindication as a book,—which is, however, quite able to justify51 itself by its own merits. It is their use, when taken from Lord Dalling’s book, and applied52 to purposes of history, that has caused their indignation.
But it was after this, in August and September, 1827, after Mr. Canning’s death, and when Lord Goderich was the Prime Minister elect, that the contest with the King went on as to the appointment of Mr. Herries. Here, in lieu of the autobiography, we have Lord Palmerston’s{36} letters, as to the actual truth of which no doubt is raised. There existed evidently one of those insoluble knots, which have to be cut at last by him who has the greatest power. The King did want Herries to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was anxious to have as many Tories as might be possible in the mixed Government for which he had given his authority. “The King wants Herries to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Whigs object to him pointedly53, and Goderich wishes to have me. Neither party will give way.” That is quoted from a letter from Lord Palmerston to his brother, and it is at any rate true. It ended in the weakest man giving way, for Lord Goderich was told “to go home and take care of himself.” The Duke became Prime Minister, with Goulburn for his Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Herries became Master of the Mint.
Canning died on the 8th of August, and all these arrangements were more short-lived than had been intended. Lord Goderich, as stated above, became Prime Minister, but retained his place only a few months—with no effect on Lord Palmerston’s immediate54 work, except that he ceased to hold the patronage of the army, the Duke of Wellington becoming again Commander-in-Chief. In our days it is presumed that the head of the army shall exercise no political power, and in no wise be guided by political exigencies55. But that was not the Duke’s understanding. He had declined to serve under Mr. Canning, thus leaving the office for a while vacant. But now that Canning was gone he was reappointed. “He comes in without any stipulations or conditions whatever,” Lord Palmerston said to his brother; and in his autobiography he tells a story of the Duke and Lord Anglesey. Lord Anglesey, on behalf{37} of the Government, had been sent to invite the Duke to resume the office. “Well, gentlemen, I have done what you sent me to do,” he said on his return. “I have brought you the Duke of Wellington’s acceptance as Commander-in-Chief, and, by God, mark my words; as sure as you are alive he will trip up all your party before six months are over your heads.” “But it was the King who did it,” continued Lord Palmerston.
Early in 1828 the Duke succeeded Lord Goderich as Prime Minister; but though going in as a Tory, he took with him the leading members of Mr. Canning’s party, who may be regarded as the Liberals of those days,—as men who had at any rate learned to lean towards Liberalism in the course of the training they had received. These were Lord Dudley and Ward17, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Grant, and Lord Palmerston. But more to be noted56 than any such members of the Duke’s Government was the fact that Lord Eldon was not a member. Lord Lyndhurst was the Lord Chancellor instead of Lord Eldon. Lord Lyndhurst had been Lord Chancellor under Lord Goderich and Mr. Canning; but that was to have been expected. Mr. Canning had not intended to defend his country from Roman Catholic aggression57; but the Duke would surely do so; and under the Duke’s leading Mr. Peel, who, as Home Secretary, would lead the House of Commons, would surely assist in such work. And were there not Lord Bathurst and Lord Ellenborough and Mr. Goulburn in the Cabinet? Though Palmerston and Huskisson were to be there, Lord Eldon’s hopes ran high. But the time for Lord Eldon had passed by. He was probably the last of the English Statesmen who could not under any circumstances have been got to vote for the smallest amount of political relief to a Roman Catholic. In all descriptions of politicians{38} of those days, we see men defined as being Catholic or the reverse, and men also sometimes are called “Protestants.” Lord Eldon was especially a “Protestant;” as Lord Palmerston, and soon afterwards the Duke of Wellington and Peel were “Catholics.” The great political question of the present day was the expediency59 of lessening60 in some degree “Catholic” disabilities. And when Cabinets were formed, men were admitted or the reverse according to their “Catholic” proclivities61. Lord Palmerston during his official career had gradually become “Catholic”; and it was well known of him now that, let him enter what Government he might, he would do so pledged to support the Catholics.
Lord Palmerston was now to go out of office and to remain for two years in opposition62; but the circumstances of his going were of a nature to bring about a violent decision of the “Catholic” claims, though it cannot be said that he himself was in any way responsible for doing so. There came up some dispute in the Cabinet as to the disfranchisement of East Retford and Penryn, in the course of which Mr. Huskisson resigned. Mr. Huskisson was the follower63 of Mr. Canning. That the Duke and Mr. Huskisson should not have been easy together in the same Cabinet we can understand; but we are told that Mr. Huskisson was anxious that his resignation should not be accepted. The Duke, however, was determined that he should go, and would hear nothing of any mistake made as to the letter of resignation. “It was not a mistake,” he said; “it is not a mistake; and it shall not be a mistake.” The consequence was that with Mr. Huskisson three other members resigned, Lord Dudley and Ward, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Grant. Now Mr. Grant, who was President of the Board of Trade,{39} was followed in that office by Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, the member for County Clare. The County Clare thus became vacant, and, declining to re-elect Mr. Fitzgerald, returned Mr. O’Connell in his place; and thus the Roman Catholic question was forced upon the country. The three or four gentlemen who filled the vacant places in the Duke of Wellington’s Cabinet were of course Tories; and in this way a Tory Government, pur et simple, was again established. But it was not such a Tory Government as that presided over by Lord Liverpool, and in which Lord Eldon kept the conscience of the King.
At this time Lord Palmerston had already taken much interest in foreign affairs, and we find him explaining in his letters to his brother how stood the Portuguese64 affairs, and Spanish, and Austrian, and Greek, and Turkish. It is not necessary, in this short memoir, to explain how the Turkish and Egyptian fleets had been destroyed at Navarino by us and our allies, seeing that Lord Palmerston had not been concerned in the matter. But it is pleasant to see, in looking over the details as given in his life, how anxious he already was for freedom in Portugal and in Greece, and how steadily65 he was opposed to Prince Metternich and Austrian obstinacy66. Three or four articles of that creed67, to which he was true during his whole life, now crop up. These, we should say, were Catholic emancipation and the maintenance of English influence at home and abroad, and, above all things, the suppression of the slave trade. Greece was then fighting for the possession of herself, and Lord Palmerston was eager that we should take her part. He was as strongly opposed to Turkey in oppressing Greece as he was eager afterwards in defending Turkey from Russian oppression.{40} But in all these matters he spoke68 and wrote with an evident desire that England should be supreme69; and, though he was no more concerned in them than as one of an entire Cabinet which was concerned, he was forming that character in which we find it difficult to say whether he was hereafter most to be blamed as a bully70 or to be praised as a patriot71. Had he brought England into disgrace or suffering, or, worse still, to ruin, the question would have answered itself. He would have gone down the valley of time nearly forgotten, and this little book would never have been written. But he played his game boldly, and dared to run the risk of dismissal, of personal hatred72, and perhaps of impeachment73. From first to last he played it successfully, and has obtained the goodwill74 of his countrymen, high reputation throughout Europe, and a fame which is due rather to his courage than his genius.
Now, in 1828, Lord Palmerston was out of office for the first time since he had become a Lord of the Admiralty in 1807. There had been twenty-one years of it, during which he had been thoroughly75 used to official life, official habits, and official language. It must have seemed to him that a man such as he was born to be in office. “It is so many years since I have been entirely76 my own master,” he writes, “that I feel it quite comical to have no tie, and to be able to dispose of my day as I like.” Then he goes on to tell how, since he had left the Duke of Wellington’s Government, the Duke of Clarence had been specially58 civil to him, and the Duke of Cumberland specially uncivil; the two Royal brothers thus showing the politics by which they were instigated77. We also know that the Duke of Clarence, afterwards William IV., sided with the Whigs, and that the Duke{41} of Cumberland was the most violent of Tories. Lord Palmerston had hitherto been a Tory, but each of the Royal Dukes saw in what course he was about to run. “His next appearance in office,” says Mr. Ashley, “was in connexion with the Whigs, and the whole of his subsequent career was spent in sympathy and harmony with their views.”
It may be doubted whether this correctly describes the condition of Lord Palmerston’s feelings. He was certainly loyal to the Whigs till his great fight came with Lord John Russell in 1851, when Lord John quarrelled with him, and not he with Lord John. And a thorough loyalty78 to a party of nearly a quarter of a century’s duration may serve to make a man a Whig or Tory, as far as the name goes. Lord Palmerston had, almost by accident, fallen among the Whigs, having submitted himself to the genius of Mr. Canning, who, though influenced by liberal ideas, was no Whig; and then, on Canning’s death, had leagued himself with Huskisson, upon whose shoulders as much of Canning’s mantle79 had fallen as they were able to carry. Then Palmerston had left the Duke’s Government because Huskisson left it, and had drifted away in a boat in which Charles Grant and William Lamb were with him. Thus he had joined himself with politicians who became Whig leaders and entertained Whig principles. But in doing so he was made over to the Foreign Office, where it was necessary that his politics should be foreign politics; and during those years of his life in which a man is most strongly imbued with political opinions,—from forty, let us say, till sixty, though in Lord Palmerston’s case the twenty years came somewhat later,—his feelings and his opinions were British and conservative rather than liberal{42} and expansive. He did not feel himself called upon to dispute the measures of his colleagues, but, in accordance with the system and theory by which he governed his own conduct, he confined himself to his own duties, and cared as little, we should say, for the Whiggery of Lord John Russell as for the Toryism of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst.
But, whether Whig or Tory, he was constant in doing good in that direction in which good done to himself must be good also to others. In the Quarterly Review for July, 1828, we are told what he did on his Irish estate in the way of draining;—“In the summer of 1826, a trial of what might be effected in reclaiming80 bog81 was made upon Lord Palmerston’s estate. Fifty acres of bog, which contained nothing beneficial in the way of manure82, were drained, and brought into a state fit for producing a crop, at an expense not exceeding ￡7 per acre; and in four months after the spade was put into it, says Mr. Nimmo, we had very fine potatoes, and turnips83, and rape84, and so on, growing there as good as on any land in the world.” “We think the public in general, and the landed proprietors85 of Ireland in particular, are deeply indebted to Lord Palmerston for the experiment which he has made,” says the reviewer. In these present days (1882) we can hardly venture to express a hope of the advantage which may accrue86 from such work to an Irish landlord; but such good when done is done for every one, whether to an owner of the soil or to another, and to Lord Palmerston the idea was rather that of multiplying the produce of the earth, than of an immediate increase to his own income.
We find from the autobiography how intent he was on{43} the abolition87 of slavery in all parts of the earth, to which his own influence could be made to extend. The sale of Greek slaves by the Turks had been abominable88. Men, women, and children had been abducted89 and sold. It was probably by the horrors which had been so occasioned, and which had been brought under his notice as Secretary at War, that this strong feeling was created; but it remained with him through his life; and, as Wilberforce and Buxton had been strong in speech to cause great things to be done, so was he constant in action to cause the perpetual doing of smaller things which in their aggregate90 became great. This, and the work of the Catholic emancipation,—which had begun in earnest with the Clare election,—occupied his mind during the time that he was out of office. But he went to Paris also during the same period, and wrote long letters home which, interesting as they are, would be too long for our present occasion.
In the autumn of 1830 we hear from himself what efforts were made to strengthen the Duke’s Government,—efforts which ultimately led to the formation of Lord Grey’s Ministry91. The Duke of Wellington’s Government had been necessarily weak since the withdrawal92 from it of Mr. Canning’s followers93. Ministers had consented to the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829, and Mr. O’Connell had taken his seat for County Clare. Liberal ideas and Liberal measures were creeping on, and the Duke of Wellington felt that if he were desirous of keeping the Whigs out of office, and himself in, he could only do so by some re-admission of Mr. Canning’s party. He accordingly sent an offer to Lord Palmerston. Would Lord Palmerston join him?
But that other, and greater, question of Reform of{44} Parliament was now coming to the front. That the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel should not have already seen how impossible it was to stop the avalanche94 with such mill-dam as they were able to oppose to it is now surprising to us all. But we, looking back upon the avalanche, and what it did, can judge of its power much more accurately95 than could they who only heard its murmurings as it came. Wilson Croker, who was not the first messenger from the Duke, but who appeared afterwards on the scene, put to Lord Palmerston the one vital question;—“Are you resolved, or are you not, to vote for Parliamentary Reform?” “I am,” said Lord Palmerston. “Then,” said Croker, “there is no use in talking to you any more on this subject.”
The Duke, finding it was so, resigned. There is nothing, I think, in Lord Palmerston’s after-life to show that he himself loved the idea of Parliamentary Reform. But he had joined himself with Grant and Lamb, who had now become Lord Melbourne, and who, in truth, were now absolutely Whigs; and he had that power of foresight96 which enabled him to see which way the wind blew. He heard the rumblings of the avalanche, and determined not to be in its way when it should fall. Then Lord Grey’s Government was formed, and Lord Palmerston became Foreign Secretary in November, 1830.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
aspire
|
|
| vi.(to，after)渴望，追求，有志于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
bosom
|
|
| n.胸，胸部；胸怀；内心；adj.亲密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
entity
|
|
| n.实体，独立存在体，实际存在物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
junta
|
|
| n.团体；政务审议会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
premier
|
|
| adj.首要的；n.总理，首相 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
enlisted
|
|
| adj.应募入伍的v.（使）入伍， （使）参军( enlist的过去式和过去分词 )；获得（帮助或支持） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
exchequer
|
|
| n.财政部；国库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
oratory
|
|
| n.演讲术；词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
palatable
|
|
| adj.可口的，美味的；惬意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
ward
|
|
| n.守卫，监护，病房，行政区，由监护人或法院保护的人（尤指儿童）；vt.守护，躲开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
interfere
|
|
| v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
interfered
|
|
| v.干预( interfere的过去式和过去分词 )；调停；妨碍；干涉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
malleable
|
|
| adj.(金属)可锻的;有延展性的；(性格)可训练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
perversity
|
|
| n.任性；刚愎自用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
etiquette
|
|
| n.礼仪，礼节；规矩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
emancipation
|
|
| n.（从束缚、支配下）解放 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
fusion
|
|
| n.溶化；熔解；熔化状态，熔和；熔接 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
sundry
|
|
| adj.各式各样的，种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
alleging
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
amassing
|
|
| v.积累，积聚( amass的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
expedients
|
|
| n.应急有效的，权宜之计的( expedient的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
treasury
|
|
| n.宝库；国库，金库；文库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
chancellorship
|
|
| 长官的职位或任期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
patronage
|
|
| n.赞助，支援，援助；光顾，捧场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
autobiography
|
|
| n.自传 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
laden
|
|
| adj.装满了的；充满了的；负了重担的；苦恼的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
vindication
|
|
| n.洗冤，证实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
memoir
|
|
| n.[pl.]回忆录，自传；记事录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
intentionally
|
|
| ad.故意地，有意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
imbued
|
|
| v.使（某人/某事）充满或激起（感情等）( imbue的过去式和过去分词 )；使充满；灌输；激发（强烈感情或品质等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
venom
|
|
| n.毒液，恶毒，痛恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
intrigues
|
|
| n.密谋策划( intrigue的名词复数 )；神秘气氛；引人入胜的复杂情节v.搞阴谋诡计( intrigue的第三人称单数 )；激起…的好奇心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
auditor
|
|
| n.审计员，旁听着 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
autobiographer
|
|
| n.自传作者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
50
memoirs
|
|
| n.回忆录；回忆录传( mem,自oir的名词复数) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
pointedly
|
|
| adv.尖地，明显地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
exigencies
|
|
| n.急切需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
expediency
|
|
| n.适宜；方便；合算；利己 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
lessening
|
|
| 减轻，减少，变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
proclivities
|
|
| n.倾向，癖性( proclivity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
follower
|
|
| n.跟随者；随员；门徒；信徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
Portuguese
|
|
| n.葡萄牙人；葡萄牙语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
obstinacy
|
|
| n.顽固；（病痛等）难治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
bully
|
|
| n.恃强欺弱者，小流氓；vt.威胁，欺侮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
patriot
|
|
| n.爱国者，爱国主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
impeachment
|
|
| n.弹劾；控告；怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
goodwill
|
|
| n.善意，亲善，信誉，声誉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
instigated
|
|
| v.使（某事物）开始或发生，鼓动( instigate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
loyalty
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
mantle
|
|
| n.斗篷，覆罩之物，罩子；v.罩住，覆盖，脸红 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
reclaiming
|
|
| v.开拓( reclaim的现在分词 )；要求收回；从废料中回收（有用的材料）；挽救 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
bog
|
|
| n.沼泽；室...陷入泥淖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
manure
|
|
| n.粪，肥，肥粒；vt.施肥 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
turnips
|
|
| 芜青( turnip的名词复数 )； 芜菁块根； 芜菁甘蓝块根； 怀表 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
rape
|
|
| n.抢夺，掠夺，强奸；vt.掠夺，抢夺，强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
proprietors
|
|
| n.所有人，业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
accrue
|
|
| v.(利息等)增大，增多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
abominable
|
|
| adj.可厌的，令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
abducted
|
|
| 劫持，诱拐( abduct的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（肢体等）外展 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
ministry
|
|
| n.(政府的)部；牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
withdrawal
|
|
| n.取回，提款；撤退，撤军；收回，撤销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
avalanche
|
|
| n.雪崩，大量涌来 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
accurately
|
|
| adv.准确地，精确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
foresight
|
|
| n.先见之明，深谋远虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |