Skip to main content

Full text of "The life of Sir William Harcourt"

See other formats 


3G 


THE  LIFE  OF 
SIR   WILLIAM  HARCOURT 


With  three   illustrations  in  photogravure. 


THE  LIFE  OF 
SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 


v 

A.   G.  GARDINER 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES 
VOLUME  I 
(1827-1886) 


CONSTABLE    &    COMPANY    LTD. 

LONDON        BOMBAY        SYDNEY 
1923 


ptf 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Butler  &  Tanner,  Frame  and  London 


PREFACE 

IT  has  been  said  that  the  life  of  every  one  contains  the 
material  for  at  least  one  good  book.  If  this  is  not  a 
good  book,  the  fault  is  not  with  the  life  it  records, 
nor  with  the  material  of  that  life  supplied  to  the  biographer. 
When,  at  the  late  Lord  Harcourt's  request,  I  undertook 
the  task  I  did  so,  not  only  because  I  felt  a  personal  attraction 
to  the  theme,  but  because  I  believed  it  had  an  enduring 
human  interest  and  an  important  political  value.  In  that 
view  I  have  not  been  mistaken.  The  story  of  any  life 
faithfully  told  should  be  something  of  a  revelation  to  the 
writer  as  well  as  to  the  reader.  It  is  not  possible  to  live  for 
a  long  period  in  constant  companionship  with  a  man's 
public  acts  and  most  intimate  private  thoughts  without 
making  many  discoveries  and  emerging  from  the  task 
with  views  much  modified  by  the  experience.  That  has 
been  so  in  the  present  case.  I  did  not  anticipate  any 
difficult  or  obscure  problem  of  character  to  encounter  me 
in  attempting  the  portraiture  of  Harcourt.  He  was  writ 
large  and  very  plain.  He  was  natural  and  spontaneous, 
elemental  and  singularly  child-like.  He  wore  his  heart  on 
his  sleeve,  and  it  was  a  very  big  heart.  It  was  easily  moved 
and  when  it  was  moved  the  calculations  of  the  head  went 
by  the  board.  What  was  in  his  mind  tumbled  out  pell- 
mell — 

"  He  poured  out  all  as  plain 
As  downright  Shippen  or  as  old  Montaigne  " — 

and  there  was  as  little  subtlety  as  there  was  secrecy  in  his 
mental  processes.  His  thoughts  lay  clear  as  pebbles  in  a 
brook.  When  he  was  angry  he  exploded  in  violent  wrath 


VI 


PREFACE 


and  when  he  was  happy — and  few  men  have  been  endowed 
with  such  an  abounding  gift  of  happiness — he  exhaled  an 
atmosphere  of  gaiety  and  good  humour  that  warmed  the 
general  air. 

All  this  and  much  else — his  unfailing  wit,  his  boisterous 
humour,  his  combative  temperament,  his  love  of  debate, 
his  rare  powers  of  speech,  his  friendships  and  his  quarrels — 
lay  on  the  surface  of  the  man,  plain  alike  to  his  time  and 
to  history.  To  know  more  of  him  might  strengthen  the 
impression,  but  could  not  change  it,  and  on  these  aspects 
of  Harcourt  by  which  he  dwells  in  the  public  memory 
it  cannot  be  claimed  that  this  book  sheds  much  new  light. 
But  in  other  respects  it  is  hoped  that  the  reader  will  find, 
as  the  writer  has  found,  that  fuller  knowledge  leaves 
Harcourt  a  greater  and  more  significant  figure  in  the  life 
of  his  time  than  popular  judgment  has  divined.  He 
was  a  great  jester,  and  it  was  his  comic  genius  that  chiefly 
struck  the  general  imagination.  For  the  rest  it  was  assumed 
that  he  loved  the  battle  for  its  own  sake  and  wore  his 
principles  a  little  lightly  and  negligently.  The  record  of 
his  life  conveys  a  widely  different  impression  of  the  man. 
There  was  much  in  his  career  that  was  open  to  criticism, 
and  a  pedantic  consistency  was  never  a  feature  of  his 
political  character ;  but  it  would  not  be  easy  to  find  in  the 
records  of  modern  statesmanship  a  life  devoted  with  more 
passion  and  disinterestedness  to  the  public  service,  a  more 
ceaseless  industry  continued  to  the  last  day  of  life,  or  a 
more  abiding  enthusiasm  for  a  fundamental  political  faith. 

That  faith  had  certain  fixed  and  unalterable  points. 
He  loved  his  country  with  the  warmth  of  a  singularly  rich 
and  generous  nature.  He  loved  it  for  the  fine  things  it 
had  done  for  the  enlargement  of  human  liberty,  and  he  would 
not  suffer  it  to  fall  below  the  standards  of  its  own  high 
past.  By  instinct  and  by  training  alike,  he  had  a  profound 
reverence  for  justice,  and  in  all  his  long  and  often  tempestu- 
ous career  it  is  not  easy  to  point  to  any  incident  in  which 
he  allowed  any  inferior  consideration,  whether  personal 
or  public,  to  influence  his  sense  of  right.  He  believed  that 


PREFACE  vii 

England  was  a  great  country  and  could  not  afford  to  do 
mean  things.  No  doubt  he  was  sometimes  on  the  wrong 
side,  but,  as  was  said  of  another,  he  was  never  on  the 
side  of  wrong.  The  governing  motive  that  is  visible  through- 
out his  public  action  was  the  desire  for  a  kindly  world,  and 
the  chief  function  of  statesmanship,  as  he  conceived  it, 
was  to  make  that  ideal  attainable.  In  his  own  day  he  was 
sometimes  supposed  to  be  excessive  in  his  fervour  for  peace, 
but  in  the  light  of  the  experience  that  has  befallen  the  world 
since  his  death  this  accusation  will  not  lie  heavy  upon  his 
fame. 

But  the  record  of  Harcourt's  career  is  not  only  valuable 
for  the  light  it  throws  on  his  own  character  and  motives. 
It  is  no  less  valuable  for  the  revelation  of  a  high  tradition  of 
statesmanship  that  may  profitably  be  studied  at  a  time 
when  statesmanship  has  become  so  deeply  discredited. 
He  was,  perhaps  before  everything  else,  a  great  member  of 
Parliament.  He  loved  the  parliamentary  institution, 
regarded  it  as  the  most  authentic  expression  of  the  English 
spirit,  and  served  it  with  an  unselfish  loyalty  and  an  unques- 
tioning obedience  to  its  traditions  that  have  become  an 
outworn  creed.  If  Parliament  has  fallen  into  disrepute 
and  has  largely  ceased  to  command  the  public  confidence, 
the  fact  is  in  no  small  degree  due  to  the  loss  in  high  places 
of  that  reverence  for  its  dignity,  its  decency  and  its  con- 
stitutional rights  to  which  Harcourt  was  so  conspicuous 
a  witness. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  record  of  his  life  I  have  to 
make  acknowledgment  of  my  great  debt  to  the  labours 
of  the  late  Viscount  Harcourt.  It  is  a  source  of  deep 
regret  that  he  did  not  live  to  see  the  completion  of  the  work, 
the  accomplishment  of  which  was  the  chief  interest  of  his 
later  years.  The  pages  that  follow  bear  ample  witness  to 
his  devotion  to  his  father  in  life,  and  in  a  very  real  sense 
this  book  is  a  memorial  of  his  devotion  to  his  memory. 
The  principal  occupation  of  his  life  in  the  years  following 
his  retirement  from  office  was  the  accumulation  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  vast  mass  of  material  bearing  upon  his  father's 


viii  PREFACE 

career.  This  he  placed  unreservedly  at  my  disposal,  and 
it  is  from  these  voluminous  resources,  thousands  of  official 
documents,  private  memoranda,  contemporary  criticisms 
and  newspaper  cuttings  and  tens  of  thousands  of  letters, 
that  this  record  has  been  compiled.  Especially  valuable  for 
the  light  it  threw  on  the  more  intimate  and  obscure  phases 
of  the  story  was  the  Journal  which  Lord  Harcourt, 
when  private  secretary  to  his  father,  kept  during  the  years 
1881-5  and  1892-5.  From  this  I  have  made  frequent 
quotation,  and  to  it  I  have  made  still  more  frequent  refer- 
ence, the  unusual  relations  of  the  two  men  giving  it  something 
of  the  authority  of  a  personal  record  of  events  by  Harcourt 
himself.  Lord  Harcourt  lived  to  see  the  first  volume  written 
and  gave  me  the  benefit  of  his  criticisms  of  that  portion 
of  the  work.  After  his  death  his  interest  in  the  matter  was 
committed  to  the  keeping  of  his  literary  executors,  Vis- 
count Esher  and  Lord  Buckmaster,  to  whom  I  am 
indebted  for  much  valuable  advice  and  suggestion.  The 
task  has  also  been  greatly  facilitated  by  the  help  of  Miss 
Philip,  the  private  secretary  of  the  late  Lord  Harcourt. 
My  thanks  are  due  to  Lady  Harcourt,  the  widow  of  Sir 
William,  for  many  reminiscences  bearing  upon  the  social 
and  domestic  events  of  his  life,  and  to  the  numerous 
correspondents  of  Harcourt  (or  their  executors)  for  per- 
mission to  quote  from  their  letters.  In  this  connection 
special  reference  is  due  to  His  Majesty  the  King  who  has 
graciously  consented  to  the  liberal  use  of  letters  from 
Queen  Victoria  and  King  Edward  VII  to  Harcourt ;  and 
to  Viscount  Morley  for  allowing  me  the  utmost  latitude 
to  draw  upon  his  correspondence  with  Harcourt — much 
the  most  important  correspondence  of  the  latter's  later 
life.  Finally,  I  have  to  acknowledge  with  special  warmth 
my  indebtedness  to  the  labours  of  Miss  Margaret  Bryant 
without  whose  assistance  in  tunnelling  through  the  mountain 
of  documents  in  which  the  record  of  Harcourt 's  career 
was  buried  I  fear  I  should  never  have  emerged  into  the 
daylight  of  publication. 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I  THE  HARCOURTS            ......         i 

II  BOYHOOD  AND  SCHOOLDAYS           .          .          .          .19 

III  LIFE  AT  CAMBRIDGE     ......       33 

IV  JOURNALISM  AND  THE  BAR  .....       60 
V  THE  SATURDAY  REVIEWER   .....       86 

VI  MARRIAGE  AND  BEREAVEMENT       .          .          .          .no 

VII  "  HISTORICUS  "    .          .          .          .          .          .          .     125 

VIII  THE  LAWYER       .......     149 

IX  IN  PARLIAMENT   .          .          .          .          .          .          .174 

X  BACK  TO  THE  ALABAMA         .....     193 

XI  BELOW  THE  GANGWAY           .....     208 

XII  IN  OFFICE  ........     241 

XIII  DIFFERENCES  WITH  GLADSTONE     . 

XIV  HARCOURT  BACKS  HARTINGTON      .          .          . 

XV  ON  THE  BRINK  OF  WAR       .....     309 

XVI  DEFEAT  OF  DISRAELI   ......     342 

XVII  THE  NEW  GOVERNMENT        .....     367 

XVIII  AT  THE  HOME  OFFICE           .....     389 

XIX  PHCENIX  PARK     .......     420 

XX  HARCOURT  AND  HIS  COLLEAGUES  ....     456 

ix 


x  CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

XXI     THE  "  HEAD  DETECTIVE  "    .                   .          .          .  469 

XXII     A  DIVIDED  CABINET     ......  494 

XXIII  KHARTUM  AND  GORDON        .         .         .         .  511, 

XXIV  THE  1885  ELECTION 536 

:>  XXV    HOME  RULE  IN  THE  BALANCE       ....  545 

->  XXVI     CHANCELLOR  OF  THE  EXCHEQUER.          .          .          .  561 

;>XXVII     DEFEAT  OF  HOME  RULE       .....  574 

APPENDIX     I     THE  QUEEN'S  SPEECH  OF  1881     .         .         .  597 

APPENDIX    II     MEMORANDUM  ON  EGYPT     .          ,          .          .601 

APPENDIX  III     LETTER  TO  A  CORRESPONDENT  ON  ITINERANT 

SHOWS    .......  607 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS    TO    VOL.    I 


WILLIAM  VERNON  HARCOURT  MT  25  .         .         . 
After  a  pencil  drawing  by  G.  F.  Watts,  in  the 
possession  of  Lady  Har  court. 


WILLIAM  VERNON  HARCOURT 


28 


Frontispiece 


TO    FACE 
PAGE 

.       88 


After  a  miniature  by  C.  Couzens,  now  at  Nuneham. 
"  A   OUTRANGE  !  "     .          .          .          .          .          .          .         . 

SIR  VERNON  YE  CHALLENGER  STRIKETH  YE  SHIELD  OF  YE  CHIEF  OPPONENT 
(WHO  BLAZONS,  ON  A  FIELD  VERT,  THREE  BEACONS  FLAMMANT  TINSEL,  FOR 
BEACONSFIELD.  CREST  —  A  FLIGHT  OF  ROCKETS,  ASCENDANT.  MOTTO  — 
"  PEACE  WITH  HONOUR." 

After  a  cartoon  by  J.  Tenniel,  reproduced  by   kind  per- 
mission of  the  proprietors  of  "  Punch." 


367 


XI 


CHAPTER   I 
THE   HARCOURTS 

Archbishop  Harcourt — Origin  of  the  Harcourt  Family — Lord 
Chancellor  Harcourt — Poets  and  Wits  of  the  Eighteenth 
Century  at  Nuneham — The  Archbishop's  Family — Lady 
Waldegrave — Canon  Harcourt. 

WILLIAM  GEORGE  GRANVILLE  VENABLES 
VERNON,  known  throughout  his  long  life 
as  William  Vernon  Harcourt,  was  born  on 
October  14,  1827.  The  place  of  his  birth  is  uncertain. 
His  father,  the  Rev.  William  Vernon,  was  at  that  time 
Rector  of  Wheldrake  in  Yorkshire  and  Canon  of  York, 
and  the  family  occupied  both  the  Rectory  at  Wheldrake  and 
the  Residence  at  York.  It  was  at  one  or  other  of  these 
homes  that  the  future  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  first 
saw  the  light,  and  the  fact  that  his  father  was  the  Canon  in 
residence  at  the  time  of  his  son's  birth  is  strong  evidence 
in  favour  of  York.  The  atmosphere  into  which  he 
was  born  was  patrician  and  ecclesiastical.  His  mother, 
Matilda  Mary,  daughter  of  Colonel  William  Gooch,  was 
a  granddaughter  of  Sir  Thomas  Gooch,  who  was  in 
turn  Bishop  of  Bristol,  of  Norwich,  and  of  Ely,  and  at 
the  palace  of  Bishopthorpe  his  grandfather  on  the  paternal 
side,  Edward  Venables  Vernon,  was  in  the  midst  of  his 
long  tenure  of  the  archbishopric  of  York,  which  he  occupied 
from  1807  till  his  death  in  his  ninety-first  year  in  1847. 

It  is  the  fortune  of  few  men  to  live  a  life  so  prolonged,  so 
prosperous,  and  so  uniformly  happy  as  that  enjoyed  by 
this  amiable  man.  The  son  of  George,  first  Lord  Vernon, 
Baron  of  Kinderton,  by  his  third  wife,  sister  of  Simon,  first 

1  B 


2  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

Earl  Harcourt,  he  was  born  in  1757,  in  the  midst  of  that 
period  of  national  adventure  when  the  genius  of  the  first 
William  Pitt  was  annihilating  France  by  sea  and  land 
and  when,  as  Horace  Walpole  humorously  remarked,  men 
used  to  ask  on  waking  what  new  regions  had  been  added 
during  the  night  to  the  British  dominion.  At  an  early  age 
the  future  Archbishop  was  sent  to  Westminster  School, 
whither  he  journeyed  from  his  home  at  Sudbury  in  Derby- 
shire, a  distance  of  133  miles,  on  horseback,  followed  by 
his  mounted  groom  with  saddlebags.  From  Westminster 
in  due  course  he  proceeded  to  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and, 
having  graduated  and  toured  the  Continent,  he  entered 
holy  orders,  and  became  incumbent  of  the  family  living  at 
Sudbury,  Prebendary  of  Gloucester  by  the  gift  of  the  Duke 
of  Portland,  and  a  little  later — it  was  the  comfortable  day  of 
pluralities — a  canon  of  Christ  Church.  In  1784  he  married 
Lady  Anne  Leveson-Gower,  third  daughter  of  Granville, 
Earl  Gower,  first  Marquess  of  Stafford,  by  Louisa,  daughter 
of  the  first  Duke  of  Bridgwater.  From  this  marriage 
sprang  a  family  of  sixteen  children,  eleven  sons  and  five 
daughters,  fourteen  of  whom  lived  to  maturity. 

Endowed  with  adequate  intellectual  gifts,  a  distinguished 
bearing,  high  character,  and  powerful  connections,  Vernon's 
path  in  the  Church  was  assured.  In  1791,  at  the  age  of 
thirty-four,  he  was  appointed  by  William  Pitt  to  the  see 
of  Carlisle,  which  he  retained  until  1807,  when  the  Duke  of 
Portland,  then  Prime  Minister,  promoted  him  to  the  arch- 
bishopric of  York,  which  he  held  to  his  death  forty  years 
later.  His  life  was  filled  with  grave  and  various  activities. 
He  toured  his  diocese  in  carriage-and-four  in  pursuit  of  his 
episcopal  functions,  played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  and  in  later  years,  when  the  Harcourt  estates  had 
fallen  to  him,  spent  much  of  his  time  in  Oxfordshire  in  per- 
forming the  duties  of  a  great  landowner.  He  was  an  uncom- 
promising Church  and  State  man,  and  his  general  political 
and  religious  attitude  is  illustrated  by  his  opposition  in  the 
House  of  Lords  to  the  cause  of  Catholic  emancipation.  In 
the  great  ceremonial  events  and  dignified  duties  of  his  day 


STANTON  HARCOURT  3 

he  took  a  distinguished  part,  serving  on  the  Queen's  Council 
during  the  illness  of  George  III,  preaching  the  sermon  at 
the  coronation  of  George  IV,  and  assisting  at  the  coronation 
and  the  marriage  of  Queen  Victoria.  It  was  to  him,  as  a 
member  of  the  Queen's  Council,  that  George  III  complained 
that  he  was  not  given  cherry  tart  often  enough.  But  though 
courtly  and  a  courtier,  he  was  no  sycophant,  and,  in  con- 
nection with  the  trial  of  Queen  Caroline,  voted  against  the 
divorce  clause  in  the  ministerial  Bill  of  Pains  and  Penalties 
as  a  protest  against  the  notorious  irregularities  of  George 
IV,  an  offence  which  caused  the  King  to  turn  his  back  on 
him  at  the  next  Iev6e.  In  the  midst  of  his  multifarious 
public  duties,  the  Archbishop  found  time  for  the  exercise 
of  that  domestic  affection  which  is  a  tradition  of  the  family, 
and  his  abundant  correspondence  with  his  numerous  children 
reveals  a  mind  of  much  sweetness  and  sympathy. 

n 

It  was  in  June  1830,  when  the  Archbishop  was  seventy- 
three  and  his  grandson,  the  subject  of  this  memoir,  was  in 
his  third  year,  that  the  family  name  was  changed.  The 
death  of  William,  third  Earl  Harcourt,  left  the  Archbishop, 
as  the  great-grandson  of  Lord  Chancellor  Harcourt,  the 
inheritor  of  his  estate,  and  the  assumption  of  the  family 
name  was  a  condition  of  the  succession.  It  was  a  succession 
to  an  illustrious  inheritance,  which  had  accrued  to  the 
family  in  the  course  of  seven  centuries.  At  the  end  of  the 
twelfth  century  Robert  de  Harcourt  married  Isabel  de 
Camville,  who  brought  him  the  Oxfordshire  manor  of 
Stanton  as  a  marriage  portion.  Isabel  had  inherited  from 
her  mother  Millicent,  a  cousin  of  Queen  Adeliza,  second 
wife  of  Henry  I,  who  had  herself  received  the  lordship  of 
Stanton  as  a  marriage  gift  from  the  Queen.  Since  that 
time  Stanton  Harcourt  has  remained  in  the  possession  of 
the  Harcourt  family  without  a  break. 

The  genealogists  trace  the  descent  of  the  lords  of  Stanton 
Harcourt  back  to  a  certain  Bernard,  a  Saxon  who  is  said  to 
have  obtained  in  876,  at  the  time  of  Rollo's  invasion,  the 


4  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

lordships  of  Harcourt,  Cailleville  and  Beauficel  in  Normandy 
and  to  have  founded  the  French  noble  family  of  Harcourt. 
Bernard  is  sometimes  described  as  "  the  Dane."  His 
youngest  son,  Anchetil,  took  the  surname  of  Harcourt,  and 
Anchetil's  eldest  son  Anguerraud  de  Harcourt  accompanied 
William  of  Normandy  in  his  invasion  of  England.  Robert, 
the  second  son,  built  the  castle  of  Harcourt  in  Normandy 
in  1 100,  and  his  grandson  Ivo,  who  inherited  the  English 
estates  of  the  Harcourts,  is  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the 
English  family.  From  the  time  of  the  acquisition  of  Stanton 
Harcourt  the  family  historian  is  on  firmer  ground.  A  long 
succession  of  Harcourts,  allying  themselves  by  marriage 
with  other  landed  families  and  from  time  to  time  acquiring 
fresh  property,  appear  in  the  records  of  their  times.  The 
Sir  Robert  Harcourt  who  bore  the  standard  of  Henry  VII 
on  Bosworth  Field  received  from  the  King  in  1501  the 
stewardship  of  the  manors  and  lordships  of  Ewelme,  Tackley, 
Swyncombe,  Lewknor,  Newnham,  Swerford,  etc. 

Some  of  the  Harcourt  estates  were  dissipated  by  the 
adventurous  Robert  Harcourt,  whose  relation  of  a  Voyage 
to  Guiana  (1613)  in  the  reign  of  James  I  figures  in  Purchas 
his  Pilgrimes.  He  built  and  fitted  out  at  his  own  expense 
three  vessels,  the  Rose  of  80  tons,  the  Patience,  a  pinnace  of 
36  tons,  and  a  shallop  of  9  tons  called  the  Lily,  with 
which  he  sailed  to  the  New  World  in  1609.  Doubtless 
partly  on  that  account  he  sold  the  manors  of  Ellenhall, 
Staffs,  and  Wytham,  Berks,  which  had  been  in  the  possession 
of  the  family  since  the  reign  of  King  John.  It  is  related 
that  when  he  found  the  sale  of  Ellenhall  insufficient  to  meet 
his  needs  he  said,  "  Let  loose  a  pigeon,"  adding  that  he 
would  sell  the  land  over  which  the  pigeon  flew.  The  pigeon 
circled  round  the  Wytham  estate,  now  the  property  of  the 
Earl  of  Abingdon.  To  Harcourt  himself  the  expedition 
brought  some  fame,  and  apparently  considerable  financial 
loss,  for  his  son  Simon  succeeded  to  a  very  impoverished 
estate.  He  sought  to  mend  matters  by  serving  in  various 
campaigns  as  a  soldier  of  fortune,  fighting  in  the  Low 
Countries  under  his  uncle  Horace,  Lord  Vere,  when  he  was 


'TRIMMING  HARCOURT'  5 

sixteen,  and  spending  another  twenty  years  campaigning 
mostly  in  the  service  of  the  Prince  of  Orange.  He  took 
part  in  the  Scottish  operations  of  1639-40,  and  in  1641  he 
was  sent  to  Dublin  with  a  regiment  of  1200  foot,  and  was 
designated  Governor  of  Dublin  "  much  to  the  comfort  of 
the  Protestants  and  terror  of  the  rebels,"  says  his  chronicler. 
He  was  mortally  wounded  next  year  when  attacking  Castle 
Kilgobbin,  Co.  Dublin. 

It  was  his  grandson,  also  named  Simon,  Solicitor-General 
and  then  Attorney-General  under  Queen  Anne,  Lord  Keeper, 
and  in  the  last  year  of  the  Queen's  reign  Lord  Chancellor, 
who  became  the  first  Lord  Harcourt  and  restored  the  family 
fortunes,  which  had  been  reduced  to  a  very  low  ebb  during 
the  three  preceding  generations.  His  father,  Sir  Philip 
Harcourt,  had  refused  to  recognize  the  Commonwealth  and 
suffered  accordingly,  and  his  stepmother,  nee  Elizabeth  Lee 
(ancestress  of  the  Harcourts  of  Anckerwyke),  who  had  held 
Stanton  Harcourt  for  life,  had  allowed  the  place  to  go  to 
ruin.  Simon,  when  he  had  become  prosperous,  bought 
Nuneham  Courtenay  from  the  family  of  Wemyss  in  1710, 
and  resided  there  from  time  to  time,  but  he  lived  principally 
at  Cokethorpe,  about  2^  miles  from  Stanton  Harcourt,  the 
old  manor  house  at  Nuneham  being  small.  Like  his  father 
he  stood  by  the  Stuarts,  though  not  without  vacillations 
which  won  for  him  from  Swift  the  name  of  "  Trimming 
Harcourt."  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  definitely 
Jacobite  as  his  enemies  alleged.  His  opinions  account  for 
his  making  little  headway  under  William  and  Mary,  but  his 
preferment  was  rapid  under  Queen  Anne,  who  raised  him 
to  the  peerage  in  1711  with  the  title  of  Baron  Harcourt  of 
Stanton  Harcourt.  This  was  in  the  year  after  his  defence 
of  Sacheverell,  which  raised  him  high  in  the  Queen's  favour. 
"  We  had  yesterday,"  writes  a  contemporary  of  Harcourt's 
speech,  "  the  noblest  entertainment  that  ever  audience  had 
from  your  friend  Sir  Simon  Harcourt.  He  spoke  with 
such  exactness,  such  force,  such  decency,  such  dexterity,  so 
neat  a  way  of  commending  and  reflecting  as  he  had  occasion, 
such  strength  of  argument,  such  a  winning  persuasion,  such 


6  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

an  insinuation  into  the  passions  of  his  auditors  as  I  never 
heard.  .  .  .  His  speech  was  universally  applauded  by 
enemies  as  well  as  friends."  The  silver  salver  which  Sach- 
everell  presented  to  his  defender  is  still  preserved  at  Nuneham. 
With  the  advent  of  George  I  Harcourt  surrendered  the 
great  seal,  and  spent  some  years  in  retirement,  cultivating 
the  muses  and  the  acquaintance  of  the  wits  of  his  time  who 
were  the  familiar  associates  of  his  son  Simon,  a  man  of 
unusual  gifts  who  died  before  his  father.  Pope,  Prior,  Gay 
and  Swift  were  frequent  guests  at  Cokethorpe,  and  a  portrait 
of  Pope  commissioned  by  Harcourt  from  Kneller  hangs  at 
Nuneham.  That  the  Lord  Chancellor  was  an  agreeable 
companion  there  is  evidence  from  Pope  himself,  to  whom 
Harcourt  had  in  1718  lent  the  deserted  remnant  of  the 
house  at  Stanton  Harcourt  to  provide  him  with  a  quiet 
retreat  while  he  was  engaged  on  his  translation  of  Homer. 
Writing  to  Caryll  from  Stanton  Harcourt,  Pope  says  : 

I  was  necessitated  to  come  to  continue  my  translation  of  Homer, 
for  at  my  own  house  I  have  no  peace  from  visitants.  .  .  .  Here, 
except  this  day  that  I  spend  at  Oxford,  I  am  quite  in  a  desert  in- 
cognito from  my  very  neighbours,  by  the  help  of  a  noble  lord  who 
has  consigned  a  lone  house  to  me  for  this  very  purpose.  I  could 
not  lie  at  his  own,  for  the  very  reason  I  do  not  go  to  Grinstead, 
because  I  love  his  company  too  well  to  mind  anything  else  when 
it  is  in  my  way  to  enjoy  that. 

On  the  death  in  1727  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  who,  having 
allied  himself  with  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  had  been  made  a 
viscount  in  1721  and  re-admitted  to  the  Privy  Council  in 
the  following  year,  the  title  and  estates  passed  to  his  grand- 
son, Simon,  who  became  first  Earl  Harcourt  of  Stanton 
Harcourt  and  Viscount  Nuneham  of  Nuneham  Courtenay 
in  1749.  His  sister,  Martha,  married  the  first  Lord  Vernon, 
and  was  the  great-grandmother  of  Sir  William  Harcourt. 
It  was  probably  with  a  certain  sense  of  gratitude,  as  well  as 
from  sympathy  of  taste,  that  Sir  William  was  accustomed  to 
declare  himself  "  an  eighteenth  century  man,"  for  that 
century  was  the  golden  age  of  the  Harcourt  story,  and  the 
treasures  of  Nuneham  are  richest  in  the  memorials  of  the 
Court  associations  of  that  time. 


BUILDING   OF  NUNEHAM  7 

The  first  Earl  Harcourt  was  governor  to  the  Prince  of 
Wales,  afterwards  George  III,  was  for  a  short  time  British 
ambassador  in  Paris,  and  for  five  years  Lord  Lieutenant  of 
Ireland.  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  Walpole's  gibe 
that  he  was  "  civil  and  sheepish  "  and  could  not  teach  the 
Prince  "  other  arts  than  what  he  knew  himself,  hunting  and 
drinking."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  and  his  fellow-governor, 
the  Bishop  of  Norwich,  were  so  badly  treated  by  the  Dowager 
Princess  of  Wales,  who  thought  that  "  books  and  logic  were 
no  use  to  princes,"  that  they  resigned.  Lord  Harcourt  was 
sent  to  Germany  in  1761  to  marry  by  proxy  and  to  bring  to 
England  the  King's  bride,  Princess  Charlotte  Sophia  of 
Mecklenburgh.  The  marriages  of  British  royalties  with 
scions  of  minor  German  royal  houses  were  apparently  no 
more  popular  in  those  than  in  later  times,  for  Horace  Walpole 
wrote  that  "  Lord  Harcourt  is  to  be  at  the  court  of  the 
Princess  of  Mecklenberg,  if  he  can  find  it."  Harcourt  held 
many  court  appointments,  and  eventually  (1772)  became 
Viceroy  of  Ireland,  not  with  much  credit,  for  during  his  five 
years  of  office  the  system  of  corruption  which  he  found 
flourishing  when  he  arrived  was  not  diminished.  He 
resigned  on  January  25,  1777,  in  consequence  of  a  disagree- 
ment with  the  military  authorities,  and  retired  to  Nuneham. 
Here  in  1755  he  had  begun  building  operations  on  the  Italian 
villa  which  was  to  supersede  the  old  manor  house.  For 
that  purpose  stone  was  brought  by  the  river  from  Stanton 
Harcourt.  The  plans,  which  gave,  as  so  often  in  eighteenth 
century  architecture,  splendid  state  rooms,  but  poor  accom- 
modation for  sleeping  and  for  the  necessary  domestic  offices, 
proved  quite  inadequate.  Many  alterations  and  additions 
followed,  the  house  only  being  completed  in  1833  by  Arch- 
bishop Harcourt,  who  built  an  entirely  new  wing,  terraces, 
parapets,  and  various  outbuildings. 

It  was  at  Nuneham  that  the  Earl  died  under  tragic  circum- 
stances in  September  1777.  Horace  Walpole,  who,  as  we 
have  seen,  did  not  love  him,  relates  the  incident  character- 
istically in  a  letter  to  William  Mason : 

September  18,  1777. — An  amazing  piece  of  news^that  I  have  this 


8  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

moment  received  from  town.  The  dinner  bell  had  rung — where  ? 
at  Nuneham.  The  Earl  did  not  appear.  After  much  search,  he 
was  found  standing  on  his  head  in  a  well,  a  dear  little  favourite  dog 
on  his  legs,  his  stick  and  one  of  his  gloves  lying  near.  My  letter 
does  not  say  whether  he  had  dropped  the  other.  In  short,  I  know 
no  more.  .  .  . 

And  in  a  letter  of  the  same  date  to  Sir  Horace  Mann  : 

It  is  concluded  that  the  dog  had  fallen  in,  and  that  the  Earl,  in 
trying  to  extricate  him,  had  lost  his  poise  and  tumbled  in  too.  It 
is  an  odd  exit  for  the  Governor  of  a  King,  Ambassador  and  Viceroy. 

But  though  Walpole  did  not  like  the  deceased  Earl  he 
was  deeply  attached  for  so  incurable  a  cynic  to  the  new 
Earl,  and  writing  to  Mason  again  three  days  later  he  says  : 

September  21,  1777. — I  fear  I  was  a  little  indelicate  about  Lord 
Harcourt's  death,  but  I  am  so  much  more  glad,  when  I  am  glad, 
than  I  am  sorry,  when  I  am  not,  that  I  forgot  the  horror  of  the 
father's  exit  in  my  satisfaction  at  the  son's  succession.  ...  I  am 
sure  Lord  Nuneham  will  have  been  exceedingly  shocked  ;  he  is  all 
good  nature,  and  was  an  excellent  son,  and  deserves  a  fonder  father. 

Walpole's  affection  for  the  new  Earl  extended  to  the 
new  Earl's  wife.  He  had  married  his  cousin,  Elizabeth 
Vernon,  a  sister  of  the  future  Archbishop,  a  woman  of 
unusual  graces  of  person  and  mind  whose  memoirs  of  her 
life  at  Court  as  Lady  of  the  Bedchamber  to  Queen  Charlotte, 
and  whose  correspondence  with  the  royal  princesses,  together 
with  the  series  of  letters  addressed  to  her  by  Mrs.  Siddons, 
are  preserved  in  the  privately  printed  Har court  Papers. 
"  She  writes  with  ease  and  sense,  and  some  poetry,"  said 
Walpole  of  her  in  a  letter  to  the  Countess  of  Upper  Ossory, 
"  but  is  as  afraid  of  the  character  as  if  it  was  a  sin  to  make 
verses."  She  and  her  husband,  as  Lord  and  Lady  Nuneham, 
had  done  much  to  make  Nuneham  a  literary  and  artistic 
centre  of  the  time,  and  had  entertained  there  Walpole, 
Mason,  Whitehead,  Mrs.  Clive,  the  actress,  Mrs.  Siddons  and 
other  celebrities.  While  the  lady  wrote  verses,  her  husband 
etched  and  collected  etchings.  On  the  latter  subject  there 
is  preserved  a  correspondence  with  J.  J.  Rousseau,  with 
whom  he  had  become  acquainted  in  Paris  and  whose  portrait, 
given  to  him  by  Rousseau  himself,  is  at  Nuneham  together 


GENERAL  HARCOURT  9 

with  Rousseau's  pocket  book,  his  pocket  Tasso  and  other 
personal  gifts.  '  You  have  gone  beyond  what  I  have  ever 
seen  in  etching,"  wrote  Walpole  to  Lord  Nuneham  in  1763. 
"  I  must  beg  for  the  white  paper  edition  too,  as  I  shall  frame 
the  brown,  and  bind  the  rest  of  your  lordship's  works 
together."  But  the  friendship  of  Walpole  cooled  when  the 
new  Earl  and  Countess  modified  the  position  they  had 
hitherto  taken  up  with  regard  to  royalty  and  became  mem- 
bers of  the  innermost  court  circle.  Whatever  the  cause  of 
the  reconciliation  between  the  Court  and  the  Harcourts 
there  was  no  doubt  about  its  warmth  when  it  had  been 
accomplished.  The  King  pressed  the  Spanish  Embassy 
upon  Lord  Harcourt,  and  Lady  Harcourt  became  Lady  of 
the  Bedchamber  to  Queen  Charlotte.  Later  the  Earl  was 
made  Master  of  the  Horse,  and  while  the  intimacy  with  the 
Court  continued  the  King  and  Queen,  with  the  Princesses, 
paid  frequent  visits  to  Nuneham. 

In  1806  the  Earl,  confronted  with  the  necessity  of  paying 
£62,000  out  of  his  estate  as  fortune  for  his  brother  and  sister, 
sold  Pipewell  Abbey..  On  his  death,  three  years  later,  he 
was,  being  childless,  succeeded  by  his  brother,  General 
William  Harcourt  (1743-1830).  He  also  being  childless, 
his  wife  urged  the  disposal  of  the  property  to  the  French 
Harcourts,  many  of  whom  had  been  refugees  in  England 
after  the  French  Revolution,  and  the  meeting  with  whom  is 
recorded  in  the  Harcourt  Papers  (vol.  xi).  The  third  Earl 
is  best  remembered  by  an  incident  in  the  American  War  of 
Independence.  He  was  then  serving  in  the  British  Army, 
and  performed  the  remarkable  feat  of  capturing  an  American 
General,  Charles  Lee,  in  his  own  quarters — "  almost  in  sight 
of  his  army  "  to  use  Harcourt's  words  to  his  father — in  the 
course  of  a  scouting  expedition. 

General  and  Mrs.  Harcourt  spent  the  years  1792  to  1795 
on  the  Continent,  the  General  serving  under  the  Duke  of 
York  in  the  disastrous  campaign  in  Flanders  in  1793-4  and 
succeeding  to  the  Command  when  the  Duke  returned  to 
England.  On  the  accession  of  George  IV  the  General, 
now  Earl  Harcourt,  was  made  a  field  marshal,  and  he  and 


io  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

his  wife  were  as  intimate  with  the  royal  family  as  their 
predecessors  had  been  with  the  family  of  George  III,  Lady 
Harcourt  having,  among  other  duties,  a  commission  to 
attend  the  unfortunate  Princess  Caroline  of  Brunswick  on 
her  wedding  journey  to  England. 

With  the  death  of  the  third  Earl  in  1830,  the  title  became 
extinct,  and  the  estates  reverted  as  we  have  seen  to  Arch- 
bishop Vernon,  as  the  descendant  of  Martha  Harcourt,  wife 
of  Lord  Vernon  and  daughter  of  Lord  Chancellor  Harcourt. 
Like  the  Harcourts,  the  Vernons  were  Norman  in  origin. 
They  derived  from  a  William  de  Vernon,  who  was  lord  of 
the  town  of  Vernon  in  Normandy  in  1052,  and  was  the 
father  of  two  sons  who  came  over  with  the  Conqueror. 

It  was  a  time-honoured  jest  of  Sir  William  Harcourt's 
political  opponents  to  twit  him  on  his  Plantagenet  descent. 
The  point  of  the  jest  was  a  little  obscure,  for  a  Plantagenet 
descent  was  a  character  he  shared  with  many  of  the  con- 
temporary aristocracy  and  with  many  more  who  were 
outside  the  pale  of  the  aristocracy.  The  royal  element  in 
his  ancestry  came  from  his  grandmother,  the  wife  of  the 
Archbishop.  Lady  Anne  was,  through  her  mother,  Lady 
Louisa  Egerton,  heiress  to  the  Bridgwater  estates,  which 
were  entailed  on  her  heirs  male.  Through  the  Bridgwaters 
and  the  Derbys  her  descent  is  traced  back  to  Lady  Margaret 
Clifford,  who  in  1555  married  the  fourth  Earl  of  Derby. 
This  lady  was  a  great-granddaughter  of  Henry  VII,  her 
grandmother  being  Henry's  daughter,  Princess  Mary  of 
England  and  Queen  Dowager  of  France,  who  married,  as 
her  second  husband,  Charles  Brandon,  Duke  of  Suffolk. 
Through  their  mother  the  Archbishop's  children  were 
furnished  with  an  enormous  family  connection  with  the 
Sutherlands,  the  Carlisles,  the  Macdonalds  and  others. 
Canon  Harcourt,  the  father  of  Sir  William,  mentions,  in 
one  of  his  letters,  "  the  78  cousins  Louisa  and  I  counted 
up  the  other  day." 

To  this  prolific  circle  few  can  have  contributed  more 
handsomely  than  the  Archbishop  and  Lady  Anne.  Even 
in  days  when  large  families  were  the  rule  rather  than  the 


A  FULL  QUIVER  n 

exception  their  abundant  children  were  the  subject  of 
respectful  and  good-humoured  comment.  When  Edward 
Vernon  was  appointed  to  the  bishopric  of  Carlisle  by  Pitt, 
Dr.  Hinchcliffe,  Bishop  of  Peterborough,  wrote  to  con- 
gratulate him  on  not  being  deprived  of  his  other  preferments, 
the  living  of  Sudbury  and  the  canonry  of  Christ  Church. 
"  The  habits  of  life  which  a  Bishop  must  adopt,"  he  said, 
"  besides  that  you  are  in  of  getting  a  child  annually,  cannot 
be  maintained  under  two  or  three  and  twenty  hundred 
pounds  a  year,  and  if  you  preserve  your  form  ten  or  a  dozen 
years  longer,  half  your  bishopric  will  go  in  breeches  and 
shoes." 

That  the  problem  of  "  breeches  and  shoes  "  mixed  itself 
up  with  graver  pre-occupations  is  shown  by  a  letter  which 
the  Archbishop  wrote  in  1823  to  Charles  Vernon,  his  ninth 
son,  then  Rector  of  Rothbury,  and  afterwards  Canon  of 
Carlisle.  Charles  had  many  fine  qualities,  but  a  genius  for 
finance  was  not  one  of  them,  and  in  the  following  gentle 
rebuke  there  is  evidence  that  the  £100  bank  bill  enclosed 
was  not  by  any  means  the  first  incident  of  the  kind  : 

Archbishop  Vernon  to  his  son  Charles. 

YORK,  July  31,  1823. — MY  DEAR  CHARLES. — I  send  you  a  Bank 
Post  Bill  for  one  hundred  pounds,  which  the  Bankers,  either  at 
Newcastle  or  Alnwick,  will  exchange  for  you  into  smaller  Bank  or 
County  notes.  I  am  well  aware  that  you  have  not  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  character  requisite  for  forming  a  good  Economist,  I  mean 
activity  and  method,  but  I  earnestly  exhort  you  to  endeavour  to 
acquire  them  for  your  own  comfort  and  credit's  sake.  You  are 
mistaken  in  supposing  that  everything  was  so  much  cheaper  when 
I  became  Rector  of  Sudbury  than  when  you  succeeded  to  Rothbury. 
In  1782,  when  I  commenced  my  Sudbury  Residence,  meat  of  all 
kinds,  and  corn,  were  dearer  than  in  1822.  The  articles  supplied 
by  the  Oilman,  the  Tallow  Chandler,  and  the  Grocer,  were  as  dear  ; 
in  fact,  I  could  not  afford  to  buy  either  the  superfine  Green  or  Bohea 
Teas.  In  Coffee  I  did  not  indulge  myself,  but  had  about  six  pounds 
annually  for  my  more  particular  Company,  at  an  expense  of  about 
thirty  shillings  ;  but,  then,  recollect  that,  out  of  my  £500  per  annum, 
I  had  to  pay  for  every  individual  article  of  my  furniture  (for  I  found 
only  bare  walls),  for  my  Linen,  Plate,  China,  and  Wine.  Of  course 
I  could  not  do  this  in  one  year,  but  I  did  it  by  instalments,  out  of 
the  receipts  of  three  years. 


12  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

By  strict  and  methodical  economy  I  have  successfully  struggled 
with  very  many  pecuniary  difficulties.  In  the  first  place  I  began 
by  denying  myself  whatever  I  did  not  really  want,  and  I  made  a 
point  of  entering  regularly,  in  an  account  book,  whatever  I  expended, 
and  of  settling  monthly  all  my  minor  bills  for  meat,  flour,  common 
country  groceries,  etc.  ;  and  ever  since  I  was  delivered  from  the 
weight  of  my  first  setting  out  in  furnishing,  etc.,  etc.,  I  have  invariably 
settled  my  annual  bills  on  the  ist  of  January,  or  as  soon  after  as  I 
could  get  them  in.  This  has  placed  me  in  the  situation  of  inde- 
pendence, and  of  being  able  to  provide  for  the  necessities  of  my 
numerous  family,  and  will,  I  trust,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  enable 
me  to  contribute  further  to  their  comfort  at  my  death.  You  have  now 
my  secret  on  this  most  important  subject ;  whether  you  will  profit  by 
it  remains  to  be  seen.  .  .  .  Ever  very  affectionately  yours,  F.  EBOR. 

The  Archbishop's  eldest  son,  George  Granville  Harcourt, 
who  became  master  of  Nuneham  on  his  father's  death  in 
1847,  married,  as  his  second  wife,  the  famous  and  brilliant 
Lady  Waldegrave.  She  was  a  daughter  of  John  Braham, 
the  great  tenor  singer,  and  at  the  time  of  this  her  third 
marriage  was  twenty-six  years  of  age.  Harcourt. was  then 
a  widower  of  sixty-two,  and  was  Peelite  M.P.  for  Oxford- 
shire. Lady  Waldegrave,  who  from  her  second  husband 
inherited  Strawberry  Hill  and  other  estates,  lived  much 
at  Nuneham,  which  under  her  sway  was  the  scene  of  great 
social  and  political  activity.  Lady  Harcourt,  Sir  William's 
widow,  recounts  a  tradition  that  the  Archbishop,  who  had 
been  greatly  dominated  and  led  into  great  expense  by  the 
charms  of  Lady  Elizabeth  Harcourt,  was  less  pleased  at  the 
thought  of  George  Harcourt's  second  marriage  and  when 
showing  the  beauties  of  the  place  to  friends  would  say  : 
"  To  think  that  all  this  will  go  to  a  Jewess  !  "  The  "  Jew- 
ess," however,  with  her  strong  character,  spirits,  audacity, 
power  over  men,  generous  instincts  and  real  kindness  was 
destined  to  play  a  role  in  the  social  life  at  Nuneham  more 
conspicuous  even  than  that  of  her  predecessor.  "  She  said 
to  me  once,"  writes  Lady  Harcourt,  "  '  I  never  cared  for 
Nuneham  unless  it  was  full  of  people,'  and  judging  from 
the  traditions  in  the  house  of  the  rooms  in  which  guests 
were  asked  and  expected  to  sleep,  very  full,  not  to  say 
uncomfortable,  it  must  often  have  been.  Mr.  Charles 


LADY  WALDEGRAVE  13 

Villiers  told  me  once  that  at  this  time  of  Lady  Waldegrave's 
third  marriage  a  Frenchwoman,  who  was  her  companion, 
advised  her  to  marry  Mr.  Harcourt  as  she  had  enquired  and 
found  out  that  as  eldest  son  he  would  inherit  the  Arch- 
bishopric." 

Some  years  before  George  Harcourt  died  she  opened  and 
restored  the  house  at  Strawberry  Hill,  and  after  his  death  in 
1861,  when  his  brother,  Canon  William  Harcourt,  succeeded 
to  the  Harcourt  estates,  it  became  her  principal  residence. 
Two  years  later  she  married  as  her  fourth  husband  Mr. 
Chichester  Fortescue  (afterwards  Lord  Carlingford),  and 
henceforward  Strawberry  Hill  and  7,  Carlton  Gardens, 
became  active  centres  of  the  Liberal  Party,  where  the  due 
d'Aumale,  Bishop  Wilberforce,  Lords  Grey  and  Clarendon 
were  among  the  older  habitues  and  William  Harcourt,  her 
nephew  through  her  third  marriage,  the  most  conspicuous 
of  the  younger  men,  who  included  Julian  Fane  and  Lords 
Dufferin,  Ampthill  and  Alcester.  There  is  an  interesting 
glimpse  of  this  brilliant  woman  in  Sir  W.  Gregory's  Remin- 
iscences when,  referring  to  Gladstone's  Irish  Church  Bill  in 
1869,  he  says  : 

I  had  almost  made  up  my  mind  to  move  an  amendment  to  the 
Bill,  but  I  was  dissuaded  by  Lady  Waldegrave,  with  whom  for  the 
last  few  years  I  had  contracted  a  strong  friendship,  and  whose 
advice  much  influenced  me  in  every  action  of  my  life.  She  was  a 
most  remarkable  woman,  one  of  the  most  remarkable  I  have  ever 
known.  She  was  very  pretty  as  a  girl,  and  married  first  Mr. 
Waldegrave,  and  then  his  brother  Lord  Waldegrave,  who  was  one 
of  the  most  debauched,  drunken  rowdies  of  his  time.  A  year  of 
her  married  life  she  passed  with  him  in  Newgate.  .  .  .  He  shortly 
afterwards  died  of  dissipation,  leaving  her  a  title  and  fine  income — 
in  fact,  everything  he  had — and  she  married,  thirdly,  a  very  different 
man,  Mr.  Harcourt,  who  was  all  that  was  respectable.  She  was  an 
excellent  wife  to  him,  and  neither  during  her  married  life  with  him, 
nor  previously,  in  spite  of  the  bad  company  into  which  she  was 
thrown  and  the  temptations  to  which  she  was  exposed,  was  there 
ever  a  whisper  of  disparagement  on  her  character.  No  great  lady 
held  her  head  higher,  or  more  vigorously  ruled  her  society.  Her 
house  was  always  gay,  and  her  parties  at  Nuneham  were  the  liveliest 
of  her  time,  but  she  never  suffered  the  slightest  indecorum,  nor 
tolerated  improprieties, 


14  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

It  was  on  the  death  of  Lady  Waldegrave's  third  husband 
and  her  consequent  removal  from  Nuneham  that  Canon 
William  Harcourt  (1789-1871),  the  Archbishop's  fourth  son 
and  father  of  Sir  William  Harcourt,  succeeded  to  the  family 
estates.  He  had  been  born  while  his  father  was  still  rector 
of  Sudbury,  and  he  entered  the  Navy  as  a  midshipman, 
not  with  any  predilection  for  the  career,  but  because  two 
of  his  elder  brothers  desired  to  take  orders  and  presumably 
his  father's  finances  did  not  permit  at  the  moment  of  a  long 
professional  preparation  for  a  third.  He  was  the  most 
precocious  and  remarkable  of  the  Archbishop's  children, 
and  at  the  age  of  nine  was  criticizing  quantities  in  his 
brother's  Latin  verses  and  turning  these  verses  into  excellent 
English.  At  twelve,  when  he  set  out  for  the  sea,  he  visited 
the  House  of  Commons,  remaining  from  four  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon  until  three  in  the  morning,  and  he  wrote  to  his 
father  expressing  the  greatest  satisfaction  at  having  heard 
Mr.  Fox,  Mr.  Pitt  and  Mr.  Wyndham  and  his  delight  at 
"  the  amazing  elegance  and  happiness "  of  Wyndham's 
speech.  On  board  H.M.  Theseus  at  Spithead,  the  little 
middy,  writing  to  his  parents,  says  he  "  falls  every  now  and 
then  into  fits  of  melancholy,  which  owe  their  origin  to  my 
thinking  too  much  of  what  I  have  left  and  comparing  it, 
too,  too  narrowly  with  my  present  situation."  There  was 
no  long  preparation  for  the  young  seaman  in  those  rude 
days,  and  he  sailed  forthwith  in  his  ship  to  the  West  Indies, 
where  he  served  five  years. 

But,  on  his  brother  Edward's  death,  his  father,  now 
Bishop  of  Carlisle,  wrote  to  his  captain  suggesting  that 
unless  William  had  acquired  an  affection  for  the  Navy  he 
might  return  home  to  go  into  the  Church.  The  youth 
accordingly  left  the  Navy,  and  went  to  Christ  Church, 
Oxford.  Having  graduated,  he  was  ordained  in  1814,  and 
became  chaplain  to  his  father  (now  Archbishop)  and  vicar  of 
Bishopthorpe,  subsequently  becoming  rector  of  Wheldrake, 
a  village  6  miles  from  York,  a  canon  residentiary  of  York 
and  finally  rector  of  Bolton  Percy,  where  he  remained  until 
his  succession  to  the  Nuneham  estates  on  the  death  of  his 


A  MAN   OF  SCIENCE  15 

brother  in  1861.  Mrs.  Harcourt,  who  was,  her  daughter- 
in-law  relates,  "  full  of  executive  ability  and  kindness," 
directed  the  management  of  house,  garden  and  estate. 
"  The  task,"  she  writes,  "  must  have  been  somewhat  sim- 
plified by  the  fact  that  the  estate  then  yielded  a  sufficient 
income  for  its  maintenance.  As  the  house  was  often  filled 
to  overflowing  she  suggested  to  my  husband,  then  alone  in 
the  world  with  one  delicate  little  boy,  that  they  should  live 
when  he  liked  at  the  house  in  the  Park  now  occupied  by  the 
Agent." 

It  is,  however,  as  a  scientist  rather  than  as  a  clergyman 
that  the  Canon  is  remembered.  At  Oxford  his  friendship 
with  Dr.  John  Kidd  led  him  to  take  up  science,  especially 
chemistry,  and  his  passion  for  this  subject  remained  to  the 
end  the  dominant  interest  of  his  life.  He  found  time  in  his 
quiet  parish  to  pursue  a  series  of  experiments  on  the  advice 
of  Dr.  Wollaston  and  Sir  Humphry  Davy,  founded  the 
Science  Museum  in  York,  became  the  first  president  of  the 
Yorkshire  Philosophical  Society  and  in  1824,  the  year  of  his 
marriage,  was  elected  a  fellow  of  the  Royal  Society.  It  is 
as  the  chief  inspirer  and  founder  of  the  British  Association 
that  his  memory  in  the  world  of  science  is  most  secure. 
He  organized  the  first  meeting  of  the  Association  held  at 
York  in  September  1831,  framed,  with  the  assistance  of  Sir 
David  Brewster,  Sir  Roderick  Murchison  and  Professor 
Phillips,  the  plan  of  its  proceedings  and  the  laws  governing 
the  new  institution,  was  appointed  its  general  secretary, 
and  in  1839  filled  the  office  of  president.  The  subject  of 
his  address  was  the  history  of  the  composition  of  water. 
He  supported  the  claims  of  Cavendish  to  the  discovery  by 
original  documents,  and  resolutely  sustained  the  title  of 
science  to  entire  freedom  of  inquiry.  Another  subject  to 
which  Canon  Harcourt  devoted  himself  was  the  effect  of 
heat  on  inorganic  compounds,  but  his  chief  study  for  forty 
years  was  directed  to  the  conditions  of  transparency  in  glass, 
his  main  purpose  being  to  acquire  glasses  of  definite  and 
mutually  compensative  dispersions  so  as  to  make  perfectly 
achromatic  combinations.  During  the  last  years  of  this 


1 6  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

work  he  was  assisted  by  Professor  (afterwards  Sir  Gabriel) 
Stokes.  Among  his  other  public  services  he  was  responsible 
for  the  foundation  of  the  Yorkshire  School  for  the  Blind 
and  the  Castle  Howard  Reformatory.  His  extensive  corre- 
spondence, printed  in  the  Harcourt  Papers  (volumes  xiii  and 
xiv),  was  chiefly  carried  on  with  his  scientific  friends,  but 
his  character,  tastes  and  outlook  upon  life  may  be  indicated 
by  passages  from  typical  letters  addressed  to  his  son  William 
when  the  latter  was  at  Cambridge  : 

February  26,  1849. —  ...  If  I  were  you  I  would  enter  life  as  a 
wooer  of  the  comic  rather  than  the  tragic  muse  ;  it  is  not  every  man 
that  is  born,  like  that  prodigy  the  younger  Pitt,  as  "  Jupiter  tonans  " 
or  rather  as  the  Minerva  who  sprung  in  full  armour  out  of  his  head. 
Do  not  let  the  undoubting  confidence,  which  you  have  to  excess  in 
your  own  first  convictions  on  the  most  complicated  subjects,  lead 
you  to  confound  your  own  ardour  and  power  of  language  with  his 
most  precocious  talent  for  the  acquisition  of  accurate  knowledge,  his 
intuitive  poetical  sagacity,  and  power  of  grasping  beforehand  that 
which  ordinary  men  gain  by  long  processes  of  corrective  experi- 
ence. ...  As  for  you,  my  dear  Willy,  you  ivrite,  I  believe,  more 
discreetly  and  temperately  than  you  sometimes  converse,  but  have 
a  care  ;  keep  quiet,  learn  as  accurately  as  you  can  the  statistics  of 
the  world  and  of  England  ;  study  its  constitution  and  law  with  that 
of  nations  ;  in  party  politics  tread  lightly  and  warily,  keeping  a 
conscience  for  every  real  point  of  conscience. 

December  12,  1849. —  .  .  .  Your  view  of  these  matters,  to  judge 
from  your  letter,  seems  to  be  that  impulse  should  determine  the 
fact ;  mine  is  that  the  fact  should  decide  the  impulse.  I  enquire 
first — Did  Herod  murder  the  children  of  Bethlehem  ?  A  venerable 
writer,  in  whom  I  have  reason  to  place  confidence,  affirms  that  he 
did.  There  is  no  affirmation  to  the  contrary.  The  fact  agrees  with 
the  jealousy  and  the  cruelty  of  his  conduct  as  recorded  by  other 
writers.  This  fact  however  is  unnoticed  by  Josephus  ;  but  then 
Josephus  passes  by  many  other  facts,  and  in  particular  all  that 
relate  to  the -history  of  Christ.  If  I  still  doubt  the  fact,  I  do  not 
denounce  it ;  if  I  think  it  true,  I  know  the  horror  which  it  inspires 
in  those  who  are  of  my  opinion,  and  I  do  not  think  I  should  add  to 
it  by  calling  Herod  a  brute  and  a  villain,  still  less  by  declaring  that 
had  I  been  a  Jew,  I  would  have  put  him  to  death  with  my  own 
hand.  That  your  impulses  are  good  I  rejoice  ;  that  they  lead  you 
into  blameable  excesses  of  expression,  I  know  ;  but  I  trust  in  God 
that  they  will  never  lead  you  into  violent  acts  of  fanaticism.  Learn, 
my  dear  boy,  to  be  in  nothing,  least  of  all  in  religion,  the  mere 
creature  of  imagination  and  impulse.  You  have  not  travelled  over 


ADVICE  TO  A  SON  17 

my  library  if  you  have  not  observed  in  it  the  works  of  Spinoza  and 
Bayle  and  Toland,  and  Woolston,  and  Middleton,  and  Socinus,  and 
if  you  had  ever  travelled  over  my  mind,  you  would  know  that  the 
reasonings  of  deists,  pantheists,  and  atheists  from  Epicuraeus  down 
to  Blanco  White,  are  not  only  as  familiar  to  me,  but  have  been 
weighed  by  me,  as  far  as  they  were  not  transparent  fallacies,  with 
as  much  care  and  scruple  as  any  on  the  other  side.  A  sound  and 
calm  understanding  will  always  profit  by  looking  at  its  subject  on 
all  sides.  I  should  have  no  fear  of  any  one  not  remaining  essentially 
and  practically  a  Christian,  who  deliberated  before  he  determined, 
taking  reason  for  the  natural  "  candle  of  the  Lord  within,"  and 
"  probability  as  the  guide  of  life  " — any  one  I  say  of  sound  and  calm 
understanding — Your  man  of  impulse  fits  his  religion,  whatever  he 
calls  it,  to  his  passions,  and  too  often,  like  a  Fitzgerald  or  a 
Robespierre,  beginning  with  thoughts  of  freedom  and  humanity,  ends 
in  deeds  of  crime  and  blood.  For  you  I  am  sure  the  best  prayer  I 
can  offer  is,  that  you  may  learn  to  distrust  yourself,  and  to  discipline 
your  mind  by  subjecting  impulse  to  reason,  and  submitting  to  the 
trammels  of  common  sense. 

(Undated.}  We  have  been  much  inspirited  by  your  success, 
which  has  been  rather  beyond  my  expectations,  and  is  the  more 
agreeable  to  me  from  the  opinion  I  hold  of  the  accurate  sciences  as 
a  kind  of  pruning  hook  for  paring  off  redundancies  and  reducing  the 
mind  to  a  fit  state  for  bearing  real  fruit.  In  the  schools  of  mathe- 
matical and  physical  philosophy  we  gain  a  keener  eye  for  truth,  a 
clearer  notion  of  proof,  a  greater  value  for  reason  and  a  lower  esti- 
mate of  opinion.  Now  you  are  going  on  to  strive  with  the  Athletes 
in  a  less  severe  but  more  various  game  which  includes  all  the  decora- 
tions of  the  mind,  the  methods  of  persuasion,  the  accumulated 
experience  of  ages,  and  in  that  rivalry  I  hope  for  still  greater  dis- 
tinction for  you  that  you  may  become  hereafter,  if  your  life  be  spared, 
an  useful  citizen  of  this  little  world  of  ours  on  your  road  to  greater 
things,  God  willing,  in  a  world  to  come.  .  .  . 

The  last  ten  years  of  the  Canon's  life  were  spent  at  Nune- 
ham  in  the  now  uninterrupted  pursuit  of  his  scientific 
interests.  He  died  in  1871,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  elder 
son  Edward  W.  Harcourt,  the  historian  of  the  family,  who 
collated  the  Harcourt  Papers  in  fourteen  volumes.  Unlike 
his  more  famous  brother,  Edward  Harcourt  continued  the 
Tory  traditions  of  the  family,  and  though  he  remained  on 
affectionate  terms  with  William,  he  deplored  his  politics 
and  was  aggrieved  when  he  became  the  Liberal  candidate 
for  Oxford,  while  he  himself  was  the  Conservative  candidate 


i8  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

for  Oxfordshire.  There  is  a  story  that  on  one  occasion  at 
the  Carlton  Club,  Sir  Thomas  Gladstone,  the  elder  brother 
of  the  Prime  Minister,  turned  to  Edward  Harcourt  and 
sadly  remarked  :  "  Mr.  Harcourt,  you  and  I  have  two  very 
troublesome  brothers . ' ' 

On  Edward  Harcourt's  death  in  1891  the  Nuneham 
estates  which  were  disentailed  by  him  passed  to  his  only 
son,  Aubrey,  who  spent  much  of  his  life  in  travel.  He 
remained  unmarried,  and  on  his  death  in  1904  left 
Nuneham  to  his  uncle,  the  subject  of  this  memoir. 


CHAPTER  II 

BOYHOOD  AND  SCHOOLDAYS 

1835—1846 

Canon  Har court's  family — Schooldays  at  Southwell — Death  of 
Louisa  Harcourt — Much  work  and  little  play  at  Durnford — 
Mr.  Parr  removes  with  his  pupils  to  Preston — Preparation  for 
the  University. 

ALTHOUGH  the  family  at  the  Canon's  residence  at 
York  did  not  rival  the  heroic  dimensions  of  that  of 
the  Archbishop  at  the  Palace  it  was  sufficient  to 
make  what  Bishop  Hinchcliffe  called  the  problem  of 
"  breeches  and  shoes  "  an  important  one.  William  was  the 
second  son  in  a  family  of  seven  children,  two  sons  and  five 
daughters.  The  eldest  son,  Edward  William,  succeeded  his 
father  in  the  Nuneham  estates  in  1871.  Of  the  daughters, 
the  eldest,  Louisa,  died  in  childhood  ;  Emily  Julia  remained 
unmarried,  outliving  by  nine  years  her  brother  William,  who 
to  the  end  of  his  life  carried  on  an  abundant  and  affectionate, 
correspondence  with  her  ;  Cecilia  Caroline  married  Admiral 
Sir  E.  Bridges  Rice  ;  Selina  Anne  became  the  wife  of  Sir  W.  C. 
Morshead  and  Mary  Annabella  the  wife  of  George  de  la  Poer 
Beresford,  M.P.,  eldest  son  of  the  Archbishop  of  Armagh. 

William  was  in  his  third  year  when  the  death  of  the 
third  and  last  Earl  Harcourt  brought  his  branch  of  the 
family  into  the  Nuneham  succession,  and  changed  his  name 
from  William  Vernon  to  William  Harcourt.  Thence- 
forward his  grandfather  divided  his  time  between  his  archi- 
episcopal  duties  at  York  and  the  administration  of  his 
estates  at  Nuneham,  the  fabric  of  which  he  restored  and 
enlarged  and  where  he  was  accustomed  to  entertain  his 
guests,  among  his  visitors  in  later  years  being  Queen  Victoria 

19 


20  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

and  the  Prince  Consort.1  His  wife,  Lady  Anne,  did  not 
long  survive  the  succession  to  the  new  dignities  and  respon- 
sibilities. She  died  in  1832,  after  a  married  life  of  forty- 
eight  years,  and  the  bereaved  Archbishop  spent  the  days  of 
his  mourning  with  this  son  and  his  grandchildren  at  the 
rectory  at  Wheldrake. 

In  spite  of  the  abundance  of  children  it  was  not  a  gay 
household,  for  it  was  conducted  on  austere  principles. 
Recalling  Harcourt's  childhood,  his  sister  Emily  long  years 
afterwards  said  : 

Our  earliest  life  was  made  for  all  of  us  very  monotonous,  and  no 
variety  or  amusements  of  any  kind  provided  for  us,  partly  from  my 
father's  temperament,  who  saw  no  necessity  for  either  in  his  own 
case  or  in  that  of  any  of  us,  and  from  my  mother's  nervousness  after 
the  death  of  my  sister  Louisa,  thinking  the  dull  routine  of  the 
schoolroom  the  safest  thing  for  us.  We  never  had  a  holiday. 

We  had  a  very  ignorant  Swiss  governess  for  twelve  years,  who 
came  when  W.  V.  H.  was  four  years  old.  He  was  quite  right  in 
disliking  her  at  first  sight  and  got  up  into  a  tree  with  a  stick  to 
defend  himself  against  her,  for  which  my  father  punished  him.  I 
believe  there  was  war  ever  after  between  her  and  the  two  brothers, 
as  there  was  a  dark  cupboard  at  the  Vicarage  at  Bishopthorpe  in 
which  they  were  shut  up  and  in  which  they  pierced  holes  with  a 
gimlet  to  get  air  and  light,  much  to  the  astonishment  of  their  perse- 
cutor. I  suppose  this  reign  to  have  lasted,  so  far  as  they  were 
concerned,  for  two  years,  as  at  six  years  old  he  (W.  V.  H.)  began  to 
ride  the  3  miles  into  York  with  his  brother  to  be  day  scholars  at 
St.  Peter's  School.  It  belonged  to  the  Cathedral  and  was  at  its 
East  End,  close  to  the  Old  Residence.  The  New  Residence  was 
built  by  my  father  and  there  W.  always  said  he  was  born,  but  I 
thought  it  was  at  Bishopthorpe.2 

1  In  a  letter  to  her  uncle,  the  King  of  the  Belgians,  dated  from 
Nuneham,  June  15,  1841,  Queen  Victoria  said  :  "  I  followed  Albert 
here,  faithful  to  my  word,  and  he  is  gone  to  Oxford  for  the  whole 
day,  to  my  great  grief.  And  here  I  am  all  alone  in  a  strange  house, 
with  not  even  Lehzen  as  a  companion,  in  Albert's  absence,  but  I 
thought  she  and  also  Lord  Gardner  and  some  gentlemen  should 
remain  with  little  Victoria  for  the  first  time.  But  it  is  rather  a 
trial  to  me." 

8  In  a  letter  to  Lord  Rosebery  (October  18,  1892)  announcing 
his  return  from  Malwood  to  n,  Downing  Street,  Harcourt  says  : 
"  I  shall  feel  a  good  deal  like  the  '  transient  and  embarrassed  phan- 
tom '  (Lord  Goderich),  who  produced  this  week  sixty-five  years  ago 
the  present  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies  (Lord  Ripon)  in  the 
same  edifice  just  at  the  same  time  when  I  was  opening  my  own 
eyes  in  the  Cathedral  Close  of  York." 


BOYISH  ESCAPADES  21 

There  were  no  holidays  for  the  children  and  no  games. 
William's  amusements  as  a  child  took  the  practical  form  of 
helping  his  father  with  his  farm  accounts,  and  his  mother 
with  her  bees,  for  which  he  provided  her  with  a  glass  inspec- 
tion hive.  As  to  his  behaviour,  Emily  described  it  as  kind 
to  all  and  always  contented.  Of  his  opinions  as  a  child  she 
remembered  nothing,  remarking  significantly  that  whatever 
they  were  "  they  were  not  expressed  before  my  father." 
But  his  virtues  were  qualified  by  occasional  escapades  such 
as  painting  the  new  cow  green,  escapades  "  generally 
planned  by  Eddie,  though  Willie  only  had  the  courage  to 
carry  them  out."  On  one  occasion  the  two  boys  planned  to 
run  away  from  Bishopthorpe  as  their  mother  had  gone  to 
Scarborough  and  they  were  left  with  their  father,  who  was 
strict  about  their  lessons.  Getting  a  basket  of  food  they 
mounted  on  their  two  ponies,  inducing  one  of  the  Arch- 
bishop's grooms  to  go  with  them,  but  he  made  them  return 
after  they  had  crossed  the  York  race-course. 

When  William  was  eight  years  of  age  he  was  sent  to  a 
private  school  at  Southwell,  near  Nottingham,  the  head- 
master of  which  was  named  Fletcher.  The  choice  of  the 
school  was  no  doubt  dictated  by  the  fact  that  his  uncle, 
Charles  Harcourt,  was  Canon  of  Southwell  at  the  time. 
Among  his  contemporaries  at  the  school  was  Sir  Tatton 
Sykes.  His  letters  to  his  father,  whom  he  addressed  as 
"  Dearest  Pad,"  show  a  commendable  enthusiasm  for  his 
studies,  a  healthy  sense  of  fun  and  a  talkative  habit.  "  I 
have  been  top  of  my  class  for  four  days,"  he  says  in  April 
1837,  "  but  on  the  fifth  he  took  it  away  because  I  was  talk- 
ing. I  am  second  now.  ..."  The  love  of  a  classical 
quotation  which  remained  with  him  through  life  is  early 
revealed.  "  I  was  glad,"  he  says,  "  to  hear  that  Lou  was 
able  to  go  under  the  beech  trees  in  her  green  drawing-room 
like  Tityrus.  Tityre,  tu  patulae  recubans  sub  tegmine  fagi. 
.  .  .  Do  you  think  that  going  out  makes  Lou  stronger  ?  " 
In  a  letter,  written  when  he  was  eleven  and  signed  "  Your 
affectionate  and  improving  son,"  we  find  him  wrestling  with 
Milton  and  oppressed  with  the  sense  of  the  unequal  conflict. 


22  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

"  I  think,  as  you  say,  that  Milton  is  rather  too  learned  for 
me,  for  some  of  the  passages  I  have  to  read  over  and  over 
again  before  I  understand  them,  so  that  I  do  not  get  on 
very  quick  with  it,  and  I  am  afraid  it  will  be  a  long  time 
before  I  know  enough  of  Greek,  Latin  and  Italian  to  write 
such  verses  as  Milton's."  He  is  more  cheerful  at  the  pro- 
spective visit  of  a  conjuror  and  the  tricks  to  be  expected, 
and  when  the  magician  has  been  describes  the  event  with 
fervour,  adding  "  though  I  am  afraid  you  will  not  enjoy  my 
account  of  the  conjuring  as  much  as  if  dear  Lou  had  been 
well." 

These  and  many  other  references  to  "  dear  Lou  "  relate  to 
his  eldest  sister,  Louisa,  who  was  dying  of  a  spinal  disease, 
and  had  been  taken  by  her  parents  to  St.  Clare,  Isle  of 
Wight,  which  belonged  to  his  uncle,  Francis  Harcourt. 
Thither  from  Southwell  William  journeyed  by  stage  coach 
to  spend  the  summer  of  1837  with  the  family,  and  one  of  his 
most  vivid  early  recollections  was  that  of  the  guard  of  the 
coach  putting  his  head  in  at  the  window  and  announcing 
that  the  King  (William  IV)  was  dead.  His  only  reminiscence 
of  his  stay  at  St.  Clare  was  that  of  dressing  up  in  armour  to 
receive  his  uncle  Francis  on  his  return.  From  St.  Clare  the 
family  moved  with  their  daughter  to  Bromley,  Kent,  to  be 
near  their  trusted  physician,  Dr.  Scott,  and  it  was  here  that 
Louisa  died  on  January  24,  1839. 

II 

In  the  meantime  Canon  Harcourt  had  been  preferred  to 
the  living  of  Bolton  Percy,  and  William's  days  at  Southwell 
had  come  to  an  end.  His  father  was  adverse  to  the  public 
school  system  and  William  and  his  elder  brother,  Edward, 
were  sent  to  Durnford  near  Salisbury,  where  with  five  other 
boys,  the  most  distinguished  of  whom  in  after  life  was 
Laurence  Oliphant,  they  were  the  pupils  of  Canon  Parr. 
He  rejoiced  in  the  change.  They  were,  he  wrote,  among  "  a 
much  nicer  set  of  boys  than  at  Southwell  and  consequently 
much  happier,  and  as  we  have  pleasant  companions  and 
plenty  of  liberty  we  do  not  much  regret  our  decreased 


STRENUOUS  SCHOOLDAYS  23 

quantity  of  play."  He  goes  on  to  explain  his  gratitude  to 
his  parents  for  "  sending  us  to  this  school  at  your  own 
material  inconvenience . ' '  The  modern  boy  would  not  under- 
stand this  gratitude,  for  life  at  Canon  Parr's  consisted  of 
much  work  and  little  play.  William  describes  the  school 
day  in  a  letter  to  his  mother  : 

DURNFORD,  February,  1839. — As  we  get  up  at  half -past  six  and 
go  into  school  at  seven  till  nine,  when  we  breakfast,  then  go  into 
school  till  eleven,  go  out  till  twelve,  come  into  school  till  two,  have 
dinner,  play  till  half-past  three,  go  into  school  and  do  lessons  all  the 
rest  of  the  day  till  half-past  eight,  then  go  to  bed,  so  that  we  have 
only  two  hours  play  in  the  day,  and  as  it  has  been  very  rainy  these 
two  days  I  have  not  been  out  for  more  than  half  an  hour.  I  fully 
intended  to  have  written  yesterday  to  you,  but  as  I  heard  the  post 
did  not  go  till  two  I  thought  we  should  have  some  more  play  than 
one  hour  before  that  time.  .  .  .  My  principal  friend  here  is  Owen 
Parr,  Mr.  Parr's  eldest  son. 

To  this  eleven-hour  working  day  was  added  a  Sunday  task 
of  two  chapters  of  the  Greek  Testament.  The  classics,  as 
might  be  expected,  occupied  the  chief  place  in  this  strenuous 
study.  William  describes  to  his  father  the  text -books  he 
is  using,  and  mentions  that  he  is  in  the  middle  of  the  first 
book  of  the  Iliad  and  is  reading  concurrently  Livy  and  the 
Hecuba  of  Euripides.  There  are  few  glimpses  of  Canon  Parr, 
but  his  political  predilections  are  revealed  when  the  boys 
write  home  triumphantly  announcing  that  when  the 
Ministers  are  turned  out  the  school  is  to  have  a  whole  holiday. 
"  We  are  going  to  have  bonfires  and  burn  them  all  in  effigy." 
Alas,  the  Government  returned,  and  the  Master  visited  his 
disappointment  on  the  boys  by  revoking  the  holiday.  But 
the  severe  regimen  of  the  school  had  its  alleviations.  There 
is  a  long  description  to  his  mother  of  "  a  fox  hunt  "  in  which 
one  of  the  boys  is  pursued  by  his  fellows,  and  another  of  a 
garden  which  Miss  Parr  has  given  him  for  his  own  and  the 
peculiar  joy  of  which  is  a  "  dear  little  Scotch  rose  tree." 
He  begins  his  career  as  a  publicist  in  the  modest  pages  of 
the  "  Durnford  School  Magazine."  And  he  has  his  social 
duties,  indicated  in  a  letter  to  his  mother  asking  her  to  send 
him  a  sovereign  of  his  which  she  has  in  her  care.  He  has 


24  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

broken  his  fishing  line,  and  "  as  I  put  one  of  the  poor  little 
children  in  this  village  to  school  I  have  not  enough  remaining 
to  pay  with."  The  chief  event  of  his  stay  at  Durnford  was 
a  holiday  expedition  to  Longford  Castle  which  he  describes 
in  a  long  descriptive  letter  to  his  mother  preserved  among 
his  papers.  Meantime  the  school  had  grown  in  numbers  to 
twenty-four,  not  with  wholly  pleasant  results,  for  some  of 
the  new  boys  were  mischievous,  and  we  find  William  lament- 
ing in  August  that  liberty  is  restricted,  no  one  is  allowed 
beyond  the  gates,  fishing  is  at  an  end  and  there  is  "  no  half 
holiday  on  Wednesday." 

The  days  at  Durnford  were  brief,  for  in  1840  Mr.  Parr  was 
appointed  Vicar  of  Preston  in  Lancashire,  and  thither  he 
took  his  pupils,  among  them  the  two  Harcourts.  "  We  do 
not  call  it  a  school  at  Preston  as  Mr.  Parr  says  we  are  to 
consider  ourselves  as  on  a  visit,"  writes  William  to  his  mother. 
But  the  euphemism  implied  no  relaxation  of  the  curriculum. 
The  young  visitors  at  Preston  had  to  work  no  less  industri- 
ously than  the  young  scholars  at  Durnford  had  done.  "  We 
dine  at  four  instead  of  two,  and  have  luncheon  at  half-past 
twelve,  at  which  time  we  go  out,  and  then  come  in  at  two  and 
read  till  dinner  and  then  go  in  till  half-past  seven,  which  is 
tea  time  and  then  have  the  rest  of  the  evening  to  ourselves, 
so  that  if  we  do  not  go  out  at  twelve  we  can  not  go  out  at  all." 
The  classics  still  occupy  most  of  the  time,  and  Mrs.  Harcourt 
is  requested  to  "  tell  Papa  we  have  plenty  of  learning  by 
heart.  We  learn  sixteen  lines  of  Virgil  every  morning  and 
then  say  forty  lines  of  repetition  on  Saturday."  He  is 
concerned  about  the  novel  theories  of  a  new  drawing  master. 
"  I  think  his  trees  niggly  as  you  would  say,  and  he  teaches  an 
odd  doctrine  about  trees,  which  is  '  draw  the  shadow  first 
and  then  the  outline,'  and  altogether  I  do  not  like  him." 
His  recreations  are  infrequent  and  chiefly  intellectual. 
We  hear  of  an  occasional  walk  with  Mr.  Venn  and  some 
schoolfellow  by  the  Ribble,  in  the  course  of  one  of  which  Mr. 
Venn's  anecdotes  about  Oxford  were  interrupted  by  a  cow 
which  charged  the  group  and  gave  the  master  a  severe  blow. 
But  games  play  little  or  no  part  in  the  record.  They  had  an 


A   SOLEMN   COVENANT 


insignificant  part  in  the  scheme  of  school  life,  and  Harcourt 
had  little  taste  for  them,  as  may  be  gathered  from  a  remark 
in  one  of  his  letters  to  his  mother.  "  The  order  of  the  day 
was  cricket  in  which  I  joined  for  a  short  time,  but  finding 
it  cold  I  took  a  perambulation  all  over  the  park."  The 
indifference  was  perhaps  more  physical  than  tempera- 
mental, for  strange  as  it  will  seem  to  those  who  were  familiar 
with  his  heroic  figure  in  later  years,  he  was  a  slim  and 
delicate  boy.  "  Give  my  best  love  to  dear  Papa  from  his 
cartilaginous  youth,"  he  says  in  one  of  his  letters.  "  William 
is  not  allowed  to  play  cricket  as  the  doctor  thinks  that  much 
exertion  is  not  good  for  him,"  writes  Edward  to  his  father. 
"  However  I  do  not  think  he  regrets  it  much,  as  he  was  never 
very  much  devoted  to  it.  He  is  very  great  friends  with  his 
doctor,  whom  he  has  found  to  be  an  amateur  chemist,  and 
who  has  been  supplying  him  with  seals,  impressions  from 
the  rings  of  Egyptian  mummies  in  electro-type."  With 
this  indifference  to  sport  there  was  at  this  time  a  concern 
about  spiritual  things  unusual  enough  in  a  lively  boy  of 
thirteen.  There  is  a  memorandum  in  his  handwriting, 
dated  October  16,  1840,  which  runs  as  follows  : 

I  have  now  just  entered  on  my  thirteenth  year,  and  have  up  to 
this  time,  I  must  to  my  sorrow  confess,  lived  in  neglect  of  Thee,  but 
now  by  the  assistance  of  Thy  Holy  Spirit  do  resolve  to  follow  Thee, 
the  only  God,  and  to  renounce  the  service  of  the  World,  the  Flesh 
and  the  Devil,  and  the  more  to  strengthen  me  in  this  resolution  I 
have  determined  to  draw  up  a  solemn  dedication  of  myself  to  Thee 
which  I  mean  on  the  return  of  each  Sabbath  day  to  read  and  ratify 
by  Thy  Grace.  Signed,  W.  G.  V.  HARCOURT. 

The  Covenant  follows,  and  the  document  is  ratified  with 
the  sign  W.  V.  H.  and  a  line  of  inscription  on  the  following 
dates : 


Preston     October     18,  1840 

25,  1840 

,,          November  i,  1840 

8,  1840 

,,       ,,    15,  1840 

22,  1840 

,,       „    29,  1840 


Preston     December    6,  1840 

,,  ,,         20,  1840 

York  ,,         27,  1840 

,,  January       3,  1841 

,,  17,  1841 


This  course  of  self-examination  seems  to  have  continued 


26  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

through  half  a  term  and  the  subsequent  holidays.  There  is 
also  a  form  of  confession  of  sin,  and  versicles  from  the 
Communion  Service,  the  latter  suggesting  that  this  phase 
was  probably  associated  with  his  preparation  for  confirma- 
tion. 

But  it  is  the  intellectual  interests  of  life  which  furnish  the 
material  of  the  abundant  correspondence  with  his  parents. 
There  is  a  portentous  gravity  in  his  boyish  criticisms  which 
must  have  raised  a  smile  on  the  Canon's  face  ;  but  there  is 
also  an  unusual  maturity  and  grasp.  Here  is  a  character- 
istic note  to  his  mother  about  his  reading  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Mother. 

PRESTON  (Undated). —  .  .  .  According  to  Papa's  advice  I  began 
to  read  Horner's  Life  and  found  it  so  interesting  that  I  devoured 
half  the  volume  before  it  passed  from  my  hands  ;  there  are  passages 
in  the  journalic  account  of  his  youthful  vagaries  which  excite  a 
smile  in  the  reader  as  they  did  the  indignation  of  the  author  in  his 
maturer  years  ;  there  is  something  not  English  in  the  preference 
of  metaphysical  inquiries  to  more  useful  studies,  this  I  remember 
was  the  case  with  Burke  (who  was  an  Irishman)  in  his  younger  days, 
but  who  after  a  certain  course  of  English  naturalization  was  among 
the  first  to  laugh  at  his  metaphysical  Inquiry  into  the  Sublime  and 
Beautiful ;  Davy  also  as  a  boy  delighted  to  dabble  in  it,  a  strange 
taste  for  one  versed  in  experimental  philosophy  to  prefer  a  study 
in  which  everything  must  be  conjectured  and  where  no  certainty 
can  be  obtained,  where  the  subtle  arguer  takes  the  place  of  the 
accurate  observer.  One  of  Horner's  youthful  projects  was  a  work 
to  parallel  in  the  eighteenth  century  Lord  Bacon's  Instauratio 
Magna  in  the  sixteenth,  to  which  is  subjoined  an  amusing  note  of 
his  own  some  twenty  years  after  the  draft  of  the  scheme  was  made. 
It  is  difficult  sometimes,  from  the  tale  being  told  in  his  own  words,  to 
separate  one's  ideas  of  his  immense  industry  from  the  self-reproaches 
of  idleness  which  he  heaps  on  himself  in  his  journal,  and  it  requires 
a  little  pause  to  gain  a  just  conception  of  his  close  application  and 
unwearied  perseverance.  I  have  a  great  deal  more  to  say  about 
Mr.  Horner,  but  I  am  quite  astonished  at  the  quantity  of  nonsense 
which  I  have  already  daubed  into  this  note  with  a  pen  which  is 
split  up  to  the  top  and  which  therefore  I  have  no  doubt  you  will  not 
be  able  to  read. 

In  excusing  himself  for  negligence  in  writing  to  his  mother, 
he  describes  himself  as  being  kept  "  on  a  continual  stretch  " 
at  Latin  and  Greek.  "  We  begin  at  nine  and  work  till  two, 


A  YOUTHFUL  iTORY  27 

when  we  dine,  we  then  work  again  till  five,  which  ends  our 
regular  lessons.  From  five  we  go  out  till  seven,  when  we  have 
tea,  and  then  we  have  from  half-past  seven  till  ten  to  our- 
selves, every  minute  of  which  has  for  this  last  fortnight  been 
so  fully  engaged  with  writing  notes  on  what  we  have  done 
in  the  day,  composing  verses,  finishing  exercises  and  reading 
history  for  examination  that  I  have  not  had  a  minute  to 
spare  for  anything."  There  is  a  record  of  an  occasional 
walk  by  the  river  or  to  the  falls  of  the  Darwen,  and  one 
long  and  joyous  account  of  an  expedition  to  Bolton  Abbey, 
but  the  main  theme  throughout  is  his  work — the  classics  he 
is  reading,  his  progress  in  mathematics,  the  text-books  he 
uses  and  the  merits  of  the  writers  of  them.  There  is  only 
one  reference  to  politics,  but  it  is  enough  to  show  that  at 
this  stage  of  his  career  there  was  no  suspicion  of  a  breach 
with  the  traditional  Toryism  of  the  family.  There  had  been 
a  dissolution  of  Parliament  in  June  1841,  and  at  the  subse- 
quent election  Sir  P.  H.  Fleetwood  and  Sir  George  Strick- 
land, the  Liberal  candidates,  were  returned,  whereupon 
Harcourt  writes  to  his  parents  that  "  Preston,  to  its  eternal 
disgrace,  has  returned  two  Radicals  to  Parliament." 

But  generally  the  events  of  the  time  seem  to  engage  little 
of  the  attention  of  a  boy  who  is  wholly  immersed  in  his 
studies,  and  even  so  stirring  an  incident  as  the  Bread  Riots 
in  Preston  in  1842,  when  people  were  shot  down  in  the  streets, 
is  left  to  be  recorded  by  his  brother.  The  latter  left  Preston 
in  the  spring  of  1843  to  prepare  for  Oxford.  He  read  with 
Charles  Conybeare  at  Filey,  and  was  there  joined  by  William 
who  shared  in  his  brother's  studies  during  a  holiday  of  twelve 
weeks.  On  returning  to  Preston,  he  describes  the  course 
of  his  studies  to  his  father : 

Harcourt  to  his  Father. 

PRESTON  (Undated}. —  ...  I  have  been  reading  straight  through 
the  23rd  book  of  Livy,  a  labour  sufficiently  tedious,  as  the  spirited 
speeches  and  animated  details  do  not  occur  often  enough  to  enliven 
the  dullness  of  the  regular  narrative.  I  am  now  finishing  the 
Electm  of  Sophocles,  half  of  which  I  had  read  with  Conybeare  at 
Filey.  I  have  made  a  few  essays  at  Greek  Iambics,  and  though 
not  quite  so  successful  as  I  could  have  hoped,  I  have  found  that 


28  SIR   WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

Filey  Sophoclizing  has  been  of  much  benefit,  and  may  I  trust  have 
laid  the  foundation  of  great  improvement  in  this  particular  branch. 
When  Owen  Parr  returns  we  are  to  make  an  attack  upon  the 
second  book  of  Thucydides,  the  Orations  of  Cicero,  and  the  Pro- 
metheus of  ^Eschylus,  which  together  with  the  divers  sorts  of  com- 
position and  a  certain  quotum  of  mathematics  will  complete  the 
bill  of  fare  for  this  half  year  ;  I  have  about  two  hours  every  day 
for  private  reading  which  I  devote  either  to  collecting  materials  for 
composition  from  the  studies  of  the  day,  to  the  writing  of  Latin 
Verses,  or  to  the  reading  of  Virgil,  Juvenal,  etc.  I  have  accomplished 
at  last  the  loth  Satire  of  Juvenal,  and  am  now  engaged  in  trans- 
lating on  paper  the  4th  Oration  of  Cicero  against  Catiline,  which  I 
conceive  will  be  at  the  same  time  improving  to  my  English  composi- 
tion, and  give  me  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  style  of 
the  writer  himself. 

Ill 

His  days  at  Preston  were  drawing  to  a  close,  and  the 
question  of  his  career  began  to  take  shape  as  a  practical 
problem  of  the  near  future.  Associated  with  this  question 
was  the  choice  of  University,  and  this  matter  is  discussed 
with  great  elaboration  in  the  following  letter  to  his  father  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Father. 

PRESTON,  November  2,  1843. —  ...  I  am  not  sorry  that  some 
mention  in  your  last  letter  of  my  future  University  life  has  given 
me  an  opportunity  of  laying  before  you  my  real  feelings  on  this 
subject  ;  you  will  not  be  surprised  when  I  tell  you  that  it  is  one 
which  has  occupied  much  of  my  attention,  and  on  which  I  have 
been  at  some  pains  to  gain  every  information,  and  now  therefore 
I  may  with  truth  declare,  that  on  this  point  I  can,  as  far  as  my  own 
private  wishes  and  inclinations  are  concerned,  unreservedly  leave 
to  you  the  choice  and  the  decision,  and  that  not  only  from  a  feeling 
of  filial  obedience,  which  in  itself  would  be  abundantly  sufficient, 
but  also  from  a  conviction  of  my  own  judgment,  that  there  are  no 
reasons  with  which  I  am  acquainted,  cogent  enough  to  induce  me 
much  to  prefer  the  one  or  the  other  ;  for  in  either  case  I  have  found 
that  manifest  advantage  is  counteracted  by  equivalent  evil,  and 
that  apparent  evil  is  seen,  on  close  examination,  to  be  counter- 
balanced by  proportionate  advantage. 

I  have  come  to  this  conclusion,  not  from  a  consideration  of  the 
general  system  of  education  in  either  University,  into  which  it 
was  not  my  purpose  to  inquire,  and  to  which,  if  it  had  been  so, 
I  should  not  have  esteemed  myself  competent,  but  as  regarded 
the  application  of  either  system  to  the  tendencies  and  disposition 
of  my  own  mind  and  intellect.  I  have  long  learnt  to  consider 


IN   PRAISE   OF   POPE  29 

aeavrov  as  the  grand  elementary  basis  of  all  inquiries, 
religious,  moral  and  intellectual,  and  have  therefore  endeavoured, 
as  best  I  might,  to  discover,  from  a  strict  analysis  of  my  own 
mind,  which  of  the  two  species  of  education  was  the  best  suited 
to  foster  and  improve  it.  And  so  with  respect  to  ambition  and 
desire  of  distinction,  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  though  the  one 
course  might  be  better  adapted  to  stimulate  and  excite  it,  yet 
that  the  other  would  be  more  advantageously  employed  in  reducing 
ideal  ambition  into  substantial  improvement.  And  on  the  other 
hand  that  though  one  system  might  impart  more  general  informa- 
tion, and  give  a  freer  scope  for  the  mind,  yet  that  to  myself 
individually,  who  I  am  aware  am  too  much  inclined  to  volatile  and 
desultory  courses,  that  system  would  be  more  useful  which  confines 
the  thoughts  and  the  energies  to  a  single  point  or  a  single  study. 

He  continues  in  this  vein  for  more  pages  of  quarto,  and 
concludes  in  the  same  formal  manner : 

I  must  now  conclude  this  letter,  which  I  had  intended  to  have 
written  a  week  ago,  but  for  whose  composal  I  have  with  difficulty 
snatched  half  an  hour  from  my  time  which  is  fully  occupied,  and 
I  must  therefore  beg  you  to  excuse  the  many  defects  which  I  know 
it  to  contain,  but  I  shall  fully  have  succeeded  in  my  intentions  if  I 
have  been  able  in  it  intelligibly  to  express  to  you  the  affection  and 
obedience  of  your  son. 

Perhaps  it  was  with  the  formidable  and  oppressive  manner 
of  this  document  in  mind  that  the  Canon,  later,  advised  his 
son  to  be  a  wooer  of  the  comic  rather  than  the  tragic  muse, 
a  hint  that  was  to  bear  much  more  abundant  fruit  than  the 
Canon  could  have  anticipated.  But  though  he  is  not  yet 
the  master  of  his  instrument,  his  habit  of  mind  and  his 
literary  tastes  are  already  visible.  In  one  of  his  last  letters 
from  Preston,  written  on  May  30,  1844,  he  tells  his  father 
that  he  has  read  six  books  of  the  Odyssey  and  has  "  become 
an  ardent  admirer  of  the  Maeonian  Swan."  But  he  admires 
Pope  still  more.  He  has  read  his  translation  of  Homer  and, 
faithful  even  at  this  early  stage  to  the  eighteenth  century 
tradition  that  he  preserved  throughout  his  life,  he  proclaims 
his  preference  for  Pope.  "  Though  of  course  a  translation 
can  have  no  claim  to  originality  or  imaginative  power,  yet 
it  seems  to  me  that  Pope  has  supplied  that  which  was 
deficient  in  Homer,  by  polishing  his  rhythm,  by  adorning 
his  images,  by  amplifying  his  obscurities,  and  by  softening 


3o  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

his  familiarities."  With  this  taste  for  literary  formalism, 
it  follows  that  Thucydides  is  alien  to  his  spirit.  He  does  not 
find  "  those  abstruse  and  recondite  beauties,  which  are,  I 
suppose,  like  the  diamond  flaming  in  the  mine,  to  com- 
pensate the  mud,  or  rather  the  solid  rock,  of  inverted  con- 
structions and  crabbed  expressions,  which  must  be  bored 
through  or  exploded  by  the  gunpowder  of  commentators 
before  it  can  be  worked  with  ease  or  satisfaction  ;  and  I 
would  gladly  exchange  all  the  pith  and  the  terseness  of  the 
Athenian  historian  for  the  amusing  puerilities  of  Herodotus, 
or  the  elegant  narration  of  Livy."  He  is  more  appreciative 
of  /Eschylus,  "  whose  Choephoroi,  with  its  huge  apparatus  of 
annotators,  is  now  occupying  and  straining  my  attention." 
He  does  not  yield  to  Thucydides  in  intricacy  and  obscurity, 
but  he  has  at  least  the  excuse  of  metrical  restriction  and  an 
unmanageable  Pegasus. 

and,  like  his  great  master  Homer,  fills  the  mind  with  magnificent 
images  and  noble  expressions,  which  convey  their  meaning  to  the 
poetical  soul  by  a  short  cut  and  an  untrod  road,  without  submitting 
to  the  bounds  and  the  regulations  which  limit  geniuses  of  a  lower 
rank.  '  Coelum  negata  tentat  iter  via,  Coetusque  vulgares  et  udam 
spernit  humum  fugiente  -penna.' 

It  is  the  de  Oratore  of  Cicero  which  evokes,  naturally 
enough,  his  most  genuine  enthusiasm. 

I  know  not  (he  says)  whether  I  ought  most  to  admire,  the  subtle- 
ness of  the  observation,  the  conclusiveness  of  the  reasoning,  the 
copiousness  of  the  style,  or  the  aptness  of  the  illustration.  I  have 
been  reading  this  alternately  with  Homer,  and  shall  not  therefore 
accomplish  more  than  one  book  of  it  before  the  holidays  when  I 
hope  Nocturna  versare  manu,  versare  diurna. 

Literature,  at  this  time,  is  alike  his  work  and  his  play,  for 
outside  his  routine  he  is  engaged  on  a  verse  translation  of 
the  Pleasures  of  the  Imagination,  and  he  employs  his  odd 
moments  "  in  committing  to  memory  those  passages  which 
I  meet  with  both  in  English  and  classical  reading  which 
appear  to  me  remarkable  for  the  beauty  either  of  their 
expression  or  thought."  Mathematics  are  merely  a  neces- 
sary grind.  "  When  I  have  said  that  I  read  them — voild 
tout."  So  much  for  the  particulars. 


PREPARES  FOR  CAMBRIDGE  31 

As  for  the  tout  ensemble  I  find  that  a  more  regular  system  both  of 
study  and  exercise  has  brought  me  nearer  to  that  most  desirable 
condition,  of  which  you  wrote  to  me  in  one  of  your  letters,  Mens 
sana  in  corpore  sano  !  And  as  I  find  that  the  morbid  prejudices 
of  the  mind  train  off  with  the  unhealthy  humours  of  the  body,  I  am 
beginning  to  be  convinced  that  the  economy  of  the  body  has.  a  much 
more  intimate  connexion  with  the  welfare  of  the  mind  than  I  was 
before  willing  to  believe. 

Evidently  he  has  had  some  parental  advice  as  to  his  distaste 
for  games,  but  he  does  not  indicate  the  nature  of  the  exercise 
to  which  he  is  now  reconciled. 

The  end  of  the  school  days  had  now  come.  Harcourt 
was  well  advanced  in  his  sixteenth  year,  and  Parr's  seminary 
no  longer  supplied  his  needs.  Irwin,  the  mathematical 
tutor,  had  left  for  a  curacy  in  the  South,  and  as  Parr's 
remaining  pupils  were  at  the  commencement  of  their  studies, 
no  adequate  successor  could  be  appointed  for  one  student. 
As  for  his  classical  studies  Harcourt  points  out  in  writing 
home  that  he  can  pursue  them  alone  or  with  his  father's 
assistance.  The  date  of  his  actual  departure  from  Preston  is 
uncertain,  but  it  was  probably  in  the  summer  of  1844.  His 
father  was  still  rector  of  Bolt  on  Percy  and  Canon  of  York, 
and  the  next  two  years  of  Harcourt's  life  were  mainly  spent 
between  the  two  residences  of  the  family  in  completing  his 
preparations  for  Cambridge,  on  which  the  choice  had  fallen. 
A  glimpse  of  him  is  given  in  a  letter  from  the  Archbishop  to 
the  Canon  : 

GROSVENOR  SQUARE,  June  26,  1845. —  .  .  .  Your  sons  left  me 
this  morning  and  I  can  with  great  truth  assure  you  that,  in  my  very 
long  experience,  two  more  amiable  youths  I  never  saw.  Your 
namesake  is  a  most  extraordinary  boy  of  his  age.  Both  were  equally 
kind  and  attentive  to  myself. 

His  brother  had  now  gone  to  Oxford,  and  it  was  intended 
that  William  should  follow  him  thither.  Emily  Harcourt 
records  that  when  her  father  received  from  his  friend 
Dr.  Ball  of  Christ  Church  a  not  very  flattering  reference 
to  Edward's  attainments,  he  remarked,  "  They  will  see 
the  difference  when  William  goes  there."  His  success  in 
mathematics  seems  to  have  led  his  father  to  change  his  mind 


32  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

and  send  him  to  Cambridge  instead.  Emily  Harcourt 
recalled  him  in  these  days  of  his  early  youth  as  cheerful 
and  good-natured,  but  serious  in  his  interests,  full  of  sym- 
pathy with  all  suffering  and  "  hot  with  horror  of  capital 
punishment."  "  I  never  remember  receiving  an  impatient 
word  from  him,"  she  said,  "  only  constant  appreciation. 
He  took  much  interest  in  my  reading  and  at  this  time  took 
me  on  a  tour  amongst  the  architectural  interests  of  York- 
shire, the  great  Norman  Church  at  Selby,  etc." 


CHAPTER  III 
LIFE  AT  CAMBRIDGE 

Entrance  at  Trinity — Shilleto  and  Maine — The  Apostles — Conflicts 
with  Fitzjames  Stephen — Friendship  with  Julian  Fane — Deli- 
cate health — A  reading  party  at  the  Lakes — Debates  at  the 
Union — An  offer  from  the  Morning  Chronicle — The  choice  of 
a  career. 

IN  the  autumn  term  of  1846,  when  he  was  approaching  his 
nineteenth  year,  Harcourt  went  up  to  Cambridge,  being 
entered  as  a  gentleman  commoner  at  Trinity  College. 
His  appearance  at  the  University  aroused  interest  on  several 
grounds.  He  had  reached  his  full  stature  of  six  feet  three 
and  a  half  inches,  and  though  still,  in  his  own  phrase,  "  a 
cartilaginous  youth,"  he  carried  himself  with  an  ease  and 
self-confidence  that  made  him  a  noticeable  figure  in  any 
company.  The  boldly  sculptured  face  with  its  wide  set 
eyes,  strong  nose  and  ample  mobile  mouth  was  instinct 
with  intelligence  and  humour,  and  his  general  bearing  had 
that  suggestion  of  the  gladiator  which  he  carried  with  him 
to  the  end  of  his  days.  Masterful,  buoyant,  endowed  with 
unusual  natural  gifts  which  had  been  quickened  and  en- 
larged by  strenuous  work,  the  most  brilliant  representative 
of  a  house  allied  with  most  of  the  families  that  still  governed 
England,  his  appearance  in  the  lists  at  Cambridge  was  some- 
thing of  an  event.  It  has  been  described  by  Spencer  Per- 
cival  Butler,  one  of  his  contemporaries  at  the  University. 
"  When  Harcourt  appeared  in  the  following  summer  term," 
he  says,  "  he  made  a  great  impression  on  me.  He  was 
taller  and  handsomer  than  the  others,  and  he  knew  more 
of  literature  and  politics  than  any  of  us.  He  was  witty  and 

33  D 


34  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT     [1846^51 

full  of  anecdotes  of  distinguished  men  who  were  only 
names  to  me,  and  he  had  a  talent  for  conversation  which 
was  very  unusual." 

In  one  respect  he  was  at  a  disadvantage.  Having  been 
privately  educated,  he  did  not  arrive  at  the  University  with 
a  group  of  friends  as  was  the  case  with  young  men  coming 
from  the  public  schools.  But  his  reputation  had  preceded 
him.  He  had  read  with  a  queer  tutor,  whom  he  used  to 
recall  in  after  life,  who  was  "  half  mad,  got  into  great  rages 
with  himself,  threw  his  watch  into  a  clover  field,  and  tore 
his  portmanteau  up  because  he  could  not  pack  it."  But 
in  spite  of  these  oddities,  he  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of 
some  authority  at  Cambridge,  and  is  said  to  have  spread 
his  pupil's  fame  there  before  his  arrival.  Apart  from  this, 
Harcourt,  owing  to  his  abilities  and  associations  with  the 
world,  was  more  mature  than  most  first  year  men  coming 
direct  from  the  public  schools.  Two  years  before  he  had 
taken  his  brother  Edward's  place  at  a  reading  party  at 
Thorpe  Arch  where  he  met  Oxford  men  of  distinction,  Henry 
West,  John  Bode,  Leveson  Randolph  and  Goldwin  Smith. 
Nor  was  he  wholly  without  acquaintances  at  Cambridge. 
George  Cay  ley  and  Reginald  Cholmondeley  were  old  friends, 
and  on  a  visit  to  the  Marquis  of  Northampton  at  Castle 
Ashby  in  the  summer  of  1846  he  had  met  Lord  Alwyne 
Compton,  who  introduced  him  into  a  set  which  he  describes 
as  "  Comptonian,"  an  adjective  synonymous  in  his  mind 
with  "  sensible  and  quiet."  Another  early  friend  at  Cam- 
bridge was  E.  H.  Stanley  (i5th  Earl  of  Derby)  who  entered 
Parliament  straight  from  Cambridge  in  1848.  Then  as  now 
Trinity  sheltered  men  of  widely  different  tastes.  Harcourt 
was  naturally  an  omnivorous  and  eager  student,  and  gravi- 
tated inevitably  to  a  reading,  serious  set.  In  the  following 
letter  to  his  mother  he  relates  his  first  experiences  at 
Cambridge. 

TRINITY  COLLEGE,  1 846. —  .  .  .  Here  I  am  domesticated  at  Cam- 
bridge. I  had  a  prosperous  journey  to  town  though  the  train  arrived 
very  late  ;  the  tedium  of  the  way  was  enlivened  however  by  the 
vivacity  of  my  compagnon  de  voyage,  who  from  her  accent  was  a 


1846-51]  FIRST   IMPRESSIONS  35 

foreigner,  and  being  addressed  by  her  maid  as  miladi  was  I  suppose 
a  Countess.  I  did  not  discover  the  name  of  my  fair  friend,  and  the 
only  conjecture  which  I  could  form  from  the  style  of  her  conver- 
sation was  that  she  might  be  the  Countess  de  Hahn  who  has  I 
know  been  residing  in  England. 

I  passed  the  night  very  comfortably  at  the  Euston  Hotel  and 
arrived  at  about  one  o'clock  at  Trinity,  from  whence  I  found  my 
way  to  Thompson's  rooms.1  My  reception  was  most  gracious,  he 
was  very  indignant  when  he  heard  that  the  Master  had  interfered 
to  prevent  my  coming  to  read  at  Cambridge  as  originally  intended, 
and  said,  "  If  your  father  had  never  applied  to  the  Master  there 
would  have  been  no  difficulty  ;  it  was  a  point  on  which  I  should 
have  felt  myself  quite  authorized  to  have  given  permission."  I 
then  inquired  into  the  state  of  the  case  with  regard  to  the  non  ens, 
which  he  said  was  a  metaphysical  abstraction  which  had  more 
meaning  at  Cambridge  than  metaphysical  abstractions  are  wont 
to  have,  but  the  long  and  the  short  of  it  is  that  I  shall  have  to  wait 
a  year  longer  for  my  degree,  and  if  I  am  a  scholar  of  Trinity  shall 
be  compelled  to  reside  at  Trinity  four  years  instead  of  three  ;  he 
also  said  that  he  had  foreseen  for  a  long  time  that  I  should  be  placed 
in  this  dilemma  but  had  foreborn  to  interfere  through  delicacy, 
having  understood  from  the  Master  within  these  six  months  that 
it  was  not  settled  whether  I  should  go  to  Oxford  or  Cambridge. 
From  his  rooms  I  went  to  Compton's  whom  I  found  at  home  ;  he 
gave  me  some  luncheon  and  some  hints  with  respect  to  Trinity 
etiquette  to  save  me  from  making  a  fool  of  myself,  to  which  you 
know  I  have  a  particular  objection.  I  then  found  my  way  to  my 
lodgings  which  are  good  enough  in  size,  but  the  furniture  is  terribly 
A  la  lodging.  I  then  decked  myself  in  cap  and  gown,  and  proceeded 
to  go  to  the  Hall  at  4  o'clock  where  the  process  of  feeding  is  cer- 
tainly anything  but  refined,  in  fact  the  old  coach  dinner  was  polite- 
ness itself  compared  with  the  manner  in  which  yahoo-like  each 
fellow  seized  hold  of  the  joint  of  meat  and  cut  off  from  it  as  much 
as  he  could  for  himself  till  his  neighbour  clawed  it  from  him,  and 
having  triumphantly  appropriated  the  last  slice  passed  down  the 
well  cleaned  bone  to  the  wretches  below.  .  .  . 

His  letter  to  his  father  a  few  days  later  is  concerned  with 
College  matters : 

CAMBRIDGE,  October,  1846. —  .  .  .  My  examination  on  Thursday 
was  even  more  of  a  farce  than  I  had  expected.  They  set  one  a 
long  paper  full  of  simple  addition  and  subtraction  sums  and  also 
some  long  division.  I  managed  to  do  the  former  and  cut  the  latter 
as  being  too  laborious,  at  the  risk  of  the  examiner  supposing  that 
I  had  not  read  so  far  ;  however  Lord  Durham  managed  to  get 

1  W.  H.  Thompson,  afterwards  Master  of  Trinity. 


36  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1846-51 

stumped  as  it  is  called  here  in  his  Euclid,  but  this  only  makes  it 
necessary  for  him  to  undergo  the  same  process  in  the  course  of  a 
few  weeks. 

I  went  to  wine  with  Compton  yesterday,  and  met  I  suppose  his 
select  familiares,  Lord  R.  Montagu,  Lord  Durham,  a  son  of  the 
other  Lord  Stanley,  Coke,  and  Dent  of  Yorkshire,  most  of  them 
very  Comptonian,  i.e.  sensible  and  quiet. 

I  have  determined  at  all  events  to  read  with  a  private  tutor 
this  term,  though  I  am  aware  that  I  shall  not  be  able  to  afford  it 
hereafter,  but  it  is  of  great  importance  for  me  to  be  placed  in  the 
first  class  at  this  Christmas  examination,  and  there  is  here  nothing 
to  be  done  at  least  in  Classics,  of  which  composition  forms  so  large 
a  part,  without  coaching.  Thompson  has  recommended  to  me 
Lushington,  who  is  he  says  far  the  most  elegant  scholar  in  the 
college,  and  particularly  practised  in  Latin  prose  composition  which 
is  made  the  chief  point  at  Trinity,  of  which  as  I  told  Thompson 
I  am  almost  entirely  ignorant.  .  .  . 

Lectures  begin  to-morrow.  Tell  Eddie  that  Robert  Owen  is 
here  at  St.  John's.  He  tells  me  that  Mr.  Parr  has  married  his 
pretty  servant  Jane  whom  E.  will  remember,  and  that  Cath.  Parr 
is  married.  The  former  I  hope  may  not  be  true  (though  I  do  call 
him  Pecksniff),  for  the  sake  of  his  children,  the  second  of  course 
I  could  not  be  so  uncharitable  as  to  disbelieve. 

With  his  love  of  intellectual  combat  and  his  passion  for 
affairs,  it  was  natural  that  Harcourt  lost  no  time  in  joining 
the  Union  and  taking  part  in  its  debates.  But,  like  Disraeli 
on  another  stage,  his  first  effort  was  something  of  a  failure, 
and,  like  Disraeli  again,  the  experience  whetted  his  appetite 
for  success.  He  tells  the  episode  in  a  letter  to  his  father  : 

CAMBRIDGE,  Tuesday  evening. —  .  .  .  My  first  speech  was  on 
the  character  of  Mr.  Canning,  in  which  I  am  sensible  enough  that 
I  broke  down,  though  my  friends  were  very  good-natured  and  said 
"  a  successful  first  attempt  "  and  all  that.  The  truth  was  that 
intending  only  to  make  a  declaration  and  not  having  the  least  idea 
I  should  lose  my  wits  I  went  down  without  my  notes,  and  found 
all  at  once  as  soon  as  I  got  on  my  legs  that  my  heart  was  (like 
Bacchus  in  the  Ranae)  in  my  stomach.  However  I  was  determined 
not  to  sit  down  and  worked  off  as  well  as  I  could.  This  you  may 
imagine  was  not  a  little  disgusting,  but  I  don't  mean  to  "  say  die  " 
and  am  going  about  this  week  calculating  when  I  shall  try  the 
argumentative  style.  I  dare  say  you  will  laugh  at  all  this,  but  it 
is  not  without  its  advantages.  One  which  I  value  not  the  least 
is  the  introduction  to  Stanley,  whom  I  like  far  the  most  of  any 
one  whom  I  have  yet  met  at  Cambridge  ;  his  speaking  is  very  good, 


1846-51]       DESCRIBES  HIS  TUTORS  37 

and  his  power  of  debating  has  a  sort  of  hereditary  quickness,  though 
his  manner  is  not  graceful  or  effective. 

In  the  meantime  he  was  settling  down  to  the  more  serious 
business  of  the  University  with  characteristic  industry. 
"  You  must  consider  that  as  yet,"  he  tells  the  Canon,  "  we 
are  a  young  pack  not  used  to  hunt  together,  and  that  the 
energizing  principle  (if  I  may  be  allowed  to  use  a  piece  of 
Oxford  cant)  of  individual  emulation  has  not  yet  had  time 
to  produce  itself.  We  are  reading  therefore  it  may  be  said 
upon  the  merits  of  the  case,  which  may  be  steady  but  not 
brilliant,  neat  but  not  gaudy,"  While  he  was  measuring 
himself  with  the  pack,  he  had  time  to  take  stock  of  the 
huntsmen. 

Our  mathematical  lecturer  is  a  fat  comfortable  man  with  a  bullet 
head  and  no  shirt  collars,  with  an  eye-glass.  He  lectures  on  Euclid. 
The  process  is  this.  He  desires  one  of  us  to  demonstrate  a  pro- 
position, which  is  accordingly  done,  with  the  more  facility  inasmuch 
as  he  appears  equally  satisfied  with  a  wrong  as  a  right  demonstra- 
tion. This  over  he  soars  into  the  seventh  heaven  of  deductions 
into  which  he  is  followed  only  by  two  or  three  Daedaleian  mathe- 
maticians who  catch  the  proof  almost  before  the  enunciation  has 
escaped  his  lips  ;  some  talk  is  held  concerning  it  almost  as  unin- 
telligible as  the  A  Imagest,  and  it  vanishes  at  the  same  instant  from 
the  slate  and  our  memories.  I  complained  of  this  unsatisfactory 
species  of  conjuring  to  the  Dean  of  Ely,  who  quite  admitted  the 
facts  and  recommended  me  not  to  trouble  myself  about  the  deduc- 
tions which  form  the  staple  of  our  lecture,  but  to  apply  myself 
with  diligence  to  the  book  itself,  which  advice  I  shall  be  very  ready 
to  pursue.  And  now  for  a  lecture*-  of  a  very  different  stamp  ; 
Thompson  is  a  man  of  fine  though  wicked  countenance,  large  black 
eyebrows  and  eyes  and  a  certain  sneer  about  the  mouth,  a  great 
contempt  for  everything  academical,  more  especially  the  Master 
of  Trinity  and  his  own  pupils  ;  but  for  this  affectation  he  is  a  man 
who  would  command  respect,  being  evidently  of  extensive  attain- 
ment and  beyond  the  suspicion  of  pedantry  ;  he  is  a  great  German 
scholar,  and  in  the  vacations  lives  much  with  the  German  literati. 
His  lectures  are  not  without  traces  of  this  intimacy  in  his  love  of 
profound  inquiries  into  topics  which  Thucydides  neglects  as  ovra 
•x.a.l  TO.  jroAAct  vno  %QOVOV  avrtov  aniarax;  em  TO  fivQatdeq 
.1  His  style  is  however  in  general  enlarged,  and 


1  Being  irrefutable  and  having  for  the  most  part  won  their  way 
by  the  course  of  time  assuredly  to  the  fabulous. 


38  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1846-51 

treats  more  of  various  men  and  various  manners  than  of  various 
readings.  My  private  tutor  is  Lushington,  who  was  senior  classic 
and  medallist  last  year  and  has  the  reputation  of  being  the  most 
elegant  scholar  in  Trinity.  If  he  has  a  fault  it  is  that  of  being  too 
shy  and  not  visiting  blunders  with  a  sufficient  amount  of  indigna- 
tion. I  read  Thucydides  with  him,  and  also  practise  composition 
in  which  I  hope  to  make  some  progress.  These  three  lectures 
together  with  Sedgwick's  take  up  the  greater  part  of  my  morning, 
and  the  requisite  preparation  for  them  together  with  my  composition 
occupy  the  larger  portion  of  the  evening. 

When  Franklin  Lushington,  one  of  a  family  which  have 
been  described  as  having  an  hereditary  claim  to  distinction, 
fell  ill,  Harcourt  read  for  a  time  with  Charles  Evans,  of 
King  Edward's  School,  Birmingham,  and  eventually  with 
Richard  Shilleto,  who  was  for  thirty  years  the  leading 
classical  coach  at  Cambridge.  Shilleto  had  his  defects. 
"  You  are  Shilleto-ing,"  wrote  Lord  Stanley,  who  had  then 
gone  into  Parliament,  to  Harcourt.  "  I  grieve  for  you, 
knowing  what  you  must  undergo.  Can  you  keep  the  little 
round,  red  man  to  his  work  ?  When  I  read  with  him,  he 
used  to  talk  by  the  hour  instead  of  sticking  to  business.  I 
never  could  get  my  fair  pennyworth  out  of  him,  and  his 
conversation  did  not  compensate  for  the  loss."  There  is  a 
more  friendly  picture  of  the  "  little  round  red  man  "  in 
Spencer  Butler's  recollections  of  his  own  and  Harcourt's 
college  days : 

He  was  a  most  conscientious  and  devoted  tutor.  He  might  have 
taken  his  pupils  in  small  classes,  and  so  have  multiplied  his  income 
as  others  did,  but  he  never  would  consent  to  this  though  he  had 
a  growing  family.  He  was  a  Tory  of  the  old  type,  who  was  ready 
to  die  for  the  unblemished  reputation  of  Anne  Boleyn  and  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scots.  He  entertained  us  occasionally  at  supper,  and 
on  these  occasions  toasts  and  audit  ale  were  drunk,  and  Harcourt, 
whom  Shilleto  admired  greatly,  used  to  be  a  little  wicked.  I  remem- 
ber him  rising  to  his  full  height  with  great  solemnity,  and  asking 
if  he  might  propose  a  toast,  and  then,  after  much  exordium,  pro- 
posing the  health,  at  this  time  when  thrones  abroad  were  falling, 
of  the  First  Magistrate  of  this  Realm  !  Years  afterwards,  when 
Shilleto's  health  began  to  fail,  Harcourt  obtained,  by  his  recom- 
mendations to  Mr.  Disraeli,  a  Civil  List  pension  of  £zoo  a  year  for 
Shilleto,  and  on  the  death  of  Shilleto  I  was  told  that  a  pension  of 
£100  was  continued  to  his  widow. 


1846-51]      THE   MASTER   OF  TRINITY  39 

A  more  distinguished  man  with  whom  Harcourt  read  for 
a  time  was  Henry  Sumner  Maine,  whose  appointment  to  the 
Chair  of  Civil  Law  in  1847  is  described  by  Sir  Leslie  Stephen 
as  the  beginning  of  the  awakening  of  the  ancient  University 
from  its  slumbers.  Maine  had  been  senior  classic  in  1844, 
and  was  thus  only  of  three  years'  standing  in  the  University 
when  he  received  the  Chair.  "  Maine  cannot  at  that 
time,"  says  Sir  Leslie,1  "  have  had  any  profound  knowledge 
of  the  Civil  Law — if,  indeed,  he  ever  acquired  such  know- 
ledge. But  his  genius  enabled  him  to  revive  the  study  in 
England — although  no  genius  could  galvanize  the  corpse  of 
legal  studies  at  the  Cambridge  of  those  times  into  activity. 
Maine,  as  Fitzjames  says,  '  made  in  the  most  beautiful 
manner  applications  of  history  and  philosophy  to  Roman 
law,  and  transfigured  one  of  the  driest  of  subjects  into  all 
sorts  of  beautiful  things  without  knowing  or  caring  much 
about  details.'  '  Harcourt  fully  shared  Fitzjames  Stephen's 
view  of  his  tutor's  rare  genius.  Maine  was  in  India  in  the 
'sixties  when  Harcourt  as  "Historicus"  made  the  reputa- 
tion which  led  to  his  appointment  as  first  Whewell  Professor 
of  International  Law  at  Cambridge.  When  he  resigned 
he  was  succeeded  by  his  former  tutor. 

Of  the  Master  of  Trinity  himself  there  are  only  casual 
glimpses  in  Harcourt's  letters,  but  in  his  later  years,  as  the 
private  diary  of  H.  O.  Sturgis,  in  recording  conversations 
at  Mai  wood,  shows,  Whewell  furnished  the  subject  of  many 
lively  memories.  Harcourt  loved  to  recall  the  verses  which 
Tom  Taylor  wrote  on  the  building  of  the  Lodge  of  Trinity 
College,  apropos  of  the  fact  that  while  Beresford  Hope  built 
it,  Whewell  took  the  credit  for  it : 

This  is  the  house  that  Hope  built 

This  is  the  Master  rough  and  gruff 

Who  lived  in  the  house  that  Hope  built 

This  is  the  Mistress  tawny  and  tough 

Who  married  the  Master  rude  and  gruff,  etc. 


Life  of  Fitzjames  Stephen  (Smith,  Elder,  1895). 


40  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1846-51 

These  are  the  Sinners  cutting  up  rough 
At  sight  of  the  tablet  set  up  by  a  muff 
Who  built  the  house  for  the  Master  gruff. 

And  so  on.  It  was  not  only  Thompson,  who  succeeded  him 
as  Master  of  Trinity,  who  disliked  Whewell.  "  Sedgwick 
was  staying  with  my  father,"  Harcourt  told  Sturgis,  "  when 
the  news  came  of  Whewell  being  appointed  Master,  and  the 
curate,  who  slept  in  the  room  next  Sedgwick's,  heard  him 
walking  about  and  damning  all  night."  Sedgwick  had  a 
rough  and  a  picturesque  style.  "  When  he  had  lived  for 
about  fifty  years  in  College,"  said  Harcourt  to  Sturgis,  "  his 
chairs  began  to  wear  out,  so  he  told  his  bedmaker  to  get  him 
some  new  chairs.  To  his  unspeakable  wrath  she  brought 
him  some  with  cane  seats,  whereupon  he  said,  '  Woman, 
what  is  this  that  thou  hast  done  ?  Do  you  wish  me  to  go 
before  my  Maker  with  hexagons  on  my  backside  ?  ' 


II 

Before  the  end  of  his  first  year  at  Trinity  Harcourt  became 
an  "  Apostle."  This  famous  society,  limited  at  any  one 
time  as  to  its  active  members  to  a  membership  of  twelve, 
dated  back  to  1820  when  a  group  of  lovers  of  literature  and 
of  free  inquiry  formed  a  society  at  St.  John's  for  weekly 
meetings  for  essay  reading  and  discussion,  of  which  no 
records  were  kept.  Later  on  Trinity  became  its  headquar- 
ters. Although  membership  was  limited,  past  members 
were  admitted  to  the  meetings,  and  an  annual  dinner  in 
which  old  friends  might  meet  used  to  be  held  at  Greenwich. 
It  was  no  mean  distinction  to  belong  to  a  society  whose  roll 
of  members  included  at  one  time  or  another  the  names 
of  Charles  Butler,  Monckton  Milnes,  Bishop  Thirlwall,  John 
Sterling,  Alfred  Tennyson,  Arthur  Hallam,  James  Spedding, 
W.  H.  Thompson,  Charles  Merivale,  Sir  Frederick  Pollock, 
Henry  Sumner  Maine,  Tom  Taylor  and  Frederick  Maurice. 
In  Harcourtjs  day  the  group  included  H.  S.  Main£,  Fitz- 
james  Stephen,  Julian  Fane,  E.  H.  Stanley  (Lord  Derby), 
H.  W.  Watson,  the  future  Canon  Holland,  and  others. 


1846-51]  FITZJAMES   STEPHEN  41 

It  would  be  interesting  to  have  a  record  of  the  play  of  these 
minds  one  on  the  other.     Sir  Leslie  Stephen  says  :  l 

Mr.  Watson  compares  these  meetings  to  those  at  Newman's 
rooms  in  Oxford  as  described  by  Mark  Pattison.  There  a  luckless 
advocate  of  ill-judged  theories  might  be  crushed  for  the  evening 
by  the  polite  sentence,  "  Very  likely."  At  the  Cambridge  meetings, 
the  trial  to  the  nerves,  Mr.  Watson  thinks,  was  even  more  severe. 
There  was  not  the  spell  of  common  reverence  for  a  great  man,  in 
whose  presence  a  modest  reticence  was  excusable.  You  were 
expected  to  speak  out,  and  failure  was  the  more  appalling.  The 
contests  between  Stephen  and  Harcourt  were  especially  famous. 
Though,  says  Mr.  Watson,  your  brother  was  "  not  a  match  in 
adroitness  and  chaff  for  his  great  rival,  he  showed  himself  at  his 
best  in  these  struggles."  "  The  encounters  were  veritable  battles 
of  the  gods,  and  I  recall  them  after  forty  years  with  the  most  vivid 
recollection  of  the  pleasure  they  gave."  When  Sir  William  Har- 
'  court  entered  Parliament,  my  brother  remarked  to  Mr.  Llewelyn 
Da  vies,  "  It  does  not  seem  to  be  the  natural  order  of  things  that 
Harcourt  should  be  in  the  House  and  I  not  there  to  criticize  him." 

It  is  true,  as  Watson  indicated,  that  Harcourt  and  Fitz- 
james  Stephen  were  the  gladiators  of  the  company.  They 
were  born  for  mutual  conflict,  each  equipped  with  a  power- 
ful understanding,  vigorous  expression  and  a  boldness  bor- 
dering on  arrogance,  qualified  in  the  case  of  Harcourt^by 
his  high  spirits  (and  the  inexhaustible  flow  of  his  humour. 
Their  antagonism  had  its  roots  in  deeper  things  than  the 
love  of  combat.  Stephen's  Toryism  was  ingrained  and 
unalterable  ;  but  Harcourt's  Toryism  was  only  a  family 
tradition  which  was  already  losing  its  hold  on  him  in  the 
presence  of  the  upheaval  which  was  disintegrating  political 
thought.  The  peace  that  had  followed  Waterloo  was 
approaching  its  end,  and  the  world  was  filled  with  the 
symptoms  of  social  and  political  disturbance.  In  England 
a  momentous  breach  had  been  made  with  the  past.  For 
more  than  half  a  century  the  idea  of  Free  Trade  had  been 
growing  in  influence  on  the  most  instructed  minds  engaged 
in  public  affairs.  The  younger  Pitt,  under  the  inspiration 
of  Adam  Smith's  epoch-making  book,  had  been  captured  by 
the  doctrine,  and  had  put  forward  statesmanlike  proposals 

1  Life  of  Fitz james  Stephen  (Smith,  Elder,  1895). 


42  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1846-51 

for  its  adoption,  and  though  the  Napoleonic  wars  effectually 
submerged  his  project,  the  return  of  peace  and  the  lament- 
able condition  of  the  people  revived  it  and  ultimately 
made  it  the  dominant  issue.  The  memorable  association  of 
Cobden  and  Bright — the  association  of  the  most  illuminated 
and  dispassionate  mind  with  the  most  eloquent  and  passion- 
ate speech  in  our  records — had  prepared  the  country  for 
the  change,  and  the  potato  famine  in  Ireland  completed 
their  work.  The  rain  had  washed  away  the  Corn  Laws. 
Sir  Robert  Peel  in  bowing  to  the  inexorable  argument  of 
necessity  only  gave  expression  to  what  had  been  his  growing 
private  conviction,  but  his  surrender  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Anti-Corn  Law  League  shattered  the  Tory  Party.  The  old 
guard  of  the  party,  under  Lord  George  Bentinck,  the  Earl 
of  Derby  and  Disraeli,  remained  a  Protectionist  rump, 
and  the  Free  Traders  with  Sir  Robert  and  his  brilliant 
lieutenant,  Gladstone,  formed  a  new  political  group  known 
as  the  Peelites.  Harcourt  took  his  place  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Peelites.  It  was  the  first  step  in  his  political  progress  to  the 
Left,  and  the  record  of  his  activities  in  the  Union  during  his 
later  years  at  Cambridge  will  show  the  rapidity  with  which 
his  mind  and  sympathies  moved  in  that  direction. 

in 

But  though  Fitzjames  Stephen  was  the  most  formidable 
opponent  of  Harcourt  in  the  Society,  there  was  another 
personality  who  made  a  more  profound  impression  on  him. 
Julian  Fane  is  one  of  those  elusive  figures  who  flit  through 
their  time  with  a  certain  spiritual  glamour  that  defies 
analysis,  aloof  yet  pervasive,  irradiating  the  general  atmo- 
sphere with  a  subtle  sense  of  character  and  leaving  behind 
a  memory  all  the  more  enduring  and  tender  because  it 
seems  a  perfume  rather  than  an  achievement.  The  deep 
affection  which  subsisted  between  Julian  Fane  and  Harcourt 
— perhaps  the  strongest  friendship  in  the  life  of  cither- 
throws  more  light  upon  the  inner  life  of  the  latter  at  this 
time  than  any  other  circumstance.  How  profound  the 
attachment  was  on  Fane's  side  is  indicated  in  a  letter  which 


1846-51]  JULIAN   FANE  43 

Robert  Lytton  (ist  Earl  of  Lytton),  who  prepared  the  memoir 
of  Fane,  wrote  to  Harcourt  from  Vienna  in  December  1870, 
requesting  him  to  contribute  to  the  memorial  volume  : 

At  that  time  there  was  no  name  which  he  mentioned  so  frequently 
or  with  so  much  admiration  and  affection  as  yours  ;  and  of  all  his 
college  friends  you  are  certainly  the  one  of  whose  intellectual  power 
and  force  of  character  he  retained,  in  after  life,  the  deepest  and 
strongest  impression.  No  one  could  so  fitly  or  so  appropriately 
as  yourself  present  to  the  imagination  of  those  who  knew  him  not, 
the  image  of  all  he  was  at  the  time  when  you  and  he  were  in  daily 
companionship  at  Cambridge  ;  and  any  testimony  contributed  by 
you  to  the  charm  and  brilliancy  of  his  character,  and  the  affluence 
of  his  intellectual  gifts  in  those  days,  cannot  but  be  much  more 
flattering  to  his  memory  than  the  recorded  opinions  (however 
enthusiastically  appreciative)  of  men  far  less  eminent  than  yourself. 

Harcourt's  sentiments  towards  Fane  are  recorded  in  the 
moving  tribute  which,  in  response  to  this  letter,  he  con- 
tributed to  Lytton's  memorial  volume. 

Fane  was  a  later  addition  to  the  small  company  of  the 
Apostles  than  Harcourt.  Like  his  friend  he  was  a  man  of 
unusual  stature.  "  I  am  glad  you  have  got  Fane  in,"  writes 
Lord  Stanley  to  Harcourt,  "  though  a  few  more  such  will 
give  the  world  in  general  the  impression  that  the  standard 
of  Apostolic  recruits  is  set  a^/Six  feet  four,  and  that  '  none 
not  properly  qualified  need  apply,'  as  the  advertisements 
have  it."  He  at  once  established  a  unique  place  for  himself 
among  the  Apostles.  "  He  was  the  salt  and  life  of  those 
well-remembered  evenings,"  said  Harcourt  in  a  letter  to 
Lord  Lytton.  "  He  had  interest  in  every  topic  and  sym- 
pathy with  every  mind  ;  and  when  graver  discussions  were 
exhausted  would  delight  us  inexperienced  schoolboys  with 
the  tales  of  the  great  world  outside,  of  which  we  had  seen 
nothing,  and  of  which  he  knew  as  much  as  any  man  of  fifty." 

But  Harcourt  himself  was  not  the  inexperienced  schoolboy, 
or  if  he  was,  it  was  in  thejfctacaulayan  sense.  He  had  been 
brought  up  in  the  atmosphere  of  public  life,  he  was  treated 
by  his  father  on  terms  of  equality  unusual  for  those  days, 
and  he  had  had  at  home,  at  Nuneham,  and  elsewhere  many 
glimpses  of  the  great  world.  There  is  no  need  to  supply 


44  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1846-51 

reasons  for  Harcourt's  attachment  to  a  nature  so  sunny,  so 
delicate,  and  so  poetic  as  Julian  Fane's,  but  perhaps  this 
common  knowledge  of  the  world  had  some  small  part  in  the 
friendship  with  a  man  who  had  been  attached  to  his  father's 
mission  at  Berlin  at  the  age  of  seventeen,  and  was  thus  able 
to  set  the  doings  of  Cambridge  against  a  wider  background. 
W.  H.  Thompson,  then  Senior  Tutor,  notes  Fane's  marked 
preference  for  intellectual  merit  over  rank  and  position  in 
society.  "  One  of  his  most  intimate  friends  was  a  sizar, 
and  with  one  exception,  I  do  not  remember,"  says  the  future 
Master  of  Trinity,  "  that  he  was  intimate  with  any  of  the 
then  fellow-commoners  and  noblemen."  The  exception 
alluded  to  was,  of  course,  Harcourt. 

But  before  these  associations  .had  become  established, 
there  had  been  a  serious  break  in  Harcourt's  University 
career.  As  a  boy  he  had,  as  we  have  seen,  been  delicate 
and  disinclined  to  much  physical  activity,  and  the  rapidity 
of  his  growth  coupled  with  his  intense  intellectual  life  had 
doubtless  put  a  severe  strain  on  his  system.  Soon  after  his 
arrival  at  Cambridge  he  had  some  disquieting  symptoms. 
"  I  have  been  on  the  sick  list  for  a  few  days,"  he  tells  his 
father,  "  owing  to  a  discomfort  in  my  chest  which  my 
doctor  who  is  a  very  clever  and  very  satisfactory  man 
ascribes  to  a  little  disorder  in  the  action  of  the  heart,  in  which 
I  have  no  doubt  he  is  right."  The  trouble  seemed  to  pass, 
but  in  the  autumn  of  (i847)the  condition  of  his  health  made 
it  necessary  for  him  to  suspend  his  university  career  and  to 
winter  in  Madeira.  It  was  a  serious  interruption  of  his 
studies,  and  it  involved  his  absence  from  England  during 
many  important  happenings,  both  public  and  private, 
including  the  revolution  in  France,  the  critical  months  of 
the  Chartist  agitation  in  England,  and  the  death  of  his 
grandfather,  the  Archbishop.  By  the  latter  event  the 
Nuneham  estate  passed  to  his  uncle  George  Granville  Har- 
court, who  was  himself  now  a  man  well  advanced  in  life, 
having  occupied  a  seat  in  Parliament  for  over  forty  years, 
and  being  at  the  time  Conservative  member  for  the  county 
of  Oxfordshire.  Another  incident  of  some  interest  to  Har- 


1846-51]  VISITS  THE  LAKES  45 

court  that  took  place  during  his  absence  from  England  was 
the  engagement  of  his  brother  Edward  to  Lady  Susan  Harriet 
Holroyd,  a  daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Sheffield. 

In  April  1848  Harcourt  returned  from  Madeira  to  Cam- 
bridge. The  public  atmosphere  in  which  he  found  himself 
is  indicated  in  a  letter  to  Monckton  Milnes  in  which,  after 
promising  to  bring  some  contributions  to  his  Cromwelliana 
and  mentioning  that  three  new  Apostles,  Stephen,  Stanley 
and  Watson,  have  been  elected,  he  says,  referring  to  the  fact 
that  he  is  going  up  to  London  on  his  way  to  Yorkshire  :  "I 
shall  take  a  big  stick  with  me  to  town  to  defend  my  port- 
manteau on  its  transit  from  Shoreditch  to  the  West  End, 
which  may  be  necessary  as  such  articles  are  not  a  bad 
material  for  barricades." 

The  journey  north  was  in  order  to  join  in  a  reading  party 
with  Holland  and  Evans  (his  tutor),  both  fellow  Apostles, 
at  Keswick.  Harcourt's  enforced  idleness  had  put  his 
work  in  arrears  and  his  health  was  evidently  still  unsatis- 
factory. At  Keswick  he  mingled  work  with  a  judicious 
amount  of  exercise.  To  his  sister  he  writes  a  description 
of  their  walks : 

I  have  been  once  up  Skiddaw  with  a  man,  who  was  spending  his 
honeymoon  here.  He  left  his  wife  behind  which  I  suppose  you 
would  consider  wrong  ;  there  is  a  large  supply  here  of  people  in  the 
same  condition.  It  is  not  a  pleasant  spectacle,  any  more  than  that 
of  a  person  sitting  in  a  corner  eating  his  plumcake  all  by  himself. 
Evans,  Holland  and  I  either  walk  by  the  lake  or  lie  in  a  boat  which 
we  have  got,  and  mix  reading  with  talk.  I  have  got  you  some 
ferns,  one  I  think  peculiar,  which  only  grows  above  the  height  of 
2000  feet.  It  is  called  something  cristata  and  has  two  leaves  per- 
fectly different  in  appearance.  I  profit  by  Holland's  experience, 
who  is  also  collecting  for  his  sister.  The  rest  of  the  party  talk  of 
making  a  long  expedition  through  Borrowdale  to  Ambleside  and 
home  by  Patterdale  over  Helvellyn  the  next  day.  If  I  go  it  will  be 
on  four  legs,  as  I  cannot  stand  thirty  miles  of  walking  a  day  in  this 
weather  ;  though  it  is  very  fine  for  everything  but  waterfalls. 

One  day  he  went  to  see  an  exhibition  of  Cumberland 
wrestling,  probably  at  Grasmere.  "  It  was  a  fine  sight,"  he 
tells  his  father,  "  and  one  might  have  fancied  oneself  in  an 
ancient  palaestra,  nothing  could  be  more  good-natured  or 


46  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1846-51 

harmless — we  afterwards  went  to  a  ball  and  danced  in- 
sanely." He  and  Evans  paid  a  visit  to  Rydal  Mount,  but 
found  Wordsworth  out  and  contented  themselves  with  a 
look  at  his  garden,  "  with  which,  however,  he  does  not  seem 
to  have  taken  any  pains.  The  view  of  Windermere  from 
it  is  very  fine,  though  the  steamboats  rather  spoil  the 
romance."  He  saw  Wordsworth  later,  but  does  not  seem 
to  have  sought  the  acquaintance  of  Hartley  Coleridge.  He 
saw  Whewell,  who  had  come  on  a  visit  to  his  brother-in- 
law,  Mr.  Myers,  "  who  is  a  clever  man,  preaches  Carlyle  and 
keeps  agreeable  society,"  and  met  Smith  O'Brien's  sisters 
who  were  staying  at  Keswick,  and  who  were  much  shocked 
at  the  news  of  their  brother's  capture,  "  as  they  imagined 
they  had  received  certain  intelligence  of  his  escape  to  the 
Continent ;  he  seems  to  have  had  an  infatuated  notion  that 
the  police  force  would  sympathize  with  the  insurgents." 

With  these  diversions  he  mingled  a  lot  of  solid  work. 
Writing  to  the  Canon  he  says  : 

THE  LAKES,  1848. — My  classical  tutor  Evans  has  just  left  us. 
We  have  lost  in  him  not  only  a  good  scholar  but  a  very  agreeable 
companion.  I  think  I  have  gained  a  good  deal  of  advantage  from 
his  instructions,  having  acquired  more  practice  in  composition,  of 
which  I  did  some  every  day,  and  also  in  accuracy  in  which  he  is 
particularly  strong  ;  I  read  with  him  in  Meidias  which  is  the  longest 
speech  in  Demosthenes,  a  play  of  Sophocles,  one  of  ^Eschylus,  and 
four  of  Aristophanes  ;  besides  frequent  examination  papers  in  the 
harder  passages  of  different  authors.  He  gives  me  hopes  of  getting 
the  University  scholarship  in  my  third  year,  but  I  have  still  a  great 
many  books  to  read,  but  which  if  I  have  health  permitted  me  I 
shall  be  able  to  get  through.  I  am  now  going  to  read  Mathematics 
for  a  month  with  Hedley.  I  hope  that  this  will  still  leave  me  some 
weeks  of  Eddie's  society  before  his  going  abroad.  .  .  . 

IV 

It  was  after  his  return  from  Madeira  that  Harcourt  began 
to  dominate  the  Union,  of  which  Spencer  Butler  says  he  was 
considered  the  best  speaker  among  several  of  unusual  pro- 
mise. His  political  views  were  now  taking  definite  shape  in 
a  democratic  direction,  though  they  were  still  a  little  patchy, 
as  some  of  the  notes  of  his  speeches,  preserved  with  the  dust 


1846-51]      DEBATES   AT  THE   UNION  47 

of  years  upon  them,  indicate.  One  set  on  the  question  of 
the  adoption  of  the  secret  ballot  reads  strangely  to  a  genera- 
tion which  has  almost  forgotten  that  voters  once  had  no 
such  protection.  Then  and  up  to  the  time  when  he  stood 
for  the  Kirkcaldy  Burghs  in  iSfiq^Harcourt  was  against 
the  institution  of  a  secretMsallot.  His  notes  for  the  defence 
of  open  voting  include  one  to  the  effect  that  the  assumption 
underlying  the  demand  is  tixat  all  landlords  are  tyrants  and 
all  tenants  cowards,  another  on  the  advantage  of  canvassing 
because  it  brought  the  classes  together,  and  still  another 
xwith  the  more  reasonable  contention  that  the  ballot  would 

Knot  do  all  that  was  expected  of  it  because  canvassing  would 

in  any  case  be  continued,  and  that  in  case  of  the  imputation 

of  fraud  there  would  not  be  the  same  power  of  scrutiny. 

But  in  spite  of  occasional  aberrations  the  trend  of  Har- 

court's  mind  is  now  clear.    The  records   of  the  Union 

debates  from  May  1848  furnish  abundant   witness  of  his 

developing  sympathy  with  Liberalism.     The  first  motion 

he  proposed  in  the  Union  was  "  That  the  Game  Laws  are 

/unjust  in  principle,  injurious  in  operation  and  ought  to  be 

r  repealed."  He  carried  this  by  20  votes  to  n,  and  had  the 
satisfaction  in  later  life  of  giving  effect  to  his  motion  in  a 
valuable  piece  of  legislation.  His  next  appearance  in  debate 
was  less  successful,  but  no  less  prophetic.  It  was  a  speech 
in  support  of  the  proposition,  "  That  we  consider  the  present 
system  of  indirect  taxation  as  unjust  in  principle  and  injur- 
ious in  practice  ;  and  therefore  regard  it  as  highly  expedient 
/that  a  system  of  direct  taxation  should  be  substituted  in  its 

V stead."  On  this  occasion  the  motion  was  lost  by  8  votes. 
It  was  the  common  fate  of  the  causes  he  adopted  in  the 
Union.  He  was  learning  to  fight  against  the  popular 
current,  and  no  man  probably  ever  had  more  joy  in  the 
experience,  or  more  justification  from  the  course  of  events. 
His  life-long  hostility  to  Imperialism,  perhaps  the  most 
deeply  rooted  political  motive  of  his  career,  was  early  indi- 
cated in  his  opposition  to  the  motion,  "  That  the  policy 

v/pursued  by  Lord  Elgin  and  the  English  Government  in 
Canada  is  alike  impolitic  and  unjustifiable."  He  had  only 


48  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1846-51 

one  supporter  on  this  occasion  against  a  majority  of  43, 
but  history  has  abundantly  ratified  his  judgment.  He 
showed  the  same  enlightened  understanding  on  the  slavery 
issue,  speaking  against  a  motion  for  the  abandonment  of 

,/rhe  British  policy  directed  towards  the  suppression  of  the 
slave  trade,  and  on  this  occasion  he  had  the  satisfaction 
of  being  in  the  majority  of  14  against  9.  But  his  motion, 
which  sheds  an  interesting  light  upon  his  attitude  towards 
Ireland  and  religious  freedom,  "  That  it  is  alike  our  duty 
X4nd  interest  to  pay  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy  of  Ireland," 
T  was  defeated  by  72  to  24.  He  had,  however,  a  handsome 
victory  at  the  next  debate  in  which  he  took  part.  The 
motion  was  "  That  the  Revolution  of  1688  does  not  deserve 
the  name  of  glorious,  but  is  rather  to  be  considered  inglor- 
ious and  unjustifiable."  This  attacked  all  the  fundamentals 
£>f  Harcourt — his  Erastianism,  his  evangelicalism,  and 

/his  constitutionalism — and  he  had  the  satisfaction  of  carry- 
ing by  an  overwhelming  majority  the  amendment  "  That 
the  blessings  of  the  Revolution  of  1688,  which  established 
without  bloodshed  the  Protestant  Religion  and  a  Constitu- 
tional Government,  are  especially  to  be  acknowledged 
at  a  time  when  Europe  is  convulsed  by  political  parties 
whose  violence  affords  a  striking  contrast  to  the  modera- 
tion of  the  two  great  parties  who  combined  to  effect  the 
revolution  of  1688."  He  proposed  a  little  later  a  motion, 
"  That  the  provision  for  the  education  of  the  people  is 
/  totally  inadequate,  and  that  a  large  measure  of  state  educa- 
tion  ought  to  be  immediately  adopted  "  ;  but  an  amend- 
ment which,  while  accepting  his  motion,  attached  to  it  a 
clause  in  favour  of  denominational  education  was  carried 
against  ium  by  38  to  22.  He  was  found  a  little  later  plough- 
ing a  lonely  furrow  in  opposition  to  a  motion  which  attacked 
the  now  admittedly  wise  policy  of  the  Government  towards 
the  West  Indian  Colonies  and  at  the  next  meeting  was  again 
in  the  minority  in  supporting  "  the  foreign  policy  of  the 
present  Ministry  during  the  last  three  years."  He  sup- 
rported  the  motion,  "  That  the  principle  that  asserts  that 
education  is  a  necessary  previous  condition  to  the  conferring 


1846-51]        A   GOOD   FREE-TRADER  49 

of  the  Suffrage  is  unsound,"  but  he  was  beaten  in  the 
division  by  20  votes  to  5. 

At  this  time  the  publication  of  Macaulay's  History  was 
creating  an  unprecedented  stir  in  the  reading  world,  and 
its  brilliant  championship  of  the  Revolution  of  1688  and 
of  the  Whigs  led  to  a  challenging  motion  in  the  Union, 
declaring  "  That  the  first  two  volumes  of  Mr.  Macaulay's 
History  of  England  are  utterly  wanting  in  the  most  essen- 
tial characteristics  of  a  great  history."  Harcourt,  who 
loved  both  Macaulay's  style  and  his  theme,  spoke  against 
the  motion,  and  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  it  amended 
thus,  "  That,  without  pledging  ourselves  to  Mr.  Macaulay's 
political  opinions,  we  consider  that  his  History  of  England 
deserves  to  be  ranked  among  the  master-pieces  of  English 
historical  literature."  As  a  good  Free-Trader  he  supported 
the  motion,  "  That  the  agitation  in  favour  of  Protectionist 
re-action  is  short-sighted  and  mischievous,"  and  ineffect- 
ually opposed  the  substitution  of  the  amendment  "  That 
this  House  views  with  feelings  of  the  strongest  disapproba- 
tion the  apathy  displayed  by  the  present  Ministry  in 
considering  the  proper  measures  to  be  taken  for  the  allevia- 
tion of  the  depressed  condition  of  the  agricultural  interest 
in  Great  Britain."  This  ingenious  device  of  getting  a 
Protectionist  verdict  by  a  side  wind  was  carried  by  29 
to  22. 

But  although  Harcourt  was  now  a  firm  Free  Trader  and 
had  travelled  far  on  the  Liberal  path,  he  had  not  caught 
up  with  the  Radical  advance  guard,  and  we  find  him  on 
November  27,  1849,  speaking  against  the  motion,  "  That 
this  House  considers  Mr.  Cobden  and  his  party  to  repre- 
/  sent  the  rising  good  sense  of  the  nation."  The  motion  was 
evidently  pour  rire,  for  not  a  single  vote  was  cast  for  it 
and  the  "  noes  "  numbered  47.  The  last  motion  which 
Harcourt  proposed  in  the  Union  was,  "  That  a  property 
qualification  is  an  unfit  basis  for  the  electoral  franchise 
and  that  the  suffrage  should  be  extended,  excluding  only 
JBuch  persons  as  have  been  convicted  of  crime  or  are  in 
receipt  of  parochial  relief."  It  was  beaten  by  16  votes  to 

£ 


50  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1846-51 

12.  His  final  speech  in  the  Union,  on  March  n,  1851,  was 
against  the  ballot. 

This  Union  record  is  important  in  estimating  Harcourt's 
political  character.  It  was  the  habit  of  his  opponents  in 
after  life  to  attempt  to  discredit  him  by  suggesting  that 
he  lacked  sincerity  and  spoke  from  a  brief.  The  breezy, 
gladiatorial  manner  of  the  man  no  doubt  helped  to  give 
currency  to  this  view.  The  very  efficiency  he  displayed 
in  the  use  of  his  quarterstaff  was  an  argument  against  him, 
for  no  one  could  be  so  accomplished  without  being  a 
professional,  and  to  dub  a  man  a  professional  politician 
has  always  been  a  popular  artifice  for  disposing  of  a 
dangerous  adversary.  The  humour  with  which  Harcourt 
enveloped  his  political  activities  was  also  a  factor  against 
him.  Just  as  Gladstone  was  regarded  as  dangerous 
because  he  was  too  serious,  so  Harcourt  was  discounted 
because  he  joked.  A  man  who  could  have  such  fun 
out  of  his  work  could  not  possibly  be  sincere.  This 
shallow  view  that  high  spirits  and  a  humorous  outlook 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  serious  purpose — a  view  that 
would  make  an  impostor  of  St.  Francis  and  a  suspect  of 
Lincoln — has  little  support  from  the  career  of  Harcourt. 
He  did  not  make  an  idol  of  consistency  or  hesitate  to  shift 
his  ground  if  events  or  party  interest — for  he  was  always 
a  stout  party  man  and  held  that  the  party  had  claims  upon 
the  individual  which  could  not  be  ignored — made  a  change 
of  attitude  necessary. 

But  taking  his  career  as  a  whole,  few  statesmen  in  modern 
times  have  shown  so  little  divergence  in  practice  from  the 
principles  to  which  they  have  given  their  adherence  as  he 
did,  except  when  his  judgment  was  temporarily  warped 
in  1880-5  by  his  pre-occupation  with  the  criminal  activities 
of  Fenianism.  Emerging  from  an  entirely  Conservative  home 
atmosphere  into  a  dominantly  Conservative  university  atmo- 
sphere he  developed  a  reasoned  view  of  government,  based 
in  many  respects  on  a  conception  of  Liberalism  well  in 
advance  of  the  Whig  thought  of  his  time,  and  on  no  funda- 
mental issue  did  he  ever  depart  from  it.  If  he  shifted  his 


1846-51]          ESSAYS  JOURNALISM  51 

ground,  it  was  usually  to  the  Left,  and  a  comparison  of  his 
parliamentary  record  with  his  undergraduate  convictions 
reveals  not  only  a  rare  continuity  of  thought  but  an  even 
rarer  loyalty  to  that  thought  in  action.  "  Harcourt  was 
a  man  who  knew  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong," 
said  Lord  Morley  to  the  writer,  "  and  who  never  took  the 
wrong  side  for  any  personal  motive." 

Harcourt's  connection  with  the  Union  was  duly  rounded 
off  by  his  election  as  Treasurer  of  the  Society  in  the  Lent 
term  of  1849  and  President  in  the  Easter  term  of  the  same 
year.  "  I  am  President  of  the  Union  this  term,"  he  writes 
to  his  sister  Emily,  "  which  absolves  me  from  speaking 
pretty  much,  but  listening  is  almost  as  great  a  bore."  It 
was  probably  the  fame  of  his  political  debating  in  the 
Union,  as  well  as  the  personal  recommendation  of  Maine, 
that  led  to  his  first  adventure  in  the  great  world  which,  in 
turn,  helped  to  dictate  his  ultimate  decision  in  regard  to 
his  professional  career.  The  matter  is  first  alluded  to  mys- 
teriously in  a  letter  to  his  sister.  "  What  you  will  think 
still  funnier,"  he  writes,  "is  to  hear  that  I  declined  a  pro- 
position which  would  have  made  me  a  rich  man,  at  least 
to  the  extent  of  6  or  700  a  year,  without  interfering  materi- 
ally with  my  reading  here  (Cambridge).  This  is  a  secret 
which  I  will  tell  you  about  when  we  meet."  To  his  father, 
a  little  later,  he  is  more  communicative  : 

CAMBRIDGE  (Undated). — The  offer  which  I  declined,  which  however 
I  had  better  not  have  mentioned  but  having  mentioned  wish  to  be 
kept  secret,  was  that  of  writing  for  the  Peel  paper  the  Chronicle. 
The  proposal  was  £20  for  six  articles  whenever  I  chose  to  send  them. 
I  had  no  objections  to  the  politics  of  the  paper  but  did  not  fancy  sell- 
ing myself  to  their  views  altogether,  besides  which  it  might  have 
been  inconvenient  if  I  had  felt  they  had  a  claim  on  my  time.  Lord 
Lincoln  and  S.  Smythe  are  the  active  directors  and  a  man  of  the  name 
of  Cook  is  the  Editor.  I  promised  to  send  them  articles  now  and 
then  according  as  I  had  opportunities,  thinking  it  as  well  not  to 
lose  sight  altogether  of  a  goose  which  lays  such  golden  eggs.  For 
"  need  'twill  no  better  be  "  an  article  a  day  is  no  very  laborious 
way  of  earning  ^1000  a  year.  However,  of  course  I  never  should 
look  upon  it  in  any  light  but  that  of  a  temporary  expedient,  for  the 
occupation  in  itself  is  most  precarious,  and  in  fact  I  should  exceed- 


52  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1846-51 

ingly  dislike  that  any  body  out  of  the  domestic  circle  should  know 
that  I  meddled  in  any  way  with  printer's  ink.  ...  I  had  young 
Hallam  to  breakfast  with  me  this  morning.  He  is  come  up  to  take 
his  master's  degree.  Rogers'slast  is  that  "  Croker  in  his  article  in 
the  Quarterly  meant  to  do  murder  but  committed  suicide." 

The  Morning  Chronicle  from  which  the  offer  emanated 
Avas  the  Peelite  paper  in  London,  and  the  "  man  of  the 
v/name  of  Cook"  to  whom  Harcourt  refers  was  John  Douglas 
Cook,  who  after  a  wandering   and  diversified   career  had 
found  his  true  vocation  in  journalism,  became  editor  of 
the  Morning  Chronicle  and  afterwards,  on  the  foundation 
of  the  Saturday  Review,  editor  of  that  journal.      Cook  had 
learned  of  Harcourt  from  his  tutor  and  fellow  Apostle, 
Maine,  and  came  down  to  Cambridge  to  see  the  brilliant 
young  undergraduate  and  to  offer  him  a  post  as  leader 
writer  on  his  staff.     It  was  a  flattering  distinction  for  a 
youth  who  was  still  only  in  his  twenty-first  year,   and 
although  Harcourt  affected  to  treat  it  a  little  cavalierly  and 
even  contemptuously  he  understood  its  significance,  and 
did  not  fail  to  grasp  it.     He  began  his  contributions  during 
the  L«ng  Vacation  of  1849,  his  first  article  being  one  advo- 
cating a  new  Reform  Bill,  doubtless  on  the  lines  of  the 
motion  he  supported  at    the  Union  during  the  following 
October.     It  was  his  custom,  he  used  to  say  afterwards,  to 
send  his  articles  to  London  by  train,  paying  an  extra  half- 
crown  for  immediate  delivery.     They  were  written  in  his 
earlier  manner,  sonorous,  oppressively  dignified,  and  with 
little   of   the   sparkle    that   he   developed  later.      It   had 
the  eighteenth  century  measure,  and  derived  some  of  its 
qualities    from    a   study    of    Junius.     "  I    have   just    got 
hold  of  a  new  edition  of  Junius's  letters  which  I  am  reading 
carefully,"  he  tells  his  sister  Emily.     "  The  style  is  inimit- 
able in  that  department  of  eloquence  which  is  called  invec- 
tive.    Though  sometimes  too  artificial  the  sentences  are 
always  full  of  meaning,  an  excellence  which  is  so  rare  that 
it  may  almost  be  called  the  highest.     As  to  his  identity,  I 
suppose  we  shall  have  some  opinion  in  the  coming  volumes 
of  Macaulay,  who  is  unquestionably  the  person  living  most 
competent  to  form  a.  critical  judgment  on  such  a  point." 


1846-51]         CORN  AND  CATHOLICS  53 


The  new  task  he  had  undertaken  made  no  appreciable 
inroad  upon  the  normal  activities  of  Harcourt.  He  still 
wrote  lively  letters  to  his  sister,  giving  her  the  gossip  of 
the  University — "  Cambridge  is  terribly  dull  and  I  shoot 
in  an  archery  ground  when  I  am  not  dyspeptic.  .  .  .  Rob. 
Sedgwick  is  up  here,  and  yesterday  I  met  him  walking 
down  the  street  with  a  pineapple  in  his  hand  " — graver 
letters  to  his  father  about  this,  that  and  the  other,  and 
buoyant  letters  to  Stanley  who  had  been  in  America  and 
had  come  back  full  of  "  Yankee  tales,"  and  had  gone  into 
politics  fired  with  "  Peel  hatred,"  only  less  intense  than 
his  hatred  of  Cobden  whom,  says  Harcourt,  he  calls  "  an 
inspired  bagman  who  believes  in  a  calico  millennium." 
Harcourt  was  active  against  the  "  Romanizer  in  the  Church," 
and  wanted  to  have  a  meeting  of  undergraduates  on  the 
subject,  "  but  the  V.C.  would  not  let  us."  The  censorship 
of  authority  on  matters  political  as  well  as  ecclesiastical 
roused  his  anger.  He  writes  to  his  mother  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Mother. 

CAMBRIDGE,  1850  (?) —  ...  I  have  to  read  an  Essay  in  Hall  this 
week.  My  title  was  "  Sir  R.  Peel  and  trie  Characteristics  of  Statesman- 
ship." Would  you  believe  that  this  was  objected  to  by  the  authorities 
(I  believe  because  Whewell  is  a  Protectionist  and  reads  the  Standard}. 
It  was  in  vain  that  I  protested  that  there  was  no  allusion  to  Corn 
or  Catholics  and  that  Peel  was  only  generally  praised.  I  told 
Kimpson  that  I  thought  Trinity  must  be  in  a  state  of  siege  if  liberty 
of  opinion  was  denied  on  a  matter  which  had  commanded  such 
universal  concurrence  even  in  foreign  countries. 

Meanwhile,  he  was  pursuing  his  studies  industriously. 

"  I  have  been  doing  little  public  speaking  lately  since  my  College 
Declamations,  which  are  so  far  satisfactory  that  I  am  given  to  under- 
stand that  I  shall  get  a  prize  for  both,"  he  tells  Emily.1  "  I  live 
now  secluded  with  two  or  three  bosom  cronies,  of  whom  choicest 
and  best  Julian  Fane.  More's  the  pity  that  next  term  is  his  last 
up  here.  Besides  I  read  Mathematics  aU  the  morning,  Classics  all 
the  evening,  and  strange  to  say  am  well  enough  all  the  while." 

1  He  won  the  Declamation  Prize  Cup. 


54  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT       [1846-51 

But  though  he  read  mathematics  it  continued  to  be  a 
distasteful  subject  to  him,  and  was  the  source  of  the  only 
serious  check  he  sustained  in  his  college  career. 

I  went  in  a  few  weeks  ago  for  the  Trinity  scholarship  (he  says  in 
an  undated  letter  to  his  father)  and  must  confess  I  was  a  little  dis- 
appointed at  not  getting  it,  though  I  knew  I  had  another  time  to  try. 
Thompson  however  told  me  that  my  Classics  were  very  good  and 
that  he  voted  for  me.  I  know  that  I  did  badly  in  Mathematics, 
partly  because  I  have  only  lately  begun  to  read  them,  but  I  did  not 
even  do  justice  to  my  moderate  knowledge  in  the  examination. 
However  as  Thompson  told  me  that  if  there  had  been  another 
scholarship  to  dispose  I  should  have  had  it,  I  must  console  myself 
with  the  prospect  of  it  next  year.  Thompson  also  encouraged  me 
as  to  my  ultimate  prospects  of  a  fellowship.  I  shall  now  work  hard 
at  my  Mathematics  in  which  my  Coach  gives  me  hopes  of  getting 
a  low  Wrangler's  degree  ;  I  am  now  reading  the  sesame  of  Mathe- 
matics, the  Differential  Calculus. 

When  the  "  other  try  "  came  Harcourt's  expectations  were 
justified,  and  he  writes  to  his  father  : 

CHRIST  CHURCH,  OXFORD,  Thursday  (1851). — As  you  will  be  the 
better  satisfied,  so  am  I  the  better  pleased  to  find  myself  this  morning 
in  the  first  class  in  the  Trinity  list.  To  me  it  affords  the  additional 
delight  which  a  fluke  (an  expressive  word  which  it  would  weaken  to 
explain  by  a  windfall)  always  has  over  the  wages  of  labour.  Con- 
fidentially speaking  it  is  no  honour  for  there  are  thirty-five  of  us  of 
whom  I  know  that  I  am  not  the  first ;  and  as  to  profit  it  is  rather 
a  damnosa  hereditas  as  it  consists  in  a  permission  to  buy  an  expensive 
book  with  your  own  money  ;  and  moreover  I  have  lost  a  bet  of 
five  shillings  which  I  laid  against  myself  with  Stanley  ;  so  that 
independently  of  your  approval  I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  not 
more  cause  to  regret  than  to  rejoice  in  my  luck.  I  cut  all  my 
mathematical  papers  as  my  illness  prevented  me  from  reading  any. 
But  I  must  leave  off  talking  of  myself  as  I  hope  to-morrow  to  present 
myself  in  person  as  your  affectionate  son. 

It  is  a  little  difficult  to  be  precise  as  to  the  sequence  of 
events  in  Harcourt's  Cambridge  life,  for  he  had  no  talent 
for  tidiness,  and  never  dated  a  letter  at  that  time.  But  the 
following  letter,  written  apparently  in  1850,  is  interesting 
as  showing  the  ingenious  way  in  which  he  was  accus- 
tomed to  make  his  political  departure  from  the  family 
tradition  palatable  to  his  father : 


1846-51]          ACADEMIC   PROSPECTS  55 

Harcourt  to  his  Father. 

CAMBRIDGE  (Undated). — I  was  much  amused  by  the  account  of 
the  washing  controversy  ;  it  is  a  better  sign  than  I  expected  that 
the  operatives  should  have  taken  so  much  interest  in  the  question. 
The  unvarying  selfishness  of  the  middle  class  seems  to  me  the  great 
argument  for  the  extension  of  the  suffrage.  If  the  whole  political 
power  of  the  country  is  absorbed  by  the  middle  class,  a  consummation 
at  present  rapidly  advancing,  I  do  not  see  how  anything  is  to  be 
done  for  the  working  classes  at  all.  If  we  are  to  have  a  dominant 
class  I  think  the  old  one  was  much  better  ;  but  if  the  operatives  are 
willing  to  help  themselves  rationally,  surely  the  sooner  they  are  made 
able  the  better  ;  it  is  very  commonly  argued  I  know  that  political 
privileges  do  nothing  for  social  development,  but  the  rapid  advance 
of  the  middle  class  since  the  Reform  Bill  leads  one  to  expect  a  similar 
result  when  applied  to  the  class  below  them  ;  and  the  denunciations 
of  danger  in  the  former  case,  which  were  so  ludicrously  falsified, 
incline  one  to  regard  without  much  dread  the  prophecies  of  the 
alarmists. 

I  cannot  get  up  much  sympathy  for  the  Jews  fight,  for  though  I 
sympathize  with  their  claims  abstractly,  yet  from  my  personal 
acquaintance  with  Jewish  individuals,  I  have  such  a  horror  of  the 
race,  as  only  to  have  the  coldest  convictions  at  their  disposal. 

Meanwhile  I  am  drudging  through  mathematical  examination 
papers  ;  I  never  felt  better  up  to  work,  or  in  fact  at  any  time  was 
less  incommoded  by  that  great  origin  of  evil  the  stomach,  which  I 
attribute  mainly  to  a  medical  discovery  of  my  own,  viz.  a  cold 
shower  bath  immediately  before  dinner,  which  enables  me  to  digest 
the  lumps  of  tough  mutton  of  which  our  diet  is  composed.  By  this 
means  I  escape  the  mornings  of  lassitude  and  evenings  of  misery 
which  made  reading  almost  impossible  last  long  vacation.  I  am 
getting  quite  fat  under  the  process. 

Tell  the  young  ladies  that  I  have  found  the  effects  of  getting  into 
a  passion  with  them  so  productive  of  letters  that  I  shall  not  fail  to 
repeat  it  on'future  occasions. 

The  reference  to  digestive  troubles  in  this  letter  pro- 
bably explains  the  fact  that  he  was  prevented  by  illness 
from  taking  the  degree  in  1850  as  he  should  normally  have 
done.  In  a  letter  written  to  the  Canon,  probably  in  the 
Christmas  vacation  of  1850,  he  discusses  his  prospects 
in  the  approaching  finals,  and  as  the  event  showed  gauged 
them  very  accurately  : 

University  honours  as  a  reAos  have  never  been  a  very  strong 
lure^to'my  ambition  (he  says),  and  therefore  so  long  as  you  are 
satisfied  that  I  have  not  neglected  the  advantages  whichjyou  have 


56  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1846-51 

placed  at  my  disposal  I  shall  not  be  very  solicitous  about  the  event. 
.  .  .  My  ambition  has  always  extended  to  a  more  distant  and  a 
wider  field.  I  know  how  necessary  a  fellowship  is  to  me  in  every 
point  of  view  and  I  shall  make  that  my  great  aim  after  the  degree. 
It  is  somewhat  unfortunate  for  me  that  I  have  fallen  into  a  remark- 
ably strong  year  ;  the  best  batch  of  Classics,  Thompson  tells  me,  that 
has  come  up  to  Trinity  since  his  own. 

When  the  results  of  the  Classical  Tripos  were  announced 
on  March  20,  1851,  Harcourt's  name  appeared  eighth  on  the 
list,  among  the  names  preceding  his  own  being  those  of 
Lightfoot,  Mayor,  Whymper,  Blore  and  Williams.  Spencer 
Butler's  name  followed  Harcourt's.  In  the  Mathematical 
Tripos  Harcourt  was  a  Senior  Optime,  coming  out  about 
the  middle  of  the  list. 

BOLTON  PERCY,  Saturday. — I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  what  you 
have  accomplished  [said  the  Canon  in  writing  to  his  son],  and  doubt 
not  that  this  first  trial  of  your  wings  will  conduce  to  higher  flights 
hereafter.  You  will  be  the  better  all  your  life  for  the  hard  and 
steady,  or  as  Sam  Johnson  would  have  said  "  dogged  "  work  which 
you  have  latterly  gone  through  in  your  contention  for  a  high  aca- 
demical degree. 

The  problem  now  before  Harcourt  was  what  direction 
those  "  higher  flights  "  of  which  his  father  spoke  were  to 
take.  The  previous  Christmas  he  had  spoken  of  the  neces- 
sity of  working  for  a  fellowship  after  he  had  taken  his 
degree,  but  had  added  that  his  ambition  had  always  extended 
to  a  more  distant  and  a  wider  field  than  scholarship.  The 
choice  had  now  to  be  made.  There  was  no  doubt  to  which 
side  Harcourt's  own  predilections  leaned.  Through  his 
connection  with  the  Morning  Chronicle  he  had  already 
smelt  powder  on  the  larger  field  of  affairs,  and  to  his  com- 
bative temperament  the  experience  could  not  fail  to  be 
exhilarating.  No  man  ever  had  less  of  the  spirit  of  the 
cloister,  or  more  joy  in  drinking  "  delight  of  battle  with 
his  peers,"  and  it  was  inevitable  that  a  mere  calculation  of 
worldly  interest  must  yield  to  his  powerful  natural  dis- 
position. Moreover  he  could  not  fail  to  be  conscious  of 
the  unusual  gifts  with  which  he  was  equipped  for  the  world 
of  controversy  and  to  be  assured  of  the  success  that  awaited 


1846-51]          THE   CANON'S  ADVICE  57 

him  there.  The  only  serious  consideration  that  led  him 
still  to  contemplate  remaining  at  Cambridge  for  the  fellow- 
ship which  would  fall  to  him  two  years  hence  was  the  strong 
preference  of  his  father  for  that  course.  Harcourt  had 
a  deep  affection  for  the  Canon  and  a  high  sense  of  filial 
obedience,  and  his  hesitation  in  taking  the  plunge  was  due 
entirely  to  these  considerations.  He  had  naturally  attracted 
the  notice  of  the  political  leaders  on  the  Whig  side  as  a 
promising  recruit  to  the  cause,  and  had  received  from  the 
Duke  of  Bedford  an  invitation  to  enter  the  political  arena. 
This  proposal  he  communicated  to  his  father,  who  replied 
in  a  witty  and  sensible  letter  : 

Canon  Harcourt  to  his  Son. 

BOLTON  PERCY,  May  9, 1 851 . — .  .  .  You  have  not  yet  I  hope  passed 
the  Rubicon.  What  ought  to  be  the  first  object  of  an  honest  man  in 
pursuing  a  profession  or  choosing  one  ?  To  secure  for  himself,  for 
the  purpose  of  best  serving  God  and  doing  good  in  his  generation, 
that  independence  for  want  of  which  men  make  shipwreck  of  all 
conscience  and  self  respect.  Will  politics  give  any  poor  man  a 
reasonable  chance  of  that  ?  You  mention  D' Israeli ;  what  are  his 
chances  of  retaining  office  ?  What  would  have  become  of  him 
if  he  had  made  politics  his  profession  without  first  marrying  a  rich 
wife  ?  What  supported  Canning  in  a  similar  position  but  his 
marriage  ?  You  think  perhaps  D' Israeli  might  have  lived  by  his 
pen  ;  that  then  would  have  been  making  literature,  not  politics,  his 
profession  ;  is  journalism  to  be  yours  ?  I  hope  not.  A  fellowship  of 
Trinity  is  a  real  independence,  in  sickness  and  in  health,  till  you  can 
turn  the  work  of  a  real  profession  to  account.  No  one  was  ever 
rendered  independent  by  politics,  except  accidentally,  and,  after 
all,  to  live  out  the  remnant  of  one's  days  as  Burke  did  on  a  pension 
of  £1200,  with  which  he  was  reproached,  is  not  altogether  satisfactory. 

Leave  politics  and  the  turf  to  rich  men  to  play  with,  or  if  you  look 
to  politics,  look  to  them  only  through  the  law,  which  inosculates 
with  them  naturally.  Burke  studied  law  industriously  at  the 
Temple,  and  in  other  ways  prepared  himself  for  Parliament  with  an 
assiduity  not  only  in  historical  and  philosophical  researches,  but  in 
making  himself  conversant  with  old  records,  patents  and  precedents, 
of  which  you  have  no  idea.  He  was  a  richer  man  too  than  you, 
for  he  was  heir  at  least  to  a  small  landed  property  (he  is  said  to  have 
inherited  from  his  father  and  uncle  £20,000,  with  which  he  purchased 
Beaconsfield),  and  set  out,  long  before  he  thought  of  Parliament, 
with  a  pension  of  £200  a  year  from  the  Irish  Government,  which 
indeed  he  resigned  in  dudgeon  with  the  patron  who  obtained  it 


58  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT     [1846-51 

him.  Let  me  add  too  that  Burke  began  his  course  as  he  ended 
it  not  with  wild  convictions,  but  with  writings  directed  to  repress 
anarchical  innovation,  which  doubtless  favoured  bis  early  fortunes 
as  well  as  his  latter. 

Is  there  anything  in  the  position  of  political  men  now  that  makes 
politics  more  likely  to  insure  a  man  independence  than  formerly  ? 
Does  it  not  become  every  day  more  doubtful  how  the  Queen's 
government  can  be  carried  on  ?  Can  any  Ministry  be  insured 
six  months'  continuance  in  office  ?  It  would  be  the  idlest  infatua- 
tion, my  dear  Willy,  to  look  to  the  troubled  and  muddy  waters  of 
the  House  of  Commons  for  a  profession  in  which  to  attempt  working 
out  your  own  independence,  which  I  repeat  it  is  on  all  accounts  the 
object  on  which  you  ought  to  keep  your  eye  steadily  fixed.  If  you 
had  been  born  with  a  silver  spoon  in  your  mouth  it  would  have  been 
another  affair.  Even  then  I  should  have  dreaded  your  tongue 
outrunning  your  understanding,  but  were  you  disappointed  in  your 
venture  it  would  be  of  less  consequence  ;  as  it  is,  if  the  Woburn 
angler  tickles  you  and  turns  you  into  his  stock  pond  for  the  chance 
of  your  growing  into  a  large  fish  for  his  table,  without  of  course 
undertaking  to  feed  you,  and  you  find  short  commons  there,  you  will 
not  only  disappoint  him  of  his  dish,  but  you  will  bitterly  regret 
that  you  ever  let  him  take  you  from  your  own  natural  stream  where 
there  are  certainly  flies  to  suffice  for  your  support.  My  advice  is 
stick  to  the  waters  of  Trinity  for  the  present  at  least,  and  let  His 
Grace  fish  elsewhere.  Take  care  of  yourself  for  a  few  years,  and  you 
may  become  by  and  by  a  steady  nurse  for  the  baby  people  with  a 
comfortable  knowledge  that  if  the  baby  cry  and  you  are  discharged 
you  have  somewhat  to  retire  upon. 

I  think  this  is  sounder  advice  than  you  will  get  from  Dukes  or 
Ladies,  and  that  you  must  allow  it  to  be  so  when  you  have  wiped  from 
your  eyes  those  cobwebs  of  "  fatalism  "  which  you  speak  of.  Nos 
te  facimus,  Fortuna,  deam — must  not  be  your  motto,  but  Nullum 
numen  abest  si  sit  prudentia.  .  .  .  Si  quid  novisti  rectius  istis — 
candidus  imperti.  Unless  you  were  to  tell  me  candidly  that  you  have 
been  accepted  by  a  girl  with  £20,000  and  pledge  yourself  not  to 
present  me  with  more  than  two  or  three  grandchildren,  I  do  not  think 
it  possible  for  you  in  any  degree  to  justify  so  desperate  a  specula- 
tion for  an  independent  livelihood  as  the  Duke  would  offer  you. 

Harcourt's  reply  has  not  been  preserved ;  but  on  the 
main  point  he  followed  his  father's  advice.  He  did  not 
accept  the  ducal  overtures  made  to  him  to  enter  on  a 
political  career.  It  was  not  until  eight  years  later  that 
he  contested  a  seat  in  Parliament,  and  he  was  forty  before 
he  entered  the  House  of  Commons.  He  was  ambitious,  but 
he  was  in  no  hurry,  and  he  wisely  resolved  to  secure  his 


1846-51]        MORNING  CHRONICLE  59 

independence  before  he  adopted  public  life  as  a  career.  But 
in  spite  of  his  father's  opinion  he  decided  not  to  wait  for 
a  fellowship.  His  interests  had  outgrown  the  Cambridge 
atmosphere,  and  he  resolved  to  try  his  fortune  in  the  great 
world  forthwith.  His  intention  was  to  read  for  the  bar, 
using  journalism,  as  many  others  had  done,  as  a  stepping 
stone  to  a  more  profitable  career.  His  connection  with  the 
Morning  Chronicle  had  assumed  a  permanent  character  and 
gave  him  the  assurance  of  a  sufficient  income  until  he  had 
established -himself  in  his  chosen  profession.  This  security 
was  necessary,  for  he  had  no  resources  other  than  those  his 
intellectual  gifts  could  provide  for  him.  Confident  of  the 
sufficiency  of  these  resources  he  left  Cambridge  in  the 
spring  of  1851  and  took  up  his  residence  in  London. 


CHAPTER  IV 
JOURNALISM  AND  THE  BAR 

Introduction  to  London  Society — The  Cosmopolitan  Club — The 
Hyde  Park  Exhibition — The  Morning  Chronicle — Louis  Napo- 
leon's coup  d'etat — Palmerston's  fall — Puseyism — The  Derby 
Government  of  1852 — A  visit  to  Italy — The  Morality  of  Public 
Men — A  party  at  Woburn — The  Aberdeen  Government — 
Hard  work  in  Chambers — The  Crimean  War — Life  in  the 
Temple — An  affair  of  the  heart. 

ON  arriving  in  London  Harcourt  established  himself 
in  rooms  in  St.  James's  Place  with  his  friend 
Reginald  Cholmondeley.  He  did  not  come  as  a 
stranger  into  the  great  world.  While  his  influential  connec- 
tion gave  him  immediate  access  to  the  social  life  of  the 
metropolis,  the  reputation  he  had  made  in  the  Cambridge 
Union  was  an  introduction  to  political  society,  and  his 
association  with  the  Morning  Chronicle  brought  him  into 
contact  with  the  literary  and  journalistic  world.  He  was 
introduced  to  a  little  club,  the  Cosmopolitan,  which  met  in 
Bond  Street  in  the  rooms  of  Robert  Morier,  then  a  clerk 
in  the  Board  of  Education,  with  his  diplomatic  career  still 
before  him.  It  met  on  Wednesday  and  Saturday  nights 
for  talk  over  a  friendly  pipe.  Some  of  those  in  the  original 
list  of  members,  George  Stovin  Venables,  Charles  Brookfield, 
James  Spedding  and  Harcourt  himself  had  been  Cambridge 
Apostles.  Others  were  Robert  Lowe,  G.  F.  Watts,  John 
Rusjan  and  F.  T.  Palgrave.  Probably  through  his  connec- 
tion with  Lady  Waldegrave,  his  uncle's  wife,  he  made  the 
acquaintance  of  Rachel,  the  actress,  then  at  the  height  of 
her  unprecedented  reputation,  and  among  his  papers  are 

60 


1851-55]        IN   THE   GREAT  WORLD  61 

some  verses  signed  by  her,  and  dated  London,  July  28, 
1851.  They  were  written  to  accompany  a  statuette  of 
herself  in  Greek  costume  which  she  presented  to  him. 
His  experience  of  Carlyle  was  less  flattering,  according  to 
a  story  which  Mr.  Augustine  Birrell  tells.  Carlyle  was 
extolling  Cromwell,  when  Harcourt  intervened  with  the 
observation  that  it  was  a  remarkable  fact  that  all  Cromwell's 
institutions  crumbled  with  his  death.  Would  it  not  be  true 
to  say  that  Ignatius  Loyola  had  produced  more  permanent 
effect  on  mankind  ?  Carlyle  turned  on  him  and  said, 
"  Young  man,  ye  may  be  very  clever  ;  I  daresay  ye  are,  as 
/ye're  just  from  the  University,  but  allow  me  to  tell  ye,  ye 
are  going  straight  to  the  bottomless  pit." 

These  early  days  in  London  were  diversified  by  week- 
ends at  Nuneham,  with  which  he  now  became  intimately 
acquainted.  "  I  spent  Sunday  at  Nuneham,"  he  tells  his 
mother.  "  In  fact,  I  am  under  a  permanent  engagement 
to  go  there  every  Saturday,  and  Uncle  G.  has  ordered  a 
carriage  to  meet  me  always  on  that  day.  She  (Lady  Walde- 
grave)  recounted  to  me  the  other  day  the  whole  of  her  history. 
I  assure  you  no  romance  could  be  more  extraordinary,  and 
considering  the  incredibly  difficult  position  in  which  she  has 
all  her  life  been  placed,  I  am  more  surprised  at  the  good 
points  than  at  the  foibles  of  her  character."  His  letters 
home  at  this  time  give  evidence  of  a  rapidly  widening  circle 
of  friendships.  Lady  John  Russell  had  invited  him  down  to 
Richmond,  "so  youisee  after  all  there  is  some  danger  of 
my  relapsing  into  aAVhig."  "  Lady  E.  Bulteel  who,  as  I 
think  I  told  you,  is  a  very  charming  person,  has  a  regular 
reception  on  Mondays  which  I  attended  last  night.  The 
little  Bertha  is  a  great  pet  of  mine,  and  the  eldest  daughter 
Mary  something  more."  But  his  affections  are  still  centred 
in  his  family.  "  It  has  always  been  my  hope,"  he  writes 
to  his  mother,  "  in  the  event  of  contingencies  which  I  pray 
God  may  be  far  removed,  that  my  lot  should  be  cast  in 
with  you  and  my  sisters,  and  that  our  home  should  be  a 
common  one.  .  .  .  For  the  rest  I  assure  you  I  have  at 
present  no  intention  of  seeking  elsewhere  the  gratification  of 


62  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1851-55 

a  domesticity  which  I  enjoy  in  such  perfection  at  home." 
The  overshadowing  social  event  of  Harcourt's  early  days 
in  London  was  the  opening  of  the  Great  Exhibition  in  Hyde 
Park  at  which  he  was  present  and  of  which  he  sent  an 
enthusiastic  description  to  his  sister  Emily  : 

May,  1851. —  ...  As  the  clock  struck  twelve  the  Queen  entered. 
I  am  told  the  crowd  outside  was  perfectly  incredible.  She  marched 
in  procession  up  to  the  dais  where  she  stood  for  five  minutes  bowing 
in  acknowledgment  of  the  cheers.  She  was  dressed  (I  studied  this 
particularly  for  the  information  of  the  young  ladies)  in  a  pink  satin 
gown  with  a  simple  circlet  of  diamonds.  At  this  moment  the  scene 
was  very  striking,  the  Queen  standing  alone  in  the  very  centre  of 
that  vast  and  beautiful  scene  looking  at  a  distance  a  young  and 
pretty  woman,  surrounded  by  a  brilliant  court,  Prince  Albert 
advancing  to  read  the  Address  from  the  Commissioners,  to  which 
she  replied,  but  at  the  distance  at  which  I  stood  we  could  not  of 
course  hear.  Then  the  Archbishop  read  a  prayer  and  the  Hallelujah 
Chorus  was  performed  with  great  effect.  This  took  about  half 
an  hour.  The  procession  was  then  formed  and  paraded  the  whole 
building  down  the  passages  which  I  have  marked  by  the  double 
lines  in  the  plan  ;  so  that  everybody  had  a  perfect  view  of  the 
Queen  as  she  walked  down  looking  exceeding  pleased  on  Prince 
Albert's  arm,  he  leading  the  Princess  Royal  who  wore  a  large  wreath 
of  roses,  and  the  Queen  holding  the  Prince  of  Wales  by  the  hand. 

.But  the  many  social  activities  in  which  he  engaged  with 
so  much  zest  implied  no  lack  of  attention  to  the  practical 
purpose  which  had  brought  him  to  London.  He  entered 
at  Lincoln's  Inn  on  May  2,  1851,  and  pursued  his  law  studies 
as  a  pupil  of  James  Shaw  Willes  of  the  Inner  Temple,  who 
formed  the  highest  opinion  of  his  legal  promise.  Meanwhile 
he  was  earning  his  living  by  journalism,  which  continued 
to  be  his  sole  source  of  income  until  he  was  called  to  the 
bar  and  his  main  source  of  income  for  some  years  after  he 
was  called.  His  connection  with  the  Morning  Chronicle, 
begun  while  he  was  at  Cambridge,  had  now  assumed  the 
character  of  a  staff  appointment  and  he  largely  shaped  the 
policy  of  the  paper  on  the  principal  issues  of  the  time. 
The  journal  had  been  sold  in  1848  by  Sir  John  Easthope  to 
a  Peelite  syndicate  which  included  Lord  Lincoln  and  Sidney 
Herbert.  Under  the  new  control  the  paper  exercised  a 


i8si]  LORD   JOHN'S  LETTER  63 

powerful  influence  on  public  opinion,  but  it  was  financially 
a  failure,  the  Peelites  sinking,  it  is  said,  £200,000  in  the 
undertaking,  and  at  the  end  of  six  years  it  was  again  sold 
to  a  barrister  who  was  said  to  have  purchased  it  in  the 
interest  of  Napoleon  III,  who  had  no  more  bitter  assailants 
than  the  brilliant  young  men  whom  Cook  had  gathered 
round  him.  And  the  most  formidable  of  these  was  Harcourt. 
His  hostility  to  the  pinchbeck  adventurer  who  had  trampled 
on  the  liberties  of  France  with  fraud  and  violence  was 
couched  in  language  of  unrestrained  vehemence.  Thus,  one 
of  his  articles  begins  :  "  The  time  is  now  arrived  when, 
having  gagged  the  press  and  destroyed  the  Parliament, 
transported  the  Liberals,  robbed  the  Royalists,  bribed  the 
Church,  exiled  the  Constitutionalists,  hired  the  army  and 
duped  the  peasants,  Louis  Napoleon  thinks  he  may,  without 
sacrificing  the  power  of  a  Dictator,  assume  the  situation 
of  a  Protector." 

There  were  others  besides  Napoleon  who  had  begun  to 
take  account  of  the  young  gladiator  of  the  Morning  Chronicle. 
In  the  political  confusion  at  home  he  had  become  a  force 
to  be  reckoned  with  and  to  be  conciliated  by  the  party 
managers.  Public  affairs  have  rarely  been  in  so  chaotic 
a  condition  as  they  were  during  1851.  The  Ministry  of 
Lord  John  Russell,  which  came  into  power  in  1846  on  the 
fall  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  the  rupture  of  the  Tory  Party, 
was  visibly  approaching  dissolution,  and  with  it  the  political 
domination  of  the  great  Whig  families  was  doomed  to  pass 
away.  The  policy  of  Lord  John  on  the  anti-papal  agitation 
had  gravely  weakened  his  position.  The  issue  by  the  Pope 
of  a  Bull  under  which  England  became  a  province  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  with  a  Catholic  hierarchy  endowed 
with  territorial  titles,  had  inflamed  the  public  mind,  already 
profoundly  disturbed  by  the  Oxford  Movement,  and  Russell 
gave  voice  to  the  popular  clamour  in  his  famous  letter  to 
the  Bishop  of  Durham  of  November  1850.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  Lord  John  was  seriously  alarmed,  though  the 
wiser  spirits  saw  that  the  affair  was  grossly  exaggerated. 
Harcourt,  writing  to  his  sister  at  this  time,  probably 


64  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1851 

expressed  what  was  the  general  opinion,  however,  when 
he  said : 

...  I  was  glad  to  see  Lord  John's  letter  against  the  Pope  and 
.'Dr.  Pusey.  I  hate  the  Pope,  as  Nelson  did  a  Frenchman,  like  the 
Devil.  Lord  John  with  his  usual  astuteness  is  taking  advantage 
of  the  Protestant  haze,  to  raise  a  little  wind  in  favour  of  the  effete 
Whig  Government.  It  is  not  a  bad  notion.  If  the  Whigs  choose 
to  take  up  the  strong  Protestant  side,  they  will  gain  much  support 
from  all  those  who  are  justly  alarmed  by  the  hierarchical  projects 
of  the  Puseyites.  On  the  whole  I  should  think  Wiseman  never 
showed  himself  so  unworthy  of  his  name,  for  though  the  real  danger 
is  nothing  there  is  quite  groundwork  for  an  agitation  which  will  give 
Protestantism  a  fillip  such  as  it  has  not  had  for  many  years. 

But  so  far  from  giving  a  fillip  to  "  the  effete  Whig  Govern- 
ment," the  affair  substantially  contributed  to  its  downfall, 
alienating  as  it  did  the  Irish  contingent  in  the  House  and 
intensifying  differences  with  powerful  Peelites  like  Gladstone 
and  Sidney  Herbert,  who  were  strong  High  Churchmen. 
When  Lord  John  brought  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Titles  Bill, 
prohibiting  the  assumption  by  Roman  Catholic  bishops  of 
territorial  titles,  he  offended  the  Catholics  without  going 
far  enough  to  please  the  Protestants,  and  John  Leech  hit 
off  the  situation  in  a  famous  cartoon  in  Punch,  in  which  he 
pictured  Lord  John  as  a  little  boy  who,  having  written 
"  No  Popery  "  on  the  wall,  was  seen  in  the  act  of  running 
away.  The  Bill  was  passed,  and  of  course  became  a  dead 
letter,  but  it  helped  to  prevent  the  success  of  repeated  efforts 
by  Lord  John  to  strengthen  his  Government  by  securing 
the  co-operation  of  the  Peelite  leaders.  He  had  resigned  in 
February  after  his  defeat  on  the  Locke-King  motion  for 
the  extension  of  the  franchise,  and  the  Queen  had  asked 
Lord  Stanley  to  form  a  Government.  Stanley  tried  and 
failed,  and  then  Lord  John  sought  the  help  of  the  Peelites, 
but  he  was  committed  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Titles  Bill,  and 
had  to  return  without  them.  In  the  autumn  the  effort  was 
renewed. 

Then  came  the  coup  d'etat  of  Louis  Napoleon  on  December 
2,  1851.  That  incident  had  created  widespread  indignation 
in  England,  but  the  Cabinet  very  wisely  decided  that  a 


i852]  THE   POLITICAL  DUKES  65 

policy  of  absolute  neutrality  must  be  observed  in  regard 
to  it,  and  sent  instructions  accordingly  to  Lord  Normanby, 
the  British  ambassador  in  Paris.  Palmerston,  although 
he  was  Foreign  Minister,  privately  endorsed  Napoleon's 
coup,  came  into  conflict  with  the  Court  and  the  Prime 
Minister,  and  was  finally  dismissed  by  Russell  two  days 
before  Christmas.  The  rupture  sealed  the  fate  of  the 
Government  and  of  the  Whig  supremacy.  Palmerston  had 
not  long  to  wait  for  his  revenge. 

Events  in  France  had  created  a  popular  suspicion  of  the 
aims  of  Napoleon  in  regard  to  this  country.  The  great 
Napoleon  and  his  plans  of  invasion  were  still  a  living  memory 
in  the  land,  and  it  was  not  unnatural  that  the  revival  of 
Imperialism  in  France  should  lead  to  new  fears  and  to  a 
demand  for  action.  To  placate  this  outcry  Lord  John  on 
February  16, 1852,  brought  in  a  measure  for  the  re-organiza- 
tion of  the  local  militia.  Palmerston,  who  had  been  Louis 
Napoleon's  friend  and  had  probably  as  little  fear  on  the 
subject  as  Lord  John,  promptly  took  the  Jingo  line,  expressed 
his  dissatisfaction  with  the  Government  proposals,  and 
moved  an  amendment  on  which  he  succeeded  in  defeating 
his  old  colleague  by  nine  votes.  The  Government  immedi- 
ately resigned.  "  I  have  had  my  tit-for-tat  with  John 
Russell,"  he  wrote  to  his  brother,  "  and  I  turned  him  out 
on  Friday  last."  It  was  taken  in  good  part  by  Lord  John. 
"  It's  all  fair,"  he  said,  "  I  dealt  him  a  blow,  and  he  has 
given  me  one  in  return." 

The  political  atmosphere,  on  the  eve  of  this  crisis,  is 
reflected  in  an  undated  letter  from  Harcourt  to  his  father  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Father. 

I  dined  last  Sunday  with  Uncle  G.  where  I  sat  between  the  Dukes 
of  Bedford  and  Newcastle,  who  seemed  rather  shy  of  one  another  ; 
the  latter  is  very  deaf.  He  said  he  knew  Napoleon  better  than  any 
man  in  England,  having  spent  days  alone  with  him  in  Scotland,  and 
said,  "  I  am  as  certain  as  that  those  two  bottles  are  on  this  table 
that  he  means  to  seize  Egypt." 

I  met  Thiers  and  Duvergier  de  Hauranne  at  Milnes's  at  breakfast 
yesterday.  Thiers  laughed  at  the  idea  of  Egypt,  but  said  (in  the 
presence  of  Van  der  Weyer  the  Belgian  Minister)  that  he  had  only 

F 


66  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1852 

to  send  4,000  men  into  Belgium  and  he  might  have  it  when  he 
chose.  .  .  . 

The  Whigs  will  die  as  miserably  as  they  have  lived.  I  was  at 
Lord  Granville's  last  night  where  they  all  looked  very  miserable. 
\jLord.  G.'s  x  will  be  a  short  tenure  of  office.  The  Peelites  definitely 
refused  to  join  till  after  Lord  Derby  had  tried  a  Government.  It  is 
thought  Lord  D.  has  made  a  mistake  in  opposing  unconditionally 
the  Reform  Bill. 

I  only  go  to  political  parties  now  which  I  do  not  consider  waste  of 
time.  I  receive  every  day  bitter  complaints  against  the  Chronicle 
from  the  Greys  ;  z  it  will  be  quite  a  relief  when  they  are  out  as  they 
will  be,  as  far  as  Greys  can  be,  in  a  better  humour. 

The  Duke  of  Bedford  asked  me  to  his  box  at  Drury  Lane  on  Tues- 
day, which  was  civil  enough,  as  Lady  Waldegrave  had  told  him 
that  I  occupied  myself  in  writing  down  the  Government.  I  hope 
in  my  next  letter  to  be  able  to  announce  the  extinction  of  the  Whigs. 


II 

"  Uncle  G."  was  evidently  proud  of  the  young  relative 
who  had  come  into  his  circle,  and  asked  Lord  Canning  to 
meet  "  a  nephew  whom  I  have  just  discovered."  He  and 
Lady  Waldegrave  "  have  been  very  kind  in  taking  me 
anywhere  where  I  wish  to  go  and  also  in  getting  up  political 
dinners  for  me,"  writes  Harcourt.  It  is  to  Uncle  G. 
that  "  Lord  John  complains  of  the  fractiousness  of  the 
Peelites  to  which  I  am  proud  to  have  contributed."  And 
it  is  at  Uncle  G.'s  that  he  meets  at  this  time,  not  only  the 
political  dukes,  but  the  statesman  with  whom  he  was  to 
have  the  longest  association  of  his  career. 
.  "  I  have  made  friends  with  Gladstone,  who  is  the  man  of  all 
4hose  going  I  have  most  respect  for,"  he  tells  his  mother. 
Since  Sir  Robert  Peel's  death,  Gladstone  had  been  easily 
the  most  distinguished  figure  in  the  ranks  of  the  Peelites, 
although  the  able  and  amiable  Earl  of  Aberdeen  was  the 
official  leader.  Gladstone  was  the  senior  of  Harcourt  by 
eighteen  years,  had  already  a  long  parliamentary  career 
behind  him,  and  had  entered  on  that  duel  with  Disraeli 

1  Granville  succeeded  Palmerston  as  Foreign  Minister,  and  did 
not  hold  his  office  much  more  than  a  month. 

1  Sir  George  Grey  was  Home  Secretary  in  Lord  John  Russell's 
Cabinet. 


i852]  DERBY  AND  DISRAELI  67 

which  was  to  hold  the  centre  of  the  political  stage  for  a 
generation  to  come. 

Like  Gladstone,  Harcourt  was  still  in  the  transition  state 
of  a  Peelite,  and  had  no  love  for  the  Whigs,  least  of  all 
for  the  Greys.  "  Layard's  appointment  I  think  will  be 
popular,"  he  says.  "  There  will  be  one  place  at  least  not 
'occupied  by  a  Grey."  He  was  especially  dissatisfied  with 
the  Whigs  for  the  poverty  of  their  Reform  Bill.  He  had 
in  his  Union  days  taken  a  strong  and  advanced  view  on 
the  franchise  question,  and  his  first  article  in  the  Morning 
Chronicle,  written  while  he  was  still  an  undergraduate, 
had  outlined  a  drastic  scheme  of  electoral  reform.  The 
timid  proposals  of  the  Whigs  fell  far  short  of  his  views, 
and  he  contemplated  the  fall  of  the  Government  with 
satisfaction. 

But  if  he  was  hostile  to  the  Whigs  he  was  a  still  more 
formidable  opponent  of  the  Government  which  succeeded 
it.  This  was  the  short-lived  Ministry  of  the  Earl  of  Derby. 
It  was  a  stop-gap  Government  without  a  majority  and 
without  a  policy.  Derby  sought  to  make  it  a  coalition  by 
bringing  in  the  Peelites  and  inducing  Palmerston  to  take 
the  Foreign  Secretaryship  ;  but  the  issue  of  Protection 
rendered  the  idea  impossible  of  achievement,  for  Palmerston 
refused  Derby's  offer  when  he  learned  that  Protection  was 
not  abandoned,  and  the  "  Rupert  of  dejbatp  "  was  thrown 
back  upon  the  rump  of  the  Conservative  Party  and  the 
"  Asian  mystery  "  who  was  their  one  intellectual  asset  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  It  is  more  than  doubtful  whether 
Disraeli  at  this  time  was  still  a  Protectionist.  He  had 
thrown  in  his  lot  with  the  Protectionists  in  the  great  Tory 
disruption  of  1846,  and  had  written  the  life  of  the  now 
defunct  leader  of  the  Protectionist  faction,  Lord  George 
Bentinck.  But  his  own  views  on  the  subject  were  always 
opportunist,  and  he  had  probably  already  realized  that,  as 
he  said  later,  "  Protection  was  not  only  dead,  but  damned." 
Lord  Derby's  path  was  not  made  easier  by  the  suspicion 
and  distrust  felt  by  the  old-fashioned  Tories  for  the  brilliant 
Jewish  adventurer.  They  kicked,  as  Sir  William  Gregory 


68  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1852 

describes  in  his  autobiography,  "  against  the  supremacy  of 
one  whom  they  looked  at  as  a  mountebank."  They  were 
impossible  without  him  and  miserable  with  him. 

But  from  its  birth  the  Derby  administration  was  doomed, 
and  the  General  Election  in  the  summer  of  1852  made  its 
end,  when  Parliament  reassembled  in  the  autumn,  only  a 
question  of  Opposition  tactics.  The  Liberal  and  Conservative 
Parties  were  nearly  balanced  and  the  forty  Peelites  who  held 
the  key  of  the  situation  were  being  drawn  inevitably  into 
the  Liberal  camp.  Free  Trade  or  Protection  was  still  the 
dominating  issue  of  domestic  politics,  and  the  course  of 
events  had  justified  the  comment  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  in 
declaring  for  Free  Trade  had  "  steered  his  fleet  into  the 
enemy's  port."  During  the  summer  the  accommodation 
between  the  Liberals  and  the  Peelites  made  substantial 
progress,  and  the  pen  of  the  young  leader  writer  of  the 
I  Morning  Chronicle  became  an  important  influence  on  the 
*  development  of  the  situation.  Apart  from  his  work  on  the 
paper  he  was  contemplating  a  broadside  against  the 
Government  for  the  autumn. 

In  the  meantime,  having  scraped  together  £100  out  of 
his  modest  earnings,  he  indulged  himself  in  his  first  visit 
to  the  Continent,  taking  his  sister  Emily  with  him  to  Italy. 
One  or  two  incidents  of  the  tour  may  be  recalled  as  indicating 
the  feverish  state  of  continental  affairs  at  that  time.  When 
he  was  walking  one  evening  on  the  Piazza  at  Venice  with 
some  friends  he  declared  that  a  number  of  the  men  about 
there  were  Austrian  mouchards.  This  his  friends  denied. 
"  Very  well,  watch  me,  and  you  will  see,"  he  said.  Walking 
up  and  down  with  a  cloak  thrown  over  his  shoulder  he 
constantly  mentioned  in  conversation  the  name  of  Mazzini, 
and  in  a  few  minutes  he  was  visibly  followed  and  almost 
surrounded  by  a  number  of  the  men,  who  kept  him  in 
view  for  the  remainder  of  the  evening.  On  the  return  from 
Venice,  during  the  Customs  examination  on  the  Swiss 
frontier,  his  luggage  was  very  carefully  examined,  and  a 
shaded  relief  map  of  Switzerland  was  found  in  his  bag 
and  was  stated  by  the  authorities  to  be  an  opera  politica. 


i852]  A  GREVILLE   PORTRAIT  69 

He  was  removed  from  the  diligence  and  elaborately  searched  ; 
the  other  passengers  assuring  his  sister  that  he  would  almost 
certainly  be  shot,  but  he  was  released,  though  the  map  was 
confiscated. 

Returning  to  England  he  proceeded  with  the  task  he  had 
in  mind.  It  was  an  indictment  of  Lord  Derby  in  the  form 
of  an  open  letter  entitled  "  The  Morality  of  Public  Men." 
It  was  signed  "  Englishman,"  and  was  published  at  the 
beginning  of  December  1852.  The  authorship  of  the  attack 
was  of  course  an  open  secret,  and  had  an  added  interest 
from  the  fact  that  Harcourt  was  then  and  always  remained 
a  close  friend  of  Lord  Derby's  son,  Lord-Stanley,  a  fellow 
Apostle  and  now  a  supporter  of  his  father's  Ministry.  Lord 
Derby  was  himself  one  of  the  most  brilliant  and  wayward 
figures  of  his  time.  Scholar,  orator,  sportsman,  he  belonged 
to  a  tradition  that  was  passing  away  before  the  tendencies 
of  what  his  son  called  "  the  calico  millennium."  Ther^-i^ 
an  amazing  glimpse  of  him  in  Greville  in  the  April  of/i85i, 
when  he  was  still  Lord  Stanley,  and  shortly  after  his  ra&ttrtf 
to  form  a  Government : 

At  Newmarket  on  Sunday  and  returned  yesterday.  It  was  worth 
while  to  be  there  to  see  Stanley.  A  few  weeks  ago  he  was  on  the 
point  of  being  Prime  Minister,  which  only  depended  on  himself. 
Then  he  stood  up  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  delivered  an  oration 
full  of  gravity  and  dignity.  ...  A  few  days  ago  he  was  feasted  in 
Merchant  Taylors  Hall  amidst  a  vast  assembly  of  lords  and  com- 
moners who  all  acknowledged  him  as  their  chief.  ...  If  any  of  his 
vociferous  disciples  and  admirers  .  .  .  could  have  suddenly  found 
themselves  in  the  betting  room  at  Newmarket  on  Tuesday  evening 
and  seen  Stanley  there,  I  think  they  would  have  been  in  a  pretty 
I/state  of  astonishment.  There  he  was  in  the  midst  of  a  crowd  of 
blacklegs,  betting  men  and  loose  characters  of  every  description, 
in  uproarious  spirits,  chaffing,  rowing  and  shouting  with  laughter 
and  joking.  His  amusement  was  to  lay  Lord  Glasgow  a  wager  that 
he  did  not  sneeze  in  a  given  time,  for  which  purpose  he  took  pinch 
after  pinch  of  snuff  while  Stanley  jeered  him  and  quizzed  him  with 
such  noise  that  he  drew  the  whole  mob  around  him  to  partake  of  the 
coarse  merriment  he  excited. 


But  with  all  his  defects  he  was  a  man  of  genius,  erratic 
and  incalculable,  but  of  a  certain  chivalry  and  generosity. 
He  had  a  high  sense  of  his  responsibilities  as  a  territorial 


70  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1852 

magnate,  and  subsequently  earned  the  lasting  gratitude  of 
Lancashire  for  his  efforts  to  keep  it  on  its  legs  during  the 
cotton  famine. 

The  theme  of  Harcourt's  invective  was  that  the  Prime 
Minister  had  abandoned  his  political  principles  for  the  sake 
of  office  and  had  so  degraded  public  life.  He  laid  down  the 
principle  that  political  consistency  was  the  foundation  of 
party  government,  and  denned  consistency  as  "  a  middle 
term,  which  lies  between  irrational  obstinacy  and  interested 

^levity,"  accusing  Lord  Derby  of  both  these  qualities. 

The  publication  of  the  pamphlet  was  well-timed,  and  it 
contributed  substantially  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Govern- 
ment a  fortnight  later.  It  summed  up  the  case  against  the 
Derby  administration  on  the  eve  of  the  struggle,  and  brought 
the  author  still  more  prominently  before  the  notice  of  the 
party  leaders.  "  My  third  edition  comes  out  to-morrow," 
he  writes  to  Spencer  Butler  at  Cambridge.  "  Gladstone, 
Lord  John,  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  his  Grace  of  Newcastle, 
tc.,  have  been  very  civil  about  the  letter,  and  I  think  it 
l  put  me  in  a  solidly  good  political  position."  He  was 
the  recipient  of  widespread  congratulations.  In  the  most 
exalted  circles  the  pamphlet  was  discussed  with  approval. 
"  The  Queen,"  writes  Greville  in  his  Memoirs,  "  is  delighted 
to  have  got  rid  of  the  late  Ministers.  She  felt,  as  everybody 
else  does,  that  their  Government  was  disgraced  by  its 
shuffling  and  prevarication,  and  she  said  that  Harcourt's 
pamphlet  (which  was  all  true)  was  sufficient  to  show  what 

'  they  were.    As  she  is  very  honourable  and  true  herself,  it  was 
natural  she  should  disapprove  of  their  conduct." 

The  evidence  that  Harcourt  had,  as  he  anticipated,  put 
himself  in  "a  solidly  good  political  position "  by  its 
pamphlet  was  immediate.  He  was  invited  a  few  days  later 
to  a  momentous  gathering  at  Woburn  where  the  imminent 
fall  of  the  Government  and  the  constitution  of  a  Ministry 
that  was  to  succeed  it  were  discussed.  Here  the  young  man 
found  himself  in  the  company  of  the  leaders  of  both  the 
Whigs  and  the  Peelites,  and  in  their  innermost  counsels  at 
an  historic  moment.  Lord  John  had  gone  to  consult  his 


1852]  ATTITUDE  TO  DISRAELI  71 

brother,  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  and  the  party  was  joined  by 
Lord  Aberdeen,  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  Lord  Clarendon  and 
Lady  "Vyajflegrave.  At  dinner  on  the  first  night  there 
was  no  place  at  the  table  for  Harcourt,  whereupon  Lord 
Clarendon  remarked,  "  But  he  is  the  biggest  man  here." 
On  December  16  the  new  Ministry  had  been  provisionally 
agreed  upon,  and  the  company  went  off  to  London  to  hear 
Disraeli's r  Budget  destroyed  by  Gladstone  in  a  speech  of 
extraordinary  power.  They  came  back  having  beaten  the 
Government  and  having  missed  a  great  meet  of  the  hounds 
which  Harcourt  recalled  as  the  event  of  their  absence. 

The  new  Ministry  was  a  singular  and  not  very  promising 
compromise.  The  first  difficulty  was  in  regard  to  the  office 
of  Prime  Minister.  Lord  John  Russell  was  the  obvious 
choice,  but  he  was  impossible  because  neither  the  Peelites 
nor  Palmerston,  with  whom  he  had  had  so  recent  and  open 
a  disagreement,  would  serve  under  him.  Palmerston  was 
equally  impossible,  and  though  he  agreed  to  join  the  Ministry 
he  was  ruled  out  of  the  Foreign  Office,  which  was  his  only 
real  interest  in  affairs  because  neither  party  would  trust 
his  provocative  temper  there.  In  the  end  the  choice  of 
Prime  Minister  fell  upon  Lord  Aberdeen,  the  Peelite  leader, 
a  statesman  of  the  old  school,  modest,  singularly  wise, 

1  Harcourt,  at  this  time,  as  always,  was  politically  opposed  to 
Disraeli  on  almost  every  capital  issue  of  politics,  but  he  had  a 
personal  liking  for  him,  and  one  of  his  articles  in  the  Morning 
Chronicle,  written  after  the  fall  of  the  Derby  Administration,  is 
devoted  to  a  defence  of  him  against  the  backwoodsmen  of  the 
Tory  Party,  in  the  course  of  which  he  said  : 

There  is,  however,  about  Mr.  Disraeli  this  element  of  success — 
that  he  is  never  disheartened  by  defeat.  We  see,  in  the  course 
which  he  has  adopted  since  the  fall  of  the  Administration  of  which 
he  was  the  actuating  spirit,  a  change  of  tactics  which  indicates  a 
sense  of  the  mistakes  by  which  his  past  career  was  marred.  The 
truth  is  that,  in  his  perfect  indifference  to  one  opinion  as  distin- 
guished from  another,  the  mistake  of  Mr.  Disraeli  has  heretofore 
been  to  adopt  in  turn  those  which  were  on  the  point  of  becoming 
extinct.  What  he  wanted  was,  not  ability,  but  judgment.  Experi- 
ence, which  could  never  give  him  the  first,  is  by  degrees  teaching 
him  the  last.  No  one  who  has  attentively  marked  his  conduct 
during  this  session  of  Parliament  can  have  failed  to  remark  his 
anxiety  to  place  himself  in  relation  with  advancing,  rather  than 
re-actionary,  opinion.  The  Derbyites  have  already  given  him  that 


72  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1852 

serene  and  unambitious,  but  with  insufficient  force  of  will 
to  rule  so  brilliant  and  mixed  a  team.  With  him  into  the 
Ministry  he  carried  the  greatest  of  the  Peelites,  Gladstone, 
as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  while  the  leading  Whigs, 
Lord  John  and  Palmerston,  went  respectively  to  the  Foreign 
Office  and  the  Home  Office.  Neither  Cobden  nor  Bright, 
the  real  authors  of  the  policy  that  brought  the  Whigs  and 
the  Peelites  into  alliance  and  the  leaders  of  the  growing  and 
virile  Radical  element  in  the  country,  were  offered  seats  in 
the  Ministry. 

From  the  Woburn  party  Harcourt,  flushed  with  his  new 
honours,  went  home  to  York  to  spend  Christmas.  Soon  after 
his  return  he  moved  from  his  rooms  in  St.  James's  Place  to 
chambers  at  15,  Serjeants  Inn,  Fleet  Street,  where  he  found 
himself  next  door  to  John  Delane,  of  The  Times,  a  fact  which 
was  to  bear  important  fruit  later  on.  "  I  am  immersed  in 
the  law,"  he  writes  to  Monckton  Milnes  (Lord  Houghton), 
"  for  which  I  have  conceived  a  great  passion,  and  hope  one 
day  with  the  help  of  the  Pontefract  Attorney  to  make  a 
good  job  of."  But  he  was  no  less  deeply  immersed  in  politics 
and  journalism,  and,  tempted  no  doubt  by  the  success  of 

of  which  they  never  can  deprive  him — a  parliamentary  position. 
He  only  required  opportunity  to  make  his  abilities  known,  and 
that  opportunity  their  necessities  afforded  him.  As  long  as  it 
suited  his  purpose,  he  ministered  to  their  vengeance,  their  passions, 
and  their  prejudice.  But  he  knew  they  had  adopted  him  from  no 
respect  for  his  genius,  but  from  a  hope  of  his  utility.  If  he  has 
not  altogether  answered  their  expectations,  it  is  not  they  at  least 
who  have  the  right  to  complain.  He  cannot  have  betrayed  a  con- 
fidence which  he  never  received.  .  .  .  They  have  treated  with 
gross  and  insulting  ingratitude  the  only  man  of  ability  who  has 
done  any  credit  to  their  cause.  They  complain  of  qualities  in  him 
of  which  they  were  perfectly  aware  at  the  time  when  they  availed 
themselves  of  his  services.  They  find  fault  with  the  Liberal  sym- 
pathies of  a  man  whom  they  took  to  themselves  from  the  Radical 
sheepfolds,  and  made  him  King  over  their  Israel.  They  pretend 
to  be  offended  at  his  sympathy  with  a  race  whose  cause  he  ably 
advocated  long  before  he  enlisted  in  their  ranks.  They  think  that 
they  can  confine  the  ideas  and  the  aspirations  of  a  man  of  genius 
and  courage  within  the  narrow  pale  of  their  own  bigoted  prejudices. 
But  they  will  find,  as  they  have  found  before,  that  the  man  whose 
ability  can  make  him  their  leader  will  also  raise  him  above  the  dull 
atmosphere  of  their  contracted  views.  .  .  . 


i853]  INDICTMENT   OF  DERBY  73 

his  previous  effort,  he  hazarded  a  second  canter  over  the 
same  course.  He  again — still  signing  himself  "  Englishman" 
— addressed  Lord  Derby  in  an  open  letter  of  prodigious 
length,  which  appeared  in  the  Morning  Chronicle  dated 
May  23,  1853.  Those  were  days  when  newspapers  still 
assumed  that  the  public  were  interested  in  the  serious 
discussion  of  affairs,  but  even  then  it  was  unusual  for  a 
newspaper  to  print  an  essay  running  into  four  columns  on 
the  foundations  of  government.  It  was  a  leisurely  time,  and 
we  must  assume  that  people  read  it.  Very  nearly  two 
columns  are  occupied  with  a  description  of  the  state  of 
Europe,  a  prey  to  reaction  after  the  unsuccessful  revolutions 
of  1848,  and  the  duty  of  a  British  government  as  the  guardian 
of  free  institutions.  Only  then  does  Harcourt  come  to  the 
real  subject  of  his  letter,  the  "  profligate  dispensing  of 
patronage,"  which  was,  he  held,  a  natural  corollary  of  the 
absence  of  political  principle  : 

It  was  yourself  who  promulgated  among  your  party  the  pernicious 
doctrine  that  anything  was  permissible  in  their  relations  with  the 
constituencies  which  might  tend  to  improve  the  position  of  your 
Government.  You  allowed  prominent  members  of  the  Administra- 
tion to  bid  for  supporl/by  professions  which  you  and  they  never 
intended  to  perform.  "Your  Cabinet  was  a  sort  of  political  Sorbonne, 
in  which  each  doctor  was  permitted  to  stamp  with  all  the  authority 
of  Government,  any  opinion  which  might  suit  his  fancy  or  con- 
venience. You  talked  of  compromises  which  were  nothing  but 
juggles,  and  principles  which  turned  out  to  be  no  better  than  baits. 
All  the  baseness  of  the  most  profligate  coalition  was  combined  in 
a  homogeneous  party.  Each  individual  Minister  was  in  himself 
a  coalition — at  once  a  Protectionist,  a  Free-trader,  a  Tenant-leaguer, 
and  an  Orangeman.  It  was  intimated  to  candidates  that  they  must 
accommodate  their  professions  to  the  sympathies  of  their  consti- 
tuents, and  that  it  would  be  time  enough  after  they  succeeded  to 
devise  means  for  betraying  their  pledges  and  serving  their  interests. 

If  in  these  open  letters  he  adopted  a  ponderous  style 
reminiscent  of  Johnsonian  English,  he  could  write  simply 
and  straight  to  the  point  when  he  liked,  and  his  usual 
articles  move  with  a  swifter  and  more  energetic  spirit.  There 
are  many  hard  hits  skilfully  delivered  in  the  leaders  written 
for  the  Morning  Chronicle.  In  one  of  these  the  real  accents 


74  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1853 

of  the  author  of  the  Budget  of  1894  are  audible.  "  Why,"  he 
says,  writing  of  Lord  Derby,  "  did  we  never  hear  a  syllable 
of  '  native  industry  '  and  '  untaxed  foreigners  '  till  the  land 
was  touched  ?  The  National  League  is  at  least  consistent  ; 
they  say,  '  We  will  have  nothing  cheap.'  But  Lord  Stanley 
says,  '  We  will  have  everything  cheap  except  food  ' !  Strange 
exception  ?  What  can  be  the  history  of  it  ?  Can  it  have 
anything  to  do  with  rent  ?  "  And  in  these  more  spontaneous 
writings  his  wit  was  always  fresh  and  searching,  as,  when 
referring  to  the  Russell  administration  in  1851  he  observes  : 
"  It  was  the  glory  of  Ulysses  to  have  seen  many  cities  and 
nations  of  men — it  is  the  misfortune  of  Lord  John  Russell 
that  his  acquaintance  with  mankind  is  confined  to  a  cousin- 
hood  l  remarkable  more  for  the  antiquity  of  their  race  than 
for  the  freshness  of  their  intellects." 

As  a  good  Peelite,  Harcourt  became  increasingly  intimate 
with  the  Gladstones  and  Herberts.  Gladstone  had  emerged 
as  the  hero  of  the  new  Ministry  with  the  first  of  his  historic 
Budgets.  In  reference  to  this  event,  Harcourt,  writing 
(1853)  to  his  sister,  says  : 

Gladstone's  Budget  is  considered  a  great  triumph.  Lord  John 
wrote  to  Mrs.  G.  to  say  that  her  husband's  speech  "  realized  his 
conception  of  what  Rtt  would  have  done  in  his  happiest  moment." 
In  fact  even  the  Peelites  place  it  above  Peel.  It  has  totally  shattered 
the  Derbyites  who  have  fallen  back  on  the  Irish  brigade  and  conse- 
quently lost  the  confidence  of  the  reputable  part  of  their  party. 

I  don't  do  much  society  except  political  of  which  there  is  a  good 
deal  at  present.  I  breakfast  with  Gladstone  on  Monday.  Mrs.  G. 
is  a  great  ally  of  mine,  as  also  Mrs.  Sidney  Herbert,  who  is  the  most 
beautiful  woman  it  is  possible  to  see. 

It  was  probably  at  this  time  that  G.  F.  Watts,  who  was 
one  of  the  Cosmopolitan  Club  which  met  in  Bond  Street, 
made  the  drawing  of  Harcourt  which  appears  in  this  volume, 
and  it  was  certainly  at  this  time  that  the  Lawrence  drawing 

of  him  now  at  Nuneham  was  done  for  Monckton  Milnes. 

/ 
v 

1  Mr.  Herbert  Paul  points  out  (History  of  Modern  England)  that 
Privy  Seal  was  the  Prime  Minister's  father-in-law,  Colonial  Secretary 
and  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  brothers-in-law  ;  Home  Secretary 
and  War  Secretary,  cousins. 


i853]    HARD  WORK  AND  SOME   PLAY        75 

Among  the  many  close  friendships  which  Harcourt  made 
in  his  early  days  in  London,  that  with  the  future  Lord 
Houghton,  a  man  eminent  for  his  genius  for  friendship,  held 
a  high  place.  He  was  one  of  the  wide  circle  who  shared  in 
Harcourt's  abundant  letter-writing.  "  There  are  few  things 
I  value  so  much  as  friendship,"  said  Harcourt  in  one  of  his 
letters,  "  and  among  my  friends  there  is  none  whose  affection 
I  esteem  more  than  yours."  It  was  at  Milnes's  request 
that  he  sat  to  Lawrence.  "  I  have  waited  to  answer  your 
letter  till  I  had  seen  Lawrence,"  writes  Harcourt.  "  He  will 
gladly  undertake  the  commission,  and  it  will  be  a  great 
charity  as  I  fear,  poor  fellow,  he  is  very  badly  off  with  a  large 
family." 

His  general  manner  of  life  at  this  time  is  indicated  in  a 
letter  to  his  sister : 

Harcourt  to  his  Sister. 

LINCOLN'S  INN  HALL,  1854. — At  ten  I  go  into  my  tutor's  chambers 
where  I  work  like  a  horse  till  five  at  pleadings,  opinions,  etc.  I 
then  scramble  to  get  a  little  dinner,  then  a  leading  Art.  till  ten, 
then  my  own  private  law  studies  till  two,  and  so  to  bed.  It  seems 
to  suit  me  very  weU  and  I  always  find  hard  work  suits  both  my 
mind  and  body  better  than  anything  else.  One  has  no  time  to  do 
what  Palmerston  calls  "  meditate  on  the  immensity  of  the  universe," 
which  is  a  most  unsatisfactory  occupation.  I  am  at  this  moment 
attending  a  lecture  of  J.  G.  Phillimore  on  Constitutional  Law, 
and  take  the  liberty  of  writing  this  letter  as  more  improving  than  his 
inflated  and  ignorant  declamations. 

In  the  midst  of  his  activities  he  finds  time  not  only  for 
society,  but  for  literature.  He  continues  : 

Have  you  read  the  second  volume  of  Ruskin's  Stones  of  Venice  ? 
If  you  have  not,  beg,  borrow  or  steal  it.  It  is  one  of  the  finest  things 
that  ever  was  written,  full  of  inspiring  eloquence  and  genuine 
genius.  It  recreates  Venice,  and  one  felt  in  reading  it  not  only  as  if 
one  was  there  again,  but  when  there  saw  much  more  than  is  revealed 
to  ordinary  eyes.  You  will  be  in  ecstasies  at  the  gorgeous  descrip- 
tion of  St.  Mark's,  and  the  deeply  pathetic  of  Torcello.  By  all 
means  read  it. 

And  here  is  a  reminiscence,  also  recorded  for  "  My  dearest 
Em,"  of  his  social  life : 

I  dine  to-day  with  the  Colonial  Duke  (Newcastle).  In  the  evening 
I  go  to  a  soiree  at  General  Webb's,  a  great  Yankee  who  is  over 


76  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1853 

here.  You  may  have  seen  some  months  ago  in  The  Times  a  contro- 
versy between  him  and  that  paper  over  the  subject  of  the  English 
false  impressions  of  America.  He  swaggers  a  good  deal  but  on  the 
whole  is  intelligent  and  Anglomaniac.  Lady  Mahon  complained 
to  me  the  other  day  at  Lord  Clarendon's  that  she  had  been  sitting 
at  dinner  by  the  American  Minister  and  that  he  spat  on  the  floor 
all  dinner-time.  I  hear  he  does  this  to  queer  the  Britishers,  and 
does  not  practise  those  manners  at  home. 

Ill 

It  is  in  his  letters  at  this  period  that  a  cloud  which  was 
soon  to  overshadow  the  sky  of  Europe  begins  to  claim  atten- 
tion. Writing  to  Milnes  he  says  : 

Har court  to  Monckton  Milnes. 

You  will  rejoice  I  know  as  heartily  at  the  great  moral  lesson  which 
Turkey  is  reading  to  Europe.  I  hope  it  may  not  be  lost  on  the 
antiquated  imbecilities  of  the  Cabinet — a  quality  which  I  believe 
has  descended  even  to  its  youngest  members.  It  is  ludicrous  to 
see  the  discomfiture  of  Reeve,  C.  Grenville  and  the  rest  of  the 
Bruton  Street  conspiracy.  The  White  Cottage  and  the  Cosmopoli- 
tan are  open  again  and  we  have  had  some  pleasant  gatherings. 
Thackeray  is  in  England  for  a  few  days.  Higgins  paid  him  and 
Doyle  the  compliment  of  telling  him  that  it  was  assumed  that  D. 
wrote  the  letterpress  and  T.  did  the  etchings — a  pretty  double 
barrel. 

We  do  as  much  for  Maurice  as  we  can  manage  with  the  clog  of 
our  Damned  Puseyites. 

I  have  seen  Clarendon  and  Newcastle  several  times.  My  impres- 
sion is  that  the  Government  have  done  nothing,  are  doing  nothing 
and  will  do  nothing.  The  only  hope  for  them  is  that  the  "  solecism," 
as  Gladstone  calls  the  Turks,  may  yet  drag  the  impostors  through 
with  as  little  disgrace  as  can  be  expected. 

And  a  little  later  in  November  1853 — his  letters  are  still 
undated — he  says,  writing  again  to  Mimes  : 

Do  you  read  the  war  which  I  (Jus  Gentium)  am  carrying  on  against 
Venables  in  the  M.C.  [Morning  Chronicle']  ? 

I  see  Clarendon  and  Newcastle  frequently,  and  had  a  long  talk 
to  old  Aberdeen,  by  whom  I  sat  at  dinner  at  Molesworth's.  The 
latter  was  very  civil,  and  told  Andalusia  afterwards  that  "  though 
he  had  ceased  to  be  enthusiastic  himself  he  was  delighted  to  find 
persons  who  were  so."  This  I  suppose  was  in  consequence  of  my 
blackguarding  the  Czar  and  Austria  to  him. 

I  can't  reciprocate  the  compliment.     Nothing  can  be  feebler  or 


i853]  AS   "JUS   GENTIUM"  77 

more  contemptible  than  the  tone  of  the  Government  throughout 
and  especially  since  the  Sinope  affair. 

The  reference  to  the  controversy  with  Venables  deserves 
passing  notice,  for  it  records  Harcourt's  first  incursion  into 
the  realm  of  international  law.  Venables  had  maintained 
in  an  article  published  on  November  18,  1853,  "that  by  the 
outbreak  of  war  pre-existing  treaties  between  the  belli- 
gerents became  null  and  void.  It  was  assumed  that  war 
"  not  only  suspends,  but  abrogates,  all  positive  conventions 
between  independent  powers."  This  contention  was  put 
forward  in  support  of  the  theory  that  the  terms  of  the 
Treaty  of  Kainardji  enabling  Russia  to  interfere  in  the 
interests  of  the  Christian  populations  of  Turkey  were 
annulled  by  the  outbreak  of  war  between  Russia  and 
Turkey.  This  theory  of  the  nullification  of  international 
engagements  on  the  outbreak  of  war  was  based  on  the  fact 
that  many  of  the  most  important  treaties  of  the  past  had 
taken  the  precaution  of  inserting  recitals  of  former  treaties 
which  were  to  remain  binding  on  the  parties  in  addition  to 
the  new  stipulations  arising  out  of  the  war. 

Harcourt  sustained  the  contrary  view  in  the  series  of 
letters  signed  "  Jus  Gentium,"  to  which  he  refers  Milnes. 
He  protested  against  "  the  monstrous  injustice  of  the 
doctrine  that  the  breach  of  one  contract  vitiates  all  existing 
contracts,"  backing  his  argument  by  a  long  array  of  quo- 
tations from  the  judgments  and  the  writings  of  international 
jurists.  Positive  conventions  were,  he  declared,  only 
suspended,  not  abrogated  by  war,  except  as  regards  the 
particular  treaty  from  a  breach  of  which  the  war  arose. 
The  letters  are  valuable  for  the  light  that  is  incidentally 
thrown  on  the  diplomatic  history  of  Europe  from  the  Peace 
of  Amiens  onwards,  but  their  chief  interest  from  the  point 
of  view  of  this  biography  is  the  indication  of  the  power  in 
controversy  on  subjects  bound  up  with  international  law 
which  was  to  make  Harcourt  a  considerable  reputation  in 
two  hemispheres  in  the  next  decade.  In  style  these  letters 
are  more  ponderous  and  less  finished  than  the  famous  series 
of  the  letters  of  "  Historicus,"  but  they  show  the  same  skill 


78  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1853 

in  marshalling  authorities,  the  same  ability  to  discover  the 
weak  points  of  his  opponent's  reasoning,  and  the  same 
enormous  industry  and  persistence. 

Meanwhile,  the  cloud  in  the  East  expanded.  To  Har- 
court,  as  to  others,  it  was  a  cloud  of  a  beneficent  kind.  He 
shared  the  popular  enthusiasm  which  the  prospect  of  war 
rarely  fails  to  awaken.  He  had  yet  to  acquire  that  hatred 
of  war  which  was  to  become  one  of  the  most  constant  and 
intense  of  his  passions.  When,  long  after,  the  Russians 
seized  Port  Arthur,  he  said,  commenting  on  the  popular 
mood  of  the  time,  "  I  remember  Lord  Aberdeen  saying  to 
me  at  the  close  of  his  life  that  he  had  never  forgiven  himself 
for  giving  way  to  popular  clamour  at  the  time  of  the  Crimean 
War.  I  will  not  go  down  to  the  grave,"  he  added,  "  with 
such  a  reproach  on  my  soul."  But  at  the  time  he  had  no 
hesitations,  as  the  following  passages  from  letters  to  his 
sister  show : 

Harcourt  to  his  Sister,  Emily  Harcourt. 

,  .  .  No  one  now  believes  in  peace.  I  have  seen  persons  who 
have  come  from  Petersburg,  who  all  agree  that  the  Czar  is  bent 
on  fighting.  His  admirers  are  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  the  hypo- 
thesis that  he  is  mad — just  as  people  always  say  that  a  man  who 
commits  suicide  is  non  compos.  But  the  truth  is,  crime  is  a  different 
thing  from  insanity,  and  it  is  sheer  immorality  to  confound  them, 
He  will  get,  I  take  it,  such  a  licking  as  will  last  Russia  for  fifty  years. 
The  Government  believe  in  the  sincere  adhesion  of  Austria,  I  confess 
I  am  not  so  sanguine.  That  she  will  not  fight  for  Russia  is  clear, 
because  it  would  be  destructive  to  her  to  do  so ;  that  she  will  fight 
against  her  I  think  much  more  questionable.  Nothing  can  be 
better  than  the  spirit  of  the  public  in  the  matter  ;  nobody  seems  to 
grudge  their  friends  to  the  cause  of  the  country.  The  Sutherlands 
are  quite  pleased  at  Freddy's  going  the  week  after  his  joining ; 
the  only  people  disappointed  are  those  who  are  left  behind.  .  .  . 

There  can  be  no  doubt  now  that  war  has  broken  out.  I  never 
had  any  belief  in  the  possibility  of  any  other  solution.  The  pre- 
tensions of  Nicholas  never  had  any  other  foundation  but  force, 
and  by  force  alone  they  can  be  and  they  will  be  put  down.  I 
have  very  little  doubt  that  the  Turks  will  give  the  Czar  a  good  licking. 
And  if  they  can't  do  it  alone  we  shall  help  them.  It  is  plain  that 
the  Mahometans  are  much  the  best  Christians  of  the  two.  .  .  . 

The  news  from  abroad  is  capital.  Austria  and  Prussia  have 
declared  against  Russia,  Austria  threatening  to  march  an  army 


i853]  THE   CRIMEAN   WAR  79 

against  the  Russian  flank  if  they  cross  the  Danube.  This  makes 
either  the  destruction  or  humiliation  of  Russia  certain  ;  I  should 
prefer  the  first,  but  should  be  satisfied  with  the  last.  Nicholas  is 
now  in  the  situation  of  Napoleon  after  his  return  from  Elba,  only 
without  his  genius  or  his  generalship.  If  this  attitude  of  the  Ger- 
man powers  had  been  assured  before  the  last  reply  of  the  Western 
Powers  to  the  Ambassadors,  the  Czar  would  no  doubt  have  slunk 
out  of  his  scrape  under  an  affectation  of  moderation,  but  having 
withdrawn  his  ambassador  if  he  retreats  as  he  must,  it  will  be  obvious 
that  he  succumbs  from  fear.  And  so  the  prestige  of  Russian  power 
is  destroyed  for  the  next  half-century.  Amen. 

The  kindest  comment  that  can  be  made  on  this  prayerful 
eagerness  for  war  is  that  Harcourt  was,  in  this  matter, 
no  wiser  than  his  generation.  The  nation  had  enjoyed 
forty  years  of  peace,  and  having  forgotten  what  war  meant 
fell  an  easy  prey  to  the  preachers  of  panic,  and  Harcourt 
fell  with  it.  There  was  one  consideration  that  might  have 
been  expected  to  save  him  from  the  general  surrender  of 
reason.  No  one  in  England  had  shown  a  more  acute 
understanding  of  the  character  of  Louis  Napoleon  or  a 
more  profound  distrust  of  his  motives,  and  Louis  Napoleon 
was  the  true  author  and  begetter  of  the  Crimean  War. 
That  of  course  was  not  the  popular  judgment  at  the  time. 
The  heavy  villain  of  the  piece  in  the  contemporary  view 
was  the  Tsar,  Nicholas.  Time  and  its  disclosures  have  so 
completely  reversed  this  view  that  Nicholas  is  left  the 
accuser  rather  than  the  accused.  There  are  three  chief 
offenders  at  the  bar  of  history  in  connection  with  the 
authorship  of  perhaps  the  most  foolish  and  gratuitous  war 
on  record,  and  Nicholas  is  certainly  not  one  of  them.  The 
three  are  Napoleon,  the  Sultan  and  Lord  Stratford  de 
Redcliffe,  the  British  Ambassador  at  Constantinople.  Of 
these  the  chief  sinner  is  Napoleon  III.  There  are  few 
more  remarkable  documents  than  the  letter  which  Count 
Nesselrode,  the  Russian  Foreign  Minister,  wrote  in  Decem- 
ber 1852  immediately  after  Napoleon  had  assumed  the 
Imperial  crown.  It  is  remarkable  alike  as  a  reading  of 
Napoleon's  mind  and  as  a  forecast  of  events.  The  letter 
was  not  written  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  but  it  was  seen  by 
him,  and  must  have  helped  to  strengthen  him  in  the 


8o  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1853 

struggle  he  made  against  the  tide  of  mingled  deceit,  folly 
and  betrayal  which  finally  swept  the  country  into  war  as 
the  instrument  of  the  French  adventurer.  In  this  letter 
Nesselrode  prophesied  that  Louis  Napoleon  would  seek  to 
embroil  Russia  and  Turkey,  and  analyzed  with  extraordinary 
perspicuity  the  calculations  upon  which  he  would  gamble. 
The  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  came  in  the  following 
summer  and  autumn.  Napoleon  chose  his  ground  well. 
He  caused  demands  to  be  made  on  the  Sultan  for  privilege 
for  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy  in  connection  with  the  Holy 
Places.  The  demands  were  irreconcilable  with  the  pledges 
which  had  been  given  to  Russia  by  the  Turkish  Government, 
and  when  they  were  conceded  Nicholas  asked,  as  Napoleon 
of  course  had  foreseen  he  would  ask,  for  equal  privilege 
for  the  Greek  Church.  It  was  so  reasonable  a  request  that 
its  refusal  could  only  be  interpreted  as  a  part  of  a  calcu- 
lated policy  of  affront.  The  trumpery  issue  was  carefully 
kept  open  during  the  summer,  autumn  and  winter,  while 
the  chief  conspirators  wove  the  web  of  events  that  were  to 
lead  up  to  "  the  inevitable  war."  Whenever  a  settlement 
seemed  imminent  one  of  the  trinity  threw  a  new  faggot  on 
the  expiring  flames.  At  first  Aberdeen  had  the  bulk  of  the 
Cabinet  with  him  in  his  desire  to  preserve  the  peace,  and 
it  is  probable  he  would  have  succeeded,  but  for  the  fact 
that  throughout  the  British  Ambassador  at  Constantinople 
was  playing  into  the  hand  of  Napoleon,  by  encouraging 
the  Porte  to  reject  the  advice  of  which  he  was  the  official 
vehicle.  When,  following  on  the  declaration  of  hostilities 
by  Turkey,  the  Russians  destroyed  the  Turkish  ships  at 
Sinope,  the  Ambassador  exclaimed  in  a  loud  voice,  "  Thank 
God,  this  is  War."  From  this  moment  Aberdeen's  last 
hope  of  preserving  the  peace  vanished.  The  war  spirit 
had  seized  the  nation,  and  the  Cabinet  was  swept  into  the 
torrent  of  events. 

IV 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  this  feverish  time  that  Harcourt 
entered  on  his  career  at  the  Bar.     "  I  am  all  surprise  that 


i854l  HIS   FIRST   BRIEF  81 

you  are  boxed  up  in  Chambers  and  apparently  callous 
about  politics,"  writes  Julian  Fane  to  him : 

VIENNA,  April  20,  1854. — If  I  am  in  England,  I  must  go  part  of 
the  circuit  with  you  and  witness  the  taking  of  your  legal  maiden- 
hood, which  operation  will  be  highly  interesting.  Seriously,  I 
think  you  are  quite  right  to  take  the  Law  in  earnest,  because  I  think 
you  are  quite  sure  to  succeed  in  it,  and  I  look  forward  with  some 
confidence  now  to  your  making  a  carri$re  of  it,  if  you  do  not  suffer 
politics  to  lure  you  away  to  the  H.  of  C.  for  a  profession  and  back 
to  the  L.C.  for  an  income.  I  suppose  the  preliminary  work  is 
tedious  beyond  measure,  but,  once  started,  your  combative  nature 
will,  I  imagine,  greatly  disport  itself  in  a  Court  of  Law,  and  I  hope 
to  witness  its  recreations. 

On  May  i  Harcourt  was  called  to  the  Bar  at  the 
Inner  Temple  and  began  his  legal  career  on  the  Home 
Circuit.  In  the  following  year,  however,  James  Shaw 
Willes,  with  whom  he  had  read  law,  became  a  judge,  and 
took  Harcourt  with  him  as  Marshal  on  the  Northern 
Circuit.  There  he  came  in  contact  with  some  of  the  ablest 
men  at  the  bar,  including  James  Wilde  (Lord  Penzance), 
Colin  Blackburne,  the  first  lawyer  of  his  day,  Gathorne 
Hardy  (Lord  Cranbrook),  Cross  (afterwards  Home  Secre- 
tary), and  Holland  (Lord  Knutsford).  He  returned,  from 
this  interlude,  to  the  Home  Circuit,  and  the  story  of  his 
first  brief  there  is  recorded  by  Spencer  Percival  Butler  ; 

It  is  a  privilege,  according  to  Livy  in  the  fine  Preface  to  his  Roman 
history,  to  add  to  the  lustre  of  the  earliest  annals  by  mingling  with 
the  human  a  certain  element  of  the  Divine.  I  am  afraid  that  no 
such  superhuman  halo  often  surrounds  the  first  brief  of  the  young 
barrister.  After  I  had  followed  Harcourt  to  the  Bar,  I  remember 
him  in  his  new  wig  and  gown  looking  very  nice,  going  before  the  Judge 
in  Chambers,  Mr.  Baron  Martin,  a  very  strong  Judge,  with  the  guinea 
brief,  as  Counsel  for  the  Defendant  in  a  peculiar  case.  There  was 
an  old  statute,  under  which  where  property  belonged  to  two  or  more 
persons  as  tenants  in  common,  and  one  of  them  occupied  it  in  the 
absence  of  the  other,  a  right  of  action  was  given  to  the  other  for 
an  account  of  the  profits  which  the  occupant  had  or  might  have 
received.  The  ordinary  Statutes  of  Limitation  did  not  apply  to 
actions  brought  under  this  Statute.  A  long  account  of  the  profits 
or  presumed  profits  of  the  occupancy  in  this  case  formed  a  part 
of  the  brief.  When  the  solicitors  and  counsel  in  the  case  came  before 
the  Judge  in  Chambers,  the  Judge  looked  in  some  dismay  at  the 
bulky  account  and  said  : 

G 


82  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1854 

"  Who  are  you  for,  Mr.  Harcourt  ?  and  what  is  the  meaning  of 
this  account  ?  " 

"  I  am  for  the  defendant,  my  Lord,"  was  the  reply,  "  and  I  think 
you  will  be  a  little  surprised  if  you  look  at  the  first  item  in  the 
account  dated  fifty  years  ago." 

"Hog's  inwards  35.  6rf.,"  said  the  Judge.  "This  will  never  do; 
we  cannot  go  into  questions  of  Hog's  inwards  fifty  years  ago." 

Solvuntur  risu  tabulae.  It  is  not  always  that  such  complete 
success  attends  the  future  Solicitor  General  in  his  first  professional 
experience  of  the  courts  of  law. 

His  enthusiasm  for  his  new  profession  was  unqualified. 
"  My  mother  has  written  me  charming  accounts  of  you  and 
your  visits  to  her,"  writes  Julian  Fane  from  Vienna  on 
July  19,  1854.  "  She  is  so  delighted  that  you  have  aban- 
doned politics  for  law.  I  trust  the  practical  part  of  the 
latter  will  interest  you,  and  that  your  success  on  circuit 
may  be  as  large  as  my  love  for  you."  He  had  no  reason 
to  complain  of  his  progress  at  the  bar.  "  I  have  been  to 
Hertford  and  Chelmsford  on  Circuit,  going  on  Thursdays 
and  returning  on  Tuesdays,  which  I  can  do  to  all  the  towns 
on  this  circuit,  which  suits  very  well  for  all  purposes,"  he 
tells  his  sister.  "  I  shall  have  something  to  do  at  Croydon. 
...  I  have  had  a  very  fair  share  of  business  in  town,  and 
am  in  a  great  case  with  Sir  F.  Kelly  in  the  Privy  Council 
next  week." 

A  pleasant  picture  of  Harcourt's  life  in  these  early  days 
at  the  bar  is  contained  in  Spencer  Percival  Butler's  reminis- 
cences of  his  friend  : 

During  three  years  or  thereabouts  between  1855  and  1859  Harcourt 
and  I  and  a  common  friend,  Benjamin  Gray,  a  fellow  of  Trinity  and 
a  barrister,  occupied,  for  residential  ('purposes,  a  charming  set  of 
Chambers  at  the  top  of  No.  5,  Paper  Buildings  in  the  Temple,  which 
contained  a  large  sitting  room  with  oriel  windows,  overlooking  the 
river,  and  on  clear  Sundays  the  Surrey  hills  also,  and  I  think  we  all 
enjoyed  it.  We  were  all  members  of  the  Oxford  and  Cambridge 
Club,  and  generally  dined  there  at  the  "  Island  "  (as  we  called  it), 
being  a  collection  of  two  or  three  small  tables  in  the  central  part 
of  the  room  which  could  accommodate  four  to  eightdiners  as  required. 
There  were  several  pleasant  and  some  very  witty  men  who  were 
attracted  by  Harcourt  to  the  "  Island,"  such  as  Horace  Mansfield, 
a  fellow  of  Trinity,  Garden,  then  Sub-dean  of  the  Chapels  Royal, 
Sir  Francis  Doyle,  a  friend  of  Gladstone  at  Eton  and  Professor  of 


i854]  THE   ARROW  DEBATE  83 

Poetry  at  Oxford,  one  of  the  wittiest  and  most  genial  of  companions, 
and  Post  of  Oriel  and  Patrick  Cumin  of  Balliol,  and  John  Martineau 
and  Sclater  and  many  others  ;  and  sometimes  Harcourt  left  us, 
and  dined  with  Venables  or  Kinglake,  the  historian  and  author  of 
Eothen,  and  reported  to  us  their  wise  and  weighty  utterances.  One 
day  I  remember  his  coming  back  to  tell  us  that  Kinglake  attributed 
the  super-excellence  of  John  Bright' s  oratory  to  his  never  having 
enjoyed  the  disadvantage  of  a  classical  education. 

Benjamin  Gray  was  the  son  of  a  wealthy  Manchester  manufacturer 
and  had  a  passion  for  all  warlike  things.  One  day,  when  Napoleon 
III  was  imitating  Napoleon  I  and  was  reviewing  his  Army  on  the 
heights  above  Boulogne,  he  persuaded  us,  nothing  loth,  to  run  down 
to  Deal,  and  engage  a  Deal  lugger,  which  Harcourt  believed  to  be 
the  best  boat  you  could  sail  in.  We  had  a  pleasant  week-end,  but 
only  got  half  across  the  Channel.  The  wind  and  the  tide,  I  believe 
crossed  purposes,  and  we  returned  towards  Deal,  but  the  tide  was 
then  too  low  to  let  us  sail  or  row  across  the  Goodwin  Sands,  and  we 
lay  for  some  hours  outside  the  Sands,  while  two  of  us  in  a  small 
boat  landed  on  the  dry  sand  and  took  a  walk  thereon.  On  another 
occasion,  we  all  three  went  over  to  Brussels  and  visited  the  field  of 
Waterloo,  without  any  mishap. 

I  find  among  my  letters  from  Harcourt  invitations  in  1857  and 
1858  to  join  him  in  Switzerland  and  in  Austria.  Something  must 
have  prevented  us  in  1857  starting  so  soon,  for  later  in  the  year 
Gray  and  I  went  to  the  Pyrenees,  and  in  1858  a  family  death  pre- 
vented me  from  joining  Harcourt  on  a  fishing  expedition*  in  the 
Salzkammergut  which  I  should  have  enjoyed  greatly. 

In  March  1857,  I  went  with  Harcourt  to  hear  the  close  of  the 
debate  on  the  Chinese  (Arrow)  question  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
It  was  expected  that  Gladstone  would  speak  and  Palmerston  reply, 
and  that  the  Government  might  be  defeated,  as  a  few  of  their  sup- 
porters, including  an  uncle  of  Harcourt,  were  expected  to  vote  against 
them.  .  .  .  Gladstone  made  one  of  his  finest  speeches,  and  towards 
the  end  of  it,  he  said,  "  Having,  Sir,  adverted  to  the  arguments 
founded  on  the  municipal  and  international  law,  I  now  ask  how 
does  this  question  stand  on  the  higher  ground  of  natural  justice? 
I  say  higher  ground,  because  it  is  the  highest  ground  of  all.  My 
Right  Honourable  friend  was  forbidden  to  appeal  to  the  principles 
of  Christianity.  ...  As  it  seems  to  give  offence,  I  will  make  no 
appeal  to  these  principles,  but  I  will  appeal  to  that  which  is  older 
than  Christianity,  because  it  was  in  the  world  before  Christianity — 
to  that  which  is  broader  than  Christianity,  because  it  extends  to 
the  world  beyond  Christianity — and  to  that  which  underlies  Chris- 
tianity, for  Christianity  itself  appeals  to  it — I  appeal  to  that  justice 
which  binds  man  to  man."  .  .  . 

As  he  spoke,  the  thunder  of  his  voice  rolled,  and  he  raised  his 
arm  to  its  full  height,  as  an  appeal  to  Heaven  itself,  and  then  moved 


84  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1855 

it  majestically  across  as  if  to  the  full  breadth  of  the  world,  and  then 
dropped  it  to  that  which  underlies  everything,  and  binds  man  to 
man.  The  House  divided,  and  Cobden's  resolution  was  carried  by 
a  majority  of  16,  Ayes  263,  Noes,  247.  The  House  adjourned  at 
half -past  two. 

As  we  walked  away  to  the  Temple  Harcourt  remarked — "  If  I 
had  been  in  Parliament,  I  should  have  voted  for  the  Government, 
but  I  should  have  felt  uncomfortable  about  it  after  Gladstone's 
speech." 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  statement  that  Harcourt 
was  living  in  1855  in  Paper  Buildings  with  Butler  and  Gray. 
His  business  chambers  he  shared  with  Kenneth  Macaulay. 
He  lived  in  Paper  Buildings  until  1859,  and  was  able  at 
the  general  election  of  1857  to  vote  in  the  City  for  Lord 
John  Russell.  As  he  and  Butler  were  Liberals,  they  made 
their  fellow  lodger  go  to  the  poll  on  behalf  of  Lord  John  on 
the  ground  of  the  right  of  majority. 

But  although  Harcourt  established  his  position  at  the 
Bar  with  less  than  the  customary  delay,  there  was  a  moment 
in  1855  when  he  contemplated  turning  to  another  career. 
He  had  formed  as  long  before  as  1852  an  attachment  to  a 
young  lady,  a  member  of  a  Devonshire  family,  to  whom, 
in  the  August  of  that  year,  he  had  addressed  some  verses 
disclosing  his  thoughts  about  himself.  "  I  am  no  judge 
of  poetry,"  wrote  the  recipient  in  reply,  with  commendable 
caution,  "  and  that  the  lines  have  pleased  me  very  much 
is  no  proof  of  their  excellence.  I  can  only  assure  you  that 
they  are  not  thrown  away,  and  I  will  merely  add  I  hope 
one  day  to  resemble  more  than  I  do  now  the  character  they 
describe."  The  attachment  thus  begun  continued  for 
some  years,  and  it  is  from  the  diary  of  the  lady's  sister  that 
we  learn  that  Harcourt  at  one  moment  contemplated  throw- 
ing up  his  career  at  the  Bar.  Under  the  date  of  July  3, 
1855,  she  says  : 

There  has  been  a  most  awful  row  about  W.  V.  H.  He  has  written 
to  Lady  Canning  and  applied  for  the  place  of  Secretary  to  Lord 
Canning  in  India  without  ever  saying  a  word  to  Mama  or  Maimee. 

Whatever    the    cause    of    this    sudden    impulse    events 


i855]  A  LIFELONG  FRIENDSHIP  85 

decided  otherwise.     An  entry  in  the  diary  on  the  3oth  of 
the  same  month  reads  : 

Willes  is  made  a  Judge  of  India  and  he  has  given  his  business  to 
W.  V.  H. 1  So  the  latter  wrote  off  to  Lady  Canning  to  say  that 
circumstances  had  occurred  which  prevented  his  wishing  to  have 
the  place. 

It  only  remains  to  be  said  in  regard  to  this  episode  that 
Harcourt  and  the  lady  retained  their  friendship  throughout 
their  later  life,  and,  as  will  be  seen,  occasionally  corre- 
sponded. The  lady  married  a  distinguished  public  servant 
who  was  for  many  years  one  of  Harcourt's  kindest  and 
most  intimate  friends,  and  they  were  closely  associated 
the  one  as  a  Minister  of  the  Crown  and  the  other  as  Private 
Secretary  to  Queen  Victoria. 

1  "  When  Mr.  Justice  Willes  was  made  a  judge,"  wrote  Sir  J. 
Hollams  in  Jottings  of  an  Old  Solicitor  (1908),  "  he  suggested  to  many 
of  his  clients  that  they  should  send  papers  to  Mr.  Vernon  Harcourt. 
In  consequence  he  was  at  that  time  constantly  referred  to  as  the 
'  Codicil.'  " 


CHAPTER   V 
THE  SATURDAY  REVIEWER 

The  Saturday  Review — Liberalism  v.  Toryism — Opposition  to  Bright 
— Denunciation  of  Napoleon  III — Palmerston's  foreign  policy 
— Disraeli  and  Gladstone — The  Indian  meeting — Hits  at  The 
Times — Social  life — Tour  in  Switzerland  and  Italy — The  Kirk- 
caldy  Election — A  Kirkcaldy  Presentation. 

WHATEVER  the  passing  motive  which  led  Harcourt 
to  contemplate  going  to  India  with  Canning,  he 
had  no  reason  to  regret  his  change  of  mind.  Not 
only  did  the  promotion  of  Willes  to  the  Bench  enlarge  his 
opportunities  at  the  Bar,  but  a  new  and  more  brilliant 
phase  of  his  journalistic  career  opened  out  before  him  in 
the  autumn  of  1855  with  the  establishment  of  the  Saturday 
Review.  Cook  had  not  made  a  financial  success  of  the 
Morning  Chronicle,  and  when  that  organ  was  sold  to  the 
enemy  he  turned  to  weekly  journalism.  The  Saturday 
Review,  of  which  Alexander  Beresford  Hope,  who  had  married 
l</Lady  Mildred  Cecil,  was  the  principal  proprietor  and  of 
which  Cook  was  the  editor,  made  an  unusually  brilliant 
entrance  upon  the  stage.  No  journal  probably  ever  started 
with  a  more  accomplished  team  of  writers.  Cook  had 
brought  H.  S.  Maine  and  Harcourt  with  him  from  the 
Morning  Chronicle,  and  among  his  other  contributors  were 
G.  S.  Venables,  Thomas  Collett  Sandars,  the  editor  of 
J  Justinian,  Lord  Robert  Cecil  (afterwards  Marquess  of 
Salisbury),  G.  W.  Hemmings,  Fitzjames  Stephen,  Goldwin 
Smith  and  later  Walter  Bagehot,  and  other  men  of  present 
or  future  distinction.  The  paper  was  an  immediate  and  in  its 

86 


1855-59]  WIT   AND   HUMOUR  87 

way  an  unprecedented  success.  It  was  admirably  written, 
hit  freely  all  round  the  wicket,  and  was  critical  rather  than 
constructive.  "  If  any  one  into  whose  hands  the  Saturday 
mav  since  have  fallen  fancies  that  its  success  was  due  to 
political  pepper,  he  is  mistaken,"  wrote  Goldwin  Smith 
afterwards.  "  Its  tone  during  its  palmy  days  was  Epi- 
curean, and  this  was  the  source  of  its  popularity  in  the 
circles  by  which  it  was  chiefly  supported.  It  was  said  of 
us  that  whereas  with  the  generation  of  the  Reform  Bill, 
everything  had  been  of  the  highest  importance,  with  us 
nothing  was  new.^ltiothing  wa>^true,  and  nothing  was  of  any 
importance."  . 

It  was  an  attitude  which  admirably  suited  the  combative 
spirit  of  Harcourt,  and  the  ringing  blows  of  his  quarter- 
staff  and  his  boisterous  chaff  make  the  pages  of  the  Saturday 
nearly  seventy  years  afterwards  still  gay  and  refreshing 
reading.  The  articles  are  so  extraordinarily  alive  that  it 
is  easy  to  forget  that  their  themes  are  the  faults  and  foibles 
of  a  long  past  time.  Johnson  said  of  some  one  that  his 
writing  had  not  wit  enough  to  keep  it  sweet.  It  is  the 
riotous  wit  with  which  he  envelops  his  subject  that  makes 
Harcourt's  contributions  to  the  Saturday  as  fresh  as  if  the 
ink  was  still  wet  on  the  page  and  the  laughter  still  sounded 
in  the  ear.  It  is  Rabelaisian,  or  perhaps  rather  Dickensian 
wit,  appealing  to  the  plain  man,  without  a  hint  of  subtlety, 
but  broad,  direct,  flamboyant.  To  the  modern  taste,  the 
metaphors  and  allegories  in  which  he  revelled  will  seem 
sometimes  to  be  carried  to  excessive  length,  but  the  gaiety 
with  which  he  gores  and  tosses  his  victims  is  irresistible,  and 
behind  the  invective  there  is  so  much  good  sense  and  sound 
feeling  that  he  not  only  wins  the  laugh,  but  generally  carries 
the  argument.  He  was  now,  in  a  journalistic  sense,  the 
complete  master  of  his  instrument.  He  had  freed  himself 
entirely  from  the  stiff  and  formal  invective  of  "  The  Morality 
of  Public  Men,"  and  from  the  sometimes  stilted  English  of 
his  Morning  Chronicle  leaders.  He  writes,  as  it  were,  in 
his  shirt  sleeves,  out  of  a  full  mind  and  the  abundance  of 
his  animal  spirits,  using  the  racy  style  and  the  picturesque 


J 


88  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT       [1855-59 

illustration  which  afterwards  made  him  the  most  enter- 
taining platform  speaker  of  his  time.  His  contributions 
were  at  first  occasional,  but  as  the  paper  flourished  his 
connection  with  it  assumed  a  different  character.  In  an 
undated  letter  to  "  Dearest  Em  "  he  says  : 

Circuit  is  just  beginning,  but  I  must  write  a  line  before  I  am  off  to 
Chelmsford.  I  have  been  very  busy  legally  and  otherwise  lately. 
Professional  work  is  coming  in  regularly  and  steadily.  The  Saturday 
Review  has  prospered  so  well  that  the  proprietors  have  constituted 
five  of  us  into  a  regular  staff  with  a  good  salary,  so  that  we  write 
just  as  much  or  as  little  as  we  like,  which  is  much  more  satisfactory 
than  working  by  the  job. 

In  his  attitude  to  affairs,  parties  and  politicians  he  was 
still  very  much  of  a  free  lover.  He  had  been  a  Peelite  and 
was  now  a  Liberal,  holding  in  the  main  by  the  policy  of 
Lord  John  Russell,  but  with  reservations.  For  Lord  John, 
in  spite  of  his  zeal  for  parliamentary  reform,  remained  a 
Whig,  and  his  associates  were  chosen  from  the  great  Whig 
families.  As  Harcourt  remarks  in  one  of  his  articles  : 

Lord  John  Russell  returned  to  office  in  1846,  like  the  French 
emigrants,  having  learnt  nothing  and  forgotten  nothing  ;  and  the 
Government,  as  a  matter  of  course,  was  again  parcelled  out,  with 
cynical  contemptuousness,  among  Greys,  Russells,  Eliots, — and 
again,  Eliots,  Russells,  Greys.  Without  wishing  to  detract  from  the 
merit  of  particular  individuals,  people  began  to  be  sick  of  the  Whig 
bill  of  fare — toujours  perdrix.  Since  the  Reform  Bill,  there  have 
been  half  a  dozen  Whig  Cabinets  but  there  has  never  been  a  Liberal 
Administration . 

And  in  one  of  his  first  contributions  to  the  Saturday  Review 
(November  17,  1855),  he  wrote  the  obituary  notice  of  Lord 
John  as  the  "  Last  Doge  of  Whiggism,"  using  as  the  peg 
of  his  strictures  a  reminiscence  of  the  tomb  of  Manin,  the 
last  Doge  of  Venice.  He  has  no  hope  of  Whiggism  broaden- 
ing out  into  the  new  current  of  Liberalism  : 

The  struggle  of  Whiggism  in  these  days  to  transmute  itself  into 
Liberalism  is  like  the  attempt  of  an  old  mail  coachman  to  turn 
stoker.  He  fails  because  he  was  not  bred  to  the  trade,  and  does  not 
understand  it — because  it  is  alien  to  his  nature,  his  habits  and  his 
tastes.  .  .  .  The  mournful  interest  which  attaches  to  the  name  of 
Manin  will  belong  to  Lord  John  Russell  as  the  last  Doge  of  Whiggism. 


i855-59l  '  POT   AND    KETTLE  "  89 

But  if  he  despairs  of  Whiggism  as  the  instrument  of  reform, 
he  finds  Liberalism  vague  and  shapeless,  and  sets  himself 
in  a  series  of  articles  to  define  its  aims  and  principles. 
Liberals  are  always,  he  thinks,  at  a  disadvantage  as  com- 
pared with  Conservatives,  because  they  cannot,  by  definition, 
be  content  with  things  as  they  are,  but  must  be  prepared 
with  a  precise  answer  when  they  are  asked  what  they 
really  want.  A  constructive  policy  is  always  bound  to  be 
more  difficult  to  state  than  the  mere  maintenance  of  the 
status  quo.  Liberalism  cannot  live  on  past  achievements. 
It  must  live  iorihe  future  or  perish.  Thus  the  Free  Trade 
issue  "  is  a  thing  of  the  past,  as  purely  historical  as  the 
Glorious  Revolution."  Harcourt  was  to  live  to  see  it  on 
its  trial  once  more.  He  writes  on  March  21,  1857,  under 
the  homely  heading  "  Pot  and  Kettle  "  : 

It  is  not  the  metier  of  a  Tory  to  have  a  policy,  any  more  than  it  is 
that  of  a  king  to  be  a  democrat.  A  Tory  government  may  do  very 
well  without  a  policy,  just  as  a  country  gentleman  may  sit  at  home 
and  live  upon  his  rents  ;  but  a  Liberal  government  must  do  some- 
thing for  its  bread,  or  else  it  will  starve  like  a  merchant  without 
customers,  a  doctor  without  patients,  or  a  lawyer  without  clients. 
If  you  see  a  quiet  old  gentleman,  fast  asleep,  with  a  cigar  in  his 
mouth  and  his  feet  on  the  hob,  it  would  be  cruel  if  not  impertinent 
to  ask  him  where  he  is  going  to  ;  but  if  you  go  round  to  the  front- 
door, and  see  a  knowing  looking  "  party  "  on  the  box  of  a  drag,  with 
his  hat  on  one  side,  handling  a  team  of  screws,  and  an  Earl  in  a 
Windsor  uniform  behind,  blowing  a  long  tin-horn  and  touting  for 
passengers,  you  may  be  excused  for  inquiring  his  destination  and 
discussing  the  probability  of  his  getting  there.  ... 

.  .  .  With  a  fatal  blindness,  the  Liberal  party  seem  rushing  on 
to  their  destruction.  They  are  eagerly  helping  the  wolves  to  get 
rid  of  the  watchdogs.  Manchester  vies  with  London  in  seeking 
to  dismiss  the  men  who  have  really  stuck  by  the  cause  through  good 
report  and  evil  report.  The  article  in  request  now  is  a  dog  warranted 
not  to  bark.  A  Government  official  is  to  be  run  against  Messrs. 
Bright  and  Gibson,  and  Mr.  Cobden  is,  if  possible,  to  be  kept  out 
of  the  House  of  Commons.  Lord  John  Russell  is  to  be  discredited, 
and  Mr.  Currie,  good  easy  man,  thinks  he  is  going  to  squeeze  Lord 
Palmerston  into  Liberalism.  Did  so  foolish  a  bluebottle  ever  buzz 
on  a  chariot  wheel  ? 

The  reference  to  Bright  and  Cobden  is  interesting.  He 
wanted  the  watchdogs  to  be  in  the  House  to  bark,  but  he 


90  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1855-59 

had  not,  in  his  progress  to  the  Left,  arrived  at  the  Radical 
position.  He  was  moving  parallel  with  his  fellow  Peelite, 
Gladstone,  and  was  as  far  removed  from  Bright  and  Cobden 
on  the  one  hand  as  he  was  from  the  Whigs  on  the  other. 
From  Bright  he  differed  radically  on  the  question  of  parlia- 
mentary reform,  and  for  a  long  time  his  attitude  to  that 
great  man  was  hostile  and  scornful.  He  thinks  this  plainest 
of  plain  men  "  of  all  human  puzzles  the  most  perplexing." 
Like  Rob  Roy,  he  is  "  ower  bad  for  a  blessing  and  ower  good 
for  a  banning."  Harcourt  is  conscious  of  the  "  bold 
masculine  force  of  his  natural  and  not  uncultivated  elo- 
quence "  (an  engaging  concession  which  the  Harcourt  of 
later  years  would  have  enjoyed  as  much  as  any  one),  but  he 
does  not  like  his — Socialism  ! 

Socialism  is  the  legitimate  and  inevitable  corollary  of  Mr.  Bright's 
doctrine.  If  want  is  the  crime  of  the  Government,  then  the  duty  of 
the  Government  must  be  to  proviBe  against  want.  This  is  Socialism 
pure  and  simple.  It  begins  with  national  workshops,  and  ends 
with  what  Mr.  Carlyle  calls  a  "  whiff  of  grapeshot."  Mr.  Bright 
may  pretend  to  direct  his  attacks  against  the  aristocracy  alone,  but 
it  is  the  possessors  of  capital,  the  employers  of  labour,  the  great 
middle  class  of  this  country  who  have  real  cause  to  dread  his 
revolutionary  language. 

The  charge  of  Socialism  seems  an  odd  accusation  to  have 
been  brought  against  the  high  priest  of  Individualism,  but 
Harcourt  was  right  in  the  long  view.  The  Radicalism  of 
Bright  was  shaping  the  future  far  otherwise  than  Bright 
himself  foresaw,  and  Harcourt  himself  lived  to  declare  that 
"  We  are  all  Socialists  now."  But  if  at  this  time  Harcourt 
distrusted  the  views  of  Bright,  he  recognized  his  high 
courage  and  disinterested  character,  realized  the  importance 
of  the  presence  of  such  a  man  in  Parliament,  and  when, 
as  the  result  of  his  opposition  to  the  Chinese  War,  he  was 
rejected  at  Manchester  at  the  general  election  of  1857,  ne 
wrote  (May  9)  : 

It  may  be  very  convenient  for  an  Administration  to  rule  with 
undisputed  sway  over  submissive  mediocrities  ;  but  if  the  standard 
of  the  House  of  Commons  should  ever  be  permanently  degraded 
in  public  estimation  the  end  of  parliamentary  government  will  not 


l855-59]          'PREMATURE'1    PEACE  91 

be  far  off.     The  substitution  of  Potters  and  Turners  for  Brights  and 
Cobdens  is  not  a  process  which  will  bear  indefinite  extension. 

There  was  too  much  respect  for  Bright's  character  evident 
in  Harcourt's  attacks  on  him  to  make  those  attacks  quite 
convincing.  It  was  far  otherwise  with  two  other  persons 
against  whom  he  waged  relentless  war  in  the  Saturday 
Review.  In  spite  of  the  episode  of  the  Crimean  War  which 
had  made  England  and  France  allies,  Harcourt  retained 
his  profound  and  unchanging  distrust  of  Napoleon  III. 
The  war  in  which  that  adventurer  had  so  skilfully  involved 
this  country  had  come  to  a  close  on  March  30,  1856.  Its 
course  had  been  as  shameful  a  record  of  incompetence  and 
blundering  as  its  origin  had  been  discreditable,  and  in  the 
end  Napoleon  was  as  anxious  to  get  out  of  it  as,  two  years 
before,  he  had  been  anxious  to  get  into  it.  With  the  fall 
of  Sebastopol  and  the  death  of  Nicholas  the  miserable 
struggle  was  closed  and  a  peace  was  patched  up  on  the  basis 
of  Russia  relinquishing  her  control  over  the  Danube  and 
her  protectorate  over  the  Principalities  and  being  forbidden 
to  build  arsenals  on  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea.  Turkey 
emerged  triumphant,  thanks  to  the  arms  of  the  Christian 
Powers,  having  confirmed,  on  paper,  the  privileges  proclaimed 
in  1839  ^0  Christians  dwelling  in  the  Ottoman  Empire. 
But  of  the  fruits  of  that  squalid  war  nothing  endured. 
The  neutrality  of  the  Black  Sea  was  cancelled  in  less  than 
twenty  years,  and  the  massacres  of  Christians  at  Damascus, 
at  Lebanon,  in  Bulgaria  and  Armenia  were  the  comment 
upon  the  ally  for  whom  we  had  sacrificed  thirty  thousand 
lives  and  added  forty-one  millions  to  the  National  Debt. 
Harcourt  shared  the  popular  feeling  in  England  about  the 
"  premature  "  peace,  and  the  fact  that  Napoleon  was  the 
active  influence  in  bringing  it  about  added  to  his  abundant 
hatred  of  the  Emperor.  His  attacks  on  him  in  the  Saturday 
Review  touch  the  extreme  limit  permissible  in  speaking  of 
the  sovereign  of  a  friendly  state.  Of  the  French  Assembly 
he  writes  (June  13,  1857)  : 

For  what  purpose  this  fragment  of  a  parliament  was  stuck  up, 
it  is  rather  difficult  to  divine.  One  would  almost  suppose  that  the 


92  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1855-59 

Emperor  kept  it  only  as  an  amulet  to  ward  off  the  evil  eye  or  to 
avert  the  Nemesis  of  a  popular  tyranny. 

And  later  he  denounces  the  Emperor  and  his  associates  as 
"  that  little  gang  of  Italian  conspirators  who  took  the 
civilization  of  France  by  the  throat  on  the  night  of  the  2nd 
of  December."  On  another  occasion,  in  an  article  on  the 
prosecution  of  Montalembert  he  says  (November  6,  1858)  : 

The  Empire  has  existed  now  six  years,  but  since  the  night  of 
the  second  of  December  it  has  not  gained  one  real  convert — it  has 
scarcely  been  able  to  purchase  a  solitary  traitor.  Plundered,  insulted, 
gagged,  persecuted,  trampled  on — everything  that  is  noble,  virtuous, 
and  intelligent  in  France  has  opposed,  and  still  opposes  to  the  tyranny 
which  oppresses  it,  a  dignified  and  indomitable  resistance. 

He  had  abundant  occasion  soon  after  the  war  was  over 
for  the  expression  of  his  feelings  towards  Napoleon.  The 
prosecution  of  Montalembert  for  criticizing  the  French 
Government  outraged  his  sense  of  freedom  and  justice  alike. 
He  writes  to  his  sister : 

Harcourt  to  his  Sister. 

PARIS,  October,  1856. — •  ...  I  brought  a  letter  to  Montalembert 
and  received  a  very  civil  note  from  him  begging  me  to  come  next 
Friday  to  his  house,  apologizing  for  being  so  occupied  with  the 
prosecution  which  the  Government  is  directing  against  him  for  a 
private  letter  disparaging  to  the  Government  which  was  published 
without  his  knowledge  or  authorization.  The  friends  of  the  Emperor 
have  in  vain  dissuaded  him  from  pursuing  the  matter  further,  but 
in  vain.  The  question  of  the  prosecution  was  voted  on  yesterday 
in  the  Assembly  of  Deputies,  who  are  mere  dummies  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  carried  by  184  to  51.  It  is  only  surprising  considering  the 
way  the  Government  insisted  on  it  that  any  of  the  members  dared 
to  vote  against  it.  He  will  be  tried  next  week  by  the  Court  of  Police 
and  his  condemnation  is  therefore  certain,  as  the  Courts  of  Justice 
here  never  decide  against  the  Government.  Benguer  is  to  be  his 
Counsel  and  will  no  doubt  make  a  splendid  speech  which  I  shall  try 
to  hear.  It  will  be  very  interesting  to  meet  the  party  at  Montalem- 
bert's  on  Friday. 

When,  Montalembert  having  been  convicted  "  according 
to  plan,"  Harcourt  returned,  his  wrath  boiled  over  in  the 
pages  of  the  Saturday  Reveiw,  in  which  he  backed  "  the 
cause  for  which  Montalembert  lies  in  prison  against  the 
title  by  which  Louis  Napoleon  sits  on  the  throne."  He  had 


1855-59]  RIGHT   OF   ASYLUM  93 

a  little  later  a  more  popular  occasion  for  his  invective. 
The  French  demand  that  England  should  abandon  the  right 
of  asylum  because  of  the  evidence  that  the  Orsini  conspiracy 
against  the  life  of  Napoleon  III  had  been  hatched  in  England 
roused  him  as  it  roused  the  majority  of  Englishmen. 
Readers  of  Richard  Feverel  will  remember  how  the  boy  was 
moved  to  challenge  the  French  colonels  whose  addresses  to 
the  Emperor  denouncing  the  English  people  as  harbourers 
of  assassins  were  published  in  the  official  journal  of  the 
Empire,  the  Moniteur.  The  Conspiracy  Bill,  introduced 
to  modify  English  law  in  the  direction  demanded,  was  the 
immediate  cause  of  the  fall  of  the  Palmerston  Government 
in  1858.  When  in  the  autumn  of  that  year  Palmerston 
and  Clarendon,  then  no  longer  Ministers  of  the  Crown,  saw 
fit  to  pay  a  visit  to  the  Emperor  at  Compiegne,  Harcourt 
expressed  the  general  feeling  of  indignation  at  the  action. 
The  Orsini  case  was  the  occasion  of  the  first  of  the  long 
series  of  contributions  which  Harcourt  was  to  make  to 
The  Times.  Under  the  pseudonym  of  "  Lex  et  Consuetudo  " 
he  addresses  two  learned  letters  to  that  paper  on  the  right 
of  asylum  given  to  aliens  in  this  country.  In  the  second 
of  these  (February  3,  1858),  he  says  : 

Depend  upon  it  the  course  which  is  adopted  in  this  matter  is  of  the 
very  last  importance,  not  to  this  country  alone  or  to  this  present 
age,  but  to  all  nations  and  to  future  times.  England  is  a  city  set 
on  a  hill  that  cannot  be  hid.  To  her  alone  is  confided  the  charge  of 
the  sacred  beacon  which  casts  its  hospitable  rays  athwart  the  dark 
waters  of  illimitable  despotism.  It  behoves  us,  each  and  all,  in 
our  individual  and  collective  capacities,  to  labour  that  she  should 
do  nothing  unworthy  of  the  last  hope  and  refuge  of  Europe. 

II 

In  this  episode  two  cherished  antagonisms  of  Harcourt 
were  united.  If  there  was  any  one  who  inspired  him  with 
more  distrust  than  Napoleon  it  was  Palmerston.  The 
two  main  counts  on  which  Harcourt  attacked  the  Palmer- 
ston system  in  the  pages  of  the  Saturday  Review  are  the 
bullying  of  the  weak  and  truckling  to  the  strong,  the  latter 
especially  in  the  case  of  the  French  government.  A  spirited 


94  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1855-59 

foreign  policy  in  practice  meant  truculence  in  China  over 
the  case  of  the  Arrow,  and  in  Greece  over  the  wrongs  of 
that  typical  British  subject  Don  Pacifico,  but  subservience 
to  French  policy  in  great  matters.  He  parodied  the  Palmer- 
stonian  attitude  in  a  description  of  "Mr.  Tomkins  Abroad," 
and  was  unceasing  in  his  protest  against  Palmerston's 
submission  to  French  policy.  Writing  on  August  15,  1857, 
on  the  acquiescence  of  the  Government  on  the  question  of 
the  Moldavian  elections,  and  the  union  of  the  Principalities 
which  had  been  opposed  by  Great  Britain  and  Austria  in 
the  interests  of  Turkey,  he  says  : 

But,  after  all,  it  is  not  the  Eastern  aspect  of  the  question  which  is 
the  most  serious  part  of  this  miserable  affair.  It  affords  to  Europe 
another  conspicuous  and  shameful  proof  of  that  complete  subser- 
vience to  French  diplomacy  which  is  the  key-note  of  Lord  Palmer- 
ston's policy.  Ever  since  the  Emperor  dictated  to  our  Government 
the  premature  conclusion  of  the  Russian  war,  the  history  of  our 
foreign  affairs  has  been  one  series  of  submissions  to  the  Court  of 
France.  We  really  had  hoped  that,  on  this  occasion  at  least,  we 
might  have  dared  to  show  that  England  could  take  a  line  of  her 
own  in  the  affairs  of  Europe.  .  .  .  The  truth  is,  our  attitude  towards 
foreign  countries  is  that  of  a  man  who  on  every  occasion  takes  off 
his  coat  and  then,  when  his  adversary  squares  up  to  him,  humbly 
begs  his  pardon. 

He  rejoices  when  the  break  between  Palmerston  and  the 
Liberal  Party  at  home  and  abroad  is  final  and  incurable. 
"  The  fate  has  befallen  '  the  spirited  foreign  policy,'  which 
sooner  or  later  overtakes  all  impostures — it  has  been 
found  out."  And  in  an  article  on  February  20,  1858,  under 
the  heading  "  The  Great  Potato  Doctrine  "  (Harcourt  had 
a  rare  gift  for  the  comic  title),  he  urges  that  without  dis- 
turbing the  French  alliance  there  might  be  less  flattery 
on  the  part  of  England. 

We  are  asked  to  throw  the  weight  of  English  public  opinion  into 
the  scale  of  a  precarious  government  which  barely  maintains  a  blood- 
stained existence  by  the  sword,  against  all  that  is  immortal  in  the 
mind,  and  all  that  is  permanent  in  the  character  of  the  nation  which 
it  oppresses. 

He  was  profoundly  interested  in  the  two  men  who  were 
to  dominate  politics  in  the  next  generation.  Disraeli  he 


1855-59]    GLADSTONE'S  ARROW  SPEECH        95 

liked  personally  and  distrusted  politically,  while  Gladstone's 
moral  and  intellectual  qualities  inspired  in  him  a  reverence 
which  he  had  felt  for  no  politician  since  the  death  of  Peel. 
He  took  a  mischievous  delight  in  the  incongruity  of  Disraeli 
with  his  party.  "  What  do  the  Tories  mean  to  do  with 
Mr.  Disraeli  ?  "  he  asks,  and  he  coins  a  mot  that,  "  There  is 
but  one  Disraeli  and  the  Press  is  his  prophet."  Writing 
in  1857  on  the  prospects  of  a  general  election  he  showed 
a  very  clear  conception  of  what  must  inevitably  happen 
in  the  existing  constitution  of  parties.  He  knew  that  how- 
ever desirous  Derby  might  be  of  a  rapprochement  with 
Gladstone  and  his  friends  for  the  purposes  of  opposition, 
there  could  be  no  alliance  between  Gladstone  and  Disraeli. 
The  latter  desired  such  an  alliance.  Greville  records  on 
April  3,  1856,  conversations  which  show  that  "  Disraeli 
appears  to  be  endeavouring  to  approach  Gladstone,  and  a 
confederacy  between  these  two  and  young  Stanley  is  by  no 
means  an  improbability."  Harcourt  was  obviously  con- 
scious of  these  approaches,  probably  through  Stanley, 
with  whom  he  continued  on  close  terms  of  intimacy  and  of 
whose  high  character  and  liberal  tendencies  he  had  written 
in  the  Saturday  Review  with  cordial  praise.  But,  unlike 
Greville,  he  was  convinced  that  there  could  be  no  alliance 
between  the  brilliant  sceptic  and  a  man  to  whom  politics 
was  not  a  game  but  a  religion.  "  Mr.  Gladstone's  manly 
and  liberal  language,  both  written  and  spoken,"  he  says, 
"  on  the  subject  of  Naples,  affords  a  sufficient  guarantee 
that  he  has  no  sympathy  with  the  sycophancy  of  absolut- 
ism which  distinguishes  all  Mr.  Disraeli's  speeches  on  the 
foreign  relations  of  England."  The  moral  passion  with 
which  Gladstone  touched  political  issues  shook  Harcourt 
out  of  his  characteristic  vein.  Writing  to  his  sister  in 
March  1857,  ne  savs  : 

Mr.  Gladstone's  speech  was  indescribably  fine.  One  quite  fancied 
one  might  have  been  listening  to  one  of  the  managers  of  the  Warren 
Hastings  Impeachment. 

The  allusion  is  to  Gladstone's  speech  on  the  Arrow  case 
(referred  to  in  the  preceding  chapter).  That  case,  with 


96  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1855-59 

the  Indian  Mutiny,  filled  the  public  mind  at  the  time.  In 
the  previous  October  a  merchant  ship,  the  Arrow,  owned  by 
a  Chinese  merchant  and  manned  by  Chinamen,  but  com- 
manded by  an  Englishman,  was  boarded  by  a  local  mandarin 
who  carried  off  the  crew  on  a  charge  of  piracy.  The  Arrow 
was  not  a  British  vessel  and  did  not  carry  the  British  flag  ; 
but  Sir  John  Bowring,  the  British  representative,  seizing 
the  trumpery  and  dishonest  excuse  to  further  other  aims, 
demanded  the  release  of  the  crew,  and  when  that  was  refused 
ordered  Sir  Michael  Seymour,  who  was  in  command  of  the 
British  squadron,  to  bombard  Canton.  From  this  discredit- 
able beginning  sprang  a  long  and  costly  war.  Harcourt 
shared  the  view  of  this  shameful  episode  which  Lord  Derby 
put  forward  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  Cobden  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  Writing  in  the  Saturday  Review  on  February 
28,  1857,  he  pointed  out  that 

The  public  opinion  of  England  and  Europe  will  not  be  formed  on 
the  narrow  point  of  whether  the  Chinese  Government  were  or  were 
not  justified  in  boarding  the  Arrow.  The  real  question  which  we 
have  to  ask  ourselves,  and  which  the  historian  of  England  will  one 
day  have  to  answer,  is  this — "  Were  the  circumstances  such  as  to 
justify  the  English  fleet  in  bombarding  a  defenceless  city  ?  " 

The  debate  on  Cobden's  motion  of  censure  in  the  Commons 
led  to  the  defeat  of  the  Government,  and  in  Harcourt's 
opinion  Gladstone's  speech  turned  the  scale.  Writing  in 
the  Saturday  Review  of  March  7,  he  describes  that  speech  as 

.  .  .  worthy  of  the  best  days  of  English  oratory,  and  in  our  time 
unexampled  in  loftiness  of  thought,  felicity  of  expression  and  dignity 
of  delivery.  Those  who  have  read  it  only,  through  the  medium 
of  the  press,  can  form  but  a  faint  idea  of  the  effect  produced  by  the 
tone,  manner  and  solemnity  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  appeal  to  the  House 
to  redress  an  injustice  which  the  Executive  Government  had  covered 
with  its  approbation,  and  which  the  nobles  and  bishops  had  declined 
to  condemn.  This  oration  is  probably  one  of  the  few  instances  in 
parliamentary  history  in  which  the  issue  of  a  doubtful  deliberation 
has  been  influenced  by  a  speech.  On  this  occasion  (to  borrow  Mr. 
Gladstone's  own  words)  "  the  cause  was  worthy  of  the  eloquence, 
and  the  eloquence  of  the  cause." 

Palmerston  took  his  defeat  jauntily  to  the  country,  and 
came  back  pledged,  as  it  was  said,  to  nothing  but  "  a  spirited 


1855-59]  CHAFFS   THE   TIMES  97 

foreign  policy."  He  had  carried  the  election  not  merely 
in  the  teeth  of  the  Manchester  school,  but  against  Derby, 
Russell,  Gladstone,  and  Disraeli,  all  of  whom  had  denounced 
the  shameless  buccaneering  in  China.  Cobden,  who  had 
moved  the  Vote  of  Censure,  was  beaten  at  Huddersfield,  and 
Bright  and  Milner  Gibson  at  Manchester.  Lord  John 
Russell  kept  his  seat  in  the  City  contrary  to  general  expecta- 
tion, which  was  shared  by  Harcourt  who,  writing  to  his 
sister  on  the  eve  of  the  election,  said,  "  I  was  at  Lord  John's 
the  other  night.  He  is  in  great  spirits  though  I  believe  it 
is  pretty  certain  he  will  not  get  in  again  for  London." 

It  is  noteworthy,  in  view  of  the  famous  series  of  letters 
which  he  was  later  to  contribute  to  its  columns,  that  during 
the    first  two  years  of   his  connection  with  the  Saturday 
Review  one  of  Harcourt 's  most  constant  diversions  was  to 
chaff  The  Times.     It  is  often  very  good  chaff.     When  it 
criticizes  Admiral  Dundas  for  failing  to  accomplish  anything 
in  the  Baltic  and  tells  him  that  it  was  Nelson's  practice  to 
go  into  every  enemy  port  and  harbour,  he  shows  that,  on 
the  contrary,  Nelson  never  did  anything  so  foolish  ;   when 
Absolute  Wisdom,"  as  proved  by  a  circulation  of  sixty 
thousand,  finds  fault  with  the  Government,  Harcourt  defends 
the  Government ;    when  The  Times  ventures  on  advice  to 
[Lord  Clarendon  as  to  his  policy  at  the  Congress  of  Paris 
jhe  remarks  that  "  we  cannot  afford  to  compromise  our 
•eputation  in  deference  to  its  swagger  "  ;    when  objection 
is  taken  to  costermongers'   cries  the  Saturday  Reviewer 
.ds  that  the  costermongers  have  a  right  to  live  even  if 
.ey  "  disturb  the  noonday  slumbers  of  the  contributors  to 
Times."     He  reminds  the  unknowing  public  that  the 
.e  pen  does  not  operate  from  day  to  day  and  that  lapses 
•om  consistency  may  be  due  to  "  what  an  eminent  man 
called  the  we-gotism  of  journalism."     He  laments  that 
he  predominant  influence  exercised  by  journalists  is  unac- 
ompanied  by  that  "  first  security  for  public  and  private 
lorality  which  is  derived  from  the  consciousness  of  personal 
lentity   and   individual   responsibility."     It   was   a   bold 
iplaint  to  come  from  one  who  was  himself  an  anonymous 

H 


98  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1855-59 

journalist,  but  in  making  it  Harcourt  raised  a  question 
which  has  since  assumed  a  gravity  much  beyond  what  it 
possessed  in  those  days. 

His  Liberalism  was  still  uncertain  and  shaky  in  places, 
but  he  had  the  root  of  the  matter  in  him  in  his  enthusiasm 
for  liberty,  and  even  his  hostility  to  Russia  vanished  before 
the  courageous  action  of  Alexander  III  in  abolishing  serf- 
dom. Writing  on  this  subject  in  the  Saturday  Review  on 
October  16,  1858,  he  says: 

There  never  yet  was  a  sovereign  who  better  deserved  to  attract 
the  interest  and  sympathy  of  a  free  country  than  does  the  Emperor 
Alexander  in  the  great  work  on  which  he  is  now  engaged.  The  very 
nature  of  the  task  he  has  undertaken  will  inevitably  cause  the  policy 
of  his  Empire  to  approximate  more  and  more  to  the  cause  of  liberty 
rather  than  to  that  of  despotism  ;  and  perhaps  we  may  not  be  too 
bold  in  hazarding  the  conjecture  that  England,  hated  of  tyrants, 
may  one  day  find  in  emancipated  Russia  an  ally  against  the  Abso- 
lutist conspiracy  in  Europe. 

Of  his  life  during  these  days  there  are  glimpses  in  his 
letters  to  his  sister  at  York,  through  whom  he  mainly 
communicated  with  his  family.  Extracts  from  these  will 
serve  to  indicate  his  social  and  professional  activities. 
They  are  all  undated  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Sister. 

I  have  been  leading  rather  a  stagnant  existence  lately,  not  having 
had  much  totake  me  into  Court,  and  so  I  have  lived  almost  exclusively 
in  chambers.  Butler  and  I  have  made  acquaintance  with  an  Italian 
Count,  who  is  to  come  once  a  week  in  the  evening  to  brush  up  our 
Italian,  as  I  mean  to  spend  all  my  spare  days  in  Italy.  I  enjoy  it 
more  every  day  I  see  it.  ... 

Monckton  Milnes  and  a  few  others  are  in  town  and  we  have  pleas- 
ant evenings  sometimes  at  the  Cosmopolitan.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  My  companions  left  me  on  Saturday.  I  stayed  till  Monday 
by  myself  walking  about  the  Lake  Country,  on  which  day  I  went  to 
Lancaster.  F.  Wortley  and  I  finding  a  steamer  starting  for  Douglas 
in  the  Isle  of  Man  from  Morecambe  (near  Lancaster)  took  the  Isle 
of  Man  on  our  way  to  Liverpool,  leaving  Morecambe  at  2  p.m.  and 
arriving  at  8  at  Douglas  and  leaving  the  next  morning  so  as  to  arrive 
at  Liverpool  in  the  afternoon.  I  was  charmed  with  the  island,  and 
the  sea  being  perfectly  smooth  the  expedition  was  most  enjoyable. 


1855-59]  VISIT   TO   PARIS  99 

...  I  sat  at  dinner  by  Miss  Talbot  that  was,  the  imprisoned 
nun,  she  is  now  Lady  F.  Howard  ;  she  is  pretty  and  rompish  and 
seems  very  well  pleased  to  have  escaped  a  convent.  .  .  . 

...  I  went  down  in  a  hansom  with  Fortescue  to  the  Rothschild 
ball  at  Gunnersbury  which  is  near  Kew  ;  it  was  a  very  fine  show. 
The  amount  of  Jewesses  walking  about  studded  with  pearls  and 
diamonds,  and  Jews  in  blue  coats  and  brass  buttons  was  surprising 
— for  the  rest  dull  enough.  .  .  . 

...  I  am  glad  you  are  come  to  a  more  just  estimate  of  Swells. 
I  dined  yesterday  with  an  unobjectionable  one,  Lady  Newburgh, 
our  Venetian  friend.  .  .  . 

...  I  have  written  to  Thackeray  to  tell  him  that  he  will  be  fed 
if  he  chooses  at  the  Residence,  and  that  you  like  all  your  sex  are 
great  admirers  of  Vanity  Fair.  .  .  . 

...  I  have  been  writing  a  good  deal  in  the  Saturday  Review 
lately.  '  Making  Things  Pleasant '  and  '  The  Disraeli  Shave  '  are 
by  me  this  week.  .  .  . 

The  reference  to  the  fact  that  he  was  "  brushing  up  " 
his  Italian  with  an  Italian  Count  foreshadowed  a  second 
visit  to  Itaty.  This  he  made  in  October  1856.  He  kept 
his  sister  informed  of  his  travels  in  a  series  of  letters.  In 
the  first  written,  from  the  Hotel  Mirabeau,  Paris,  he  says  : 

.  .  .  Two  of  the  Sartoris,  one  of  whom  married  a  French  lady, 
Mme  de  1'Aigle,  are  my  companions  in  a  very  nice  set  of  rooms. 
Henry  Grenfell,  Sir  John  Aston,  G.  Barrington  and  many  others 
whom  I  know  are  here.  The  Chronicle  correspondent  acts  as  my 
cicerone — and  so  I  am  very  well  off.  On  Monday  I  went  to  the 
Cowley's  box  at  the  Opera.  She  is  lively  and  pleasant.  The 
Prophete  was  sung  very  ill  by  two  French  performers.  Last  night 
I  went  with  the  de  1'Aigles  to  the  Opera  Comique  where  a  piece 
was  played  which  has  had  a  great  run  in  Paris — "  VEtoile  du  Nord  "  ; 
the  subject  is  Peter  the  Great.  During  the  negotiations  on  the 
Eastern  question  there  was  great  doubt  whether  it  would  be  allowed 
to  be  performed.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  On  Sunday  Lady  Sandwich  has  promised  to  take  me  to 
Thiers  where  I  shall  meet  Mignet  the  historian. 

Continuing  his  journey,  he  writes  to  his  sister  on  his  way 
to  Marseilles  : 

I  am  writing  to  you  in  the  coupe  of  the  express  train  from  Paris 
to  Lyons.  It  is  a  large  comfortable  carriage  which  I  have  all  to 
myself  with  a  writing  table,  etc.,  in  which  to-night  (as  I  travel 
straight  through  to  Marseilles)  I  shall  lay  the  cushions  on  the  floor 
and  sleep  as  well  as  in  bed. 


ioo  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1855-59 

Tell  Ed.  it  is  well  worth,  the  extra  five  francs  one  pays  for  this 
place  de  luxe  as  it  is  called.  .  .  . 

The  final  letter  of  the  tour  is  written  from  Florence  on 
October  14,  and  is  full  of  enthusiasm  for  that  city.  "  Except 
Rome  and  Jerusalem,"  he  concludes,  "  there  can  be  no 
place  of  such  interest  as  this,  and  none,  I  think,  can  be  so 
beautiful." 

In  the  following  year  he  spent  his  holiday  in  Switzerland, 
and  the  record  of  his  experiences  is  contained  in  letters  to 
his  sister  and  his  mother.  One  letter  to  the  latter  will 
serve  to  indicate  his  adventures : 

Harcourt  to  his  Mother. 

LAGO  D'ORTA,  September  8,  1857. —  ...  I  must  now  give  you 
Cap.  2  of  my  journey.  My  last  letter  to  Em  concluded  my  visit 
toChamounix.  On  Monday,  August  31,  I  started  for  Martigny  by 
the  pass  of  the  Tete  Noire  which  is  not  a  hard  walk  though  it  takes 
seven  hours.  The  Russell  Gurneys  accompanied  me  to  the  top 
of  the  pass.  I  then  descended  through  beautiful  chestnut  groves 
into  the  valley  of  the  Rhone.  At  Martigny  I  found  a  diligence 
starting  at  6  p.m.  up  the  Simplon,  and  there  being  no  room  I  gave 
the  conductor  five  francs  for  his  place  and  travelled  all  night  to  Visp 
where  I  got  to  bed  for  a  few  hours  and  set  off  to  walk  to  Zermatt  at 
ten  o'clock.  It  is  a  hard  and  tiring  walk  of  nine  hours  and  I  did 
not  get  in  till  dark.  At  the  hotel  at  Zermatt  I  fell  in  with  Davies 
and  Hawkins,  two  fellows  of  Trinity,  friends  of  mine  (I  ought  to 
mention  that  at  breakfast  at  Visp  I  found  Frank  Freeman  who  was 
going  in  the  opposite  direction).  The  following  day,  Wednesday, 
was  dreadfully  wet.  However  Davies,  Hawkins  and  I  went  up  to 
the  Riffelberg  (  a  place  where  there  is  a  small  hotel,  corresponding 
somewhat  in  situation  to  the  Montanvert)  full  of  plans  for  crossing 
the  great  chain  of  Monte  Rosa  into  Italy  by  the  famous  pass  of  the 
Weiss  Thor.  On  my  way  up  I  examined  the  Corner  Glacier  which 
is  very  curious.  It  is  advancing  now,  which  is  the  case  with  few 
glaciers  in  Switzerland,  and  you  see  on  each  side  the  ground  ploughed 
up  and  trees  cut  down  as  if  only  yesterday. 

When  I  got  up  to  the  Riffelberg  I  found  all  the  beds  engaged  so 
I  had  to  sleep  on  the  table  in  the  guides'  salle  a  manger.  I  slept, 
however,  well  enough,  having  given  orders  to  be  called  at  three 
o'clock  if  the  weather  was  clear.  My  guide  accordingly  came  and 
pulled  me  off  my  table  and  we  were  all  off  at  four  o'clock.  In  five 
hours  we  mounted  the  great  Corner  Glacier  which  leads  by  the  foot 
of  the  highest  peaks  of  Monte  Rosa  into  the  great  Mer  not  de  glace 
but  of  snow  which  forms  the  basin  of  the  chain.  Here  we  saw 


l855-59]     ADVENTURE   ON  THE   ICE  101 

some  chamois  cantering  over  the  great  plains  of  snow  which  stretch 
all  around.  Leaving  the  Cima  de  Jazzi  on  our  right  we  arrived 
after  a  long  but  not  fatiguing  walk  of  six  hours  over  the  ice  and  snow 
at  the  summit  of  the  Weiss  Thor.  Here  we  should  have  had  a 
splendid  view  of  Italy,  but  though  the  weather  was  perfectly  fine 
on  the  Swiss  side  we  encountered  a  dense  cold  mist  which  rolled 
up  from  the  valleys  on  the  South  and  almost  froze  us  to  death  as 
we  sat  down  to  eat  on  the  summit. 

In  some  respects  perhaps  it  was  fortunate  as  it  hid  from  the 
inexperienced  the  dangers  we  were  about  to  encounter.  The  descent 
from  this  height  of  12,000  feet  is  almost  perpendicular  into  the 
valley  of  Macugnaga.  Forbes  writing  of  this  pass  says,  "  The  Pied- 
montese  shepherd  who  occupied  the  chalet  could  give  me  no  informa- 
tion respecting  it  and  the  range  appears  on  this  side  so  absolutely 
precipitous  that  I  could  hardly  convince  myself  that  any  track 
could  be  found  accessible  to  human  foot.  This  pass  is  mentioned 
by  almost  every  writer  on  Monte  Rosa.  Dr.  Simpson  says  it  is 
very  dangerous  but  does  not  state  that  he  had  conversed  with  any 
one  who  had  performed  it.  It  is  pretty  certain  that  it  has  been 
crossed  but  once  in  the  memory  of  men  now  living  and  then  by 
a  pretty  numerous  company." 

This  account,  alarming  as  it  sounds,  is  not  now  at  least  correct, 
as  it  has  been  crossed  by  many  Englishmen  in  the  last  few  years 
and  I  crossed  it  in  a  dense  mist  with  only  two  guides.  The  descent 
commences  with  a  table  of  snow  going  down  almost  perpendicularly 
not  wider  than  a  dinner  table.  I  can  fancy  it  would  be  nervous 
work  if  the  weather  was  clear  for  on  each  side  you  look  sheer  down 
into  the  valley  below,  12,000  feet.  However,  the  snow  was  soft, 
and  as  I  was  tied  with  a  rope  by  my  waist  to  a  guide  before  and 
behind,  and  as  I  sank  at  each  step  up  to  my  knees  there  was  no 
danger  of  slipping  or  falling  over. 

After  leaving  this  ledge  we  came  into  a  great  snow  basin.  Here 
was  the  only  really  alarming  part  of  the  passage  ;  for  five  minutes 
in  the  dense  fog  it  was  evident  to  me  that  my  guide  had  lost  his 
way  and  could  not  find  the  track  which  led  downwards.  I  have 
not  often  in  my  life  known  what  it  is  to  be  afraid,  but  I  confess  for 
those  five  minutes  I  was  very  uncomfortable  at  the  prospect  of 
having  to  spend  the  night  in  such  a  position.  However  the  mist 
lifted  for  a  minute,  and  they  hit  off  the  track  and  we  set  off  merrily 
climbing  down  the  sheer  face  of  the  rock  on  our  hands  and  knees. 
I  thought  at  one  time  my  hair  was  standing  on  end  but  was  relieved 
to  find  that  it  was  only  the  icicles,  which  had  formed  on  my  whiskers 
and  all  the  hair  which  was  exposed  to  the  fog.  We  got  down  without 
further  dangers,  except  an  avalanche  of  stones  which  narrowly 
missed  us,  and  arrived  at  Macugnaga  at  i  p.m.  I  went  to  bed 
directly  and  got  up  at  six  o'clock  to  a  good  dinner,  when  I  found 
my  companions  had  arrived  two  hours  after  me.  The  weather 


102  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1859 

being  bad  in  the  Val  Anzasca  we  started  off  for  Lago  Maggiore  on 
Saturday  and  arrived  at  Baveno  in  the  evening.  I  spent  Sunday 
there,  and  walked  over  Mt.  Monteone  here  on  Monday.  My  future 
movements  are  very  uncertain,  but  I  have  had  enough  of  the  moun- 
tains for  the  present,  and  unless  very  fine  weather  comes  I  think 
I  shall  walk  for  another  week  in  Italy  and  then  come  home  by 
Turin. 

His  next  holiday  excursion  was  to  Austria,  in  search  of 
good  fishing.  In  September  1858  he  writes  from  Vienna  to 
Spencer  Butler  in  London  imploring  him  to  join  him  at 
Ischl : 

Harcourt  to  Spencer  Butler. 

The  country  deserves  all  that  has  been  said  of  it ;  from  the  accounts 
I  hear  the  fishing  is  really  magnificent  and  September  is  the  best 
month  for  weather.  I  leave  this  in  a  few  days.  If  you  think  of 
coming  write  by  return  of  post,  paste  restante  Ischl,  to  say  what  day 
you  leave  England,  and  buy  at  Jones  in  Jermyn  Street  a  ten  foot 
fly  rod  pretty  stiff,  a  reel,  a  40  yard  line,  and  a  hank  of  ordinary 
and  extra  fine  prepared  gut.  I  have  flies  enough  for  both,  but  bring 
two  dozen  black  and  red  palmers  of  various  sizes.  If  you  come  I  can 
promise  you  good  fun. 

Ill 

Although  Harcourt  had  shown  no  eagerness  to  begin  the 
Parliamentary  career  on  which  his  mind  nevertheless  had 
long  been  fixed  as  his  ultimate  aim,  there  was  something 
impulsive  and  even  jocular  in  his  first  plunge  into  the 
electoral  field.  What  led  him  in  April  1859  to  8°  to  the 
Kirkcaldy  Burghs  to  fight  the  local  magnate  is  not  apparent. 
He  had  no  local  connections,  he  was  backed  by  no  party 
machine,  there  was  little  apparent  chance  of  winning,  and 
he  had  no  serious  political  hostility  to  his  opponent.  The 
constituency  at  that  time  had  a  meagre  roll  of  724  electors, 
and  had  been  held  for  eighteen  years  by  Colonel  Ferguson  of 
Raith,  a  local  land  and  coal  magnate  whose  position  was 
regarded  as  unassailable.  Me  professed  Liberal  principles, 
and  stood  for  Lord  John^Kussell  and  Reform,  but  he  was 
roundly  charged  with  neglect  of  his  parliamentary  duties. 
On  the  disgruntled  burgesses  of  Kirkcaldy  William  Vernon 
Harcourt  descended  from  London  without  any  credentials 


i859]         DESCENDS   ON   KIRKCALDY  103 

other  than  the  energy,  the  ability  and  the  buoyancy  which 
were  clearly  discernible  even  on  a  first  meeting.  The 
Kirkcaldy  malcontents  had  been  looking  for  a  local  Liberal 
candidate  to  oppose  the  sitting  member,  but  the  persons 
whom  they  had  approached,  as  Provost  Birrell  put  it, 
"  stood  aghast  at  the  bare  idea  of  contesting  these  burghs 
which  had  long  been  known  in  the  annals  of  the  country  as 
the  burghs  of  Raith,  not  the  Kirkcaldy  Burghs."  At  this 
juncture  Harcourt  appeared,  invited  them  to  meet  him  at 
the  Town  Hall  on  April  12,  1859,  anc^  convinced  them 
forthwith  on  his  own  unsupported  testimony  that  he  was 
the  man  to  release  them  from  the  "  feudal  superiority  " 
which  had  hitherto  governed  their  choice  of  a  representa- 
tive. 

It  was  a  boisterous  affair  which  resolved  itself  very  largely 
into  a  duel  between  the  Scotsman,  then  under  its  most 
famous  editor,  Alexander  RusseL  and  the  young  barrister 
from  London.  "  Sandy  Russel  used  to  smash  me  in  the 
morning  and  I  used  to  smash  him  at  night  "  was  Harcourt 's 
way  of  describing  the  battle  afterwards.  The  Scotsman, 
discussing  the  new  candidate,  complained  that  his  political 
antecedents  were  unknown,  and  that  the  Harcourt  family 
record  was  not  a  Liberal  one.  Nor  was  the  fact  that  his 
grandfather  was  an  archbishop  any  recommendation  in  a 
Scottish  constituency,  though  it  was  admitted  that  this  did 
not  constitute  a  disability.  "  A  candidate,"  said  the 
Scotsman,  "  has  appeared  to  contest  these  Burghs  with 
Colonel  Ferguson  ;  his  name  is  William  Vernon  Harcourt, 
but  beyond  this  we  know  neither  who  nor  what  he  is."  This 
was  Harcourt 's  real  difficulty,  and  the  point  on  which  he 
was  immediately  heckled  at  the  preliminary  meeting  in  the 
Town  Hall.  Why  should  the  electors  support  him,  a 
stranger,  who  came  provided  with  no  political  recom- 
mendation from  any  leader  of  the  Liberal  party,  against  the 
sitting  member,  also  a  Liberal.  He  claimed  to  be  a  follower 
of  Lord  John  Russell,  but  so  was  Colonel  Ferguson. 

The  only  case  put  forward  for  the  intervention  was  the 
need  of  emancipating  the   Burghs  from   the  shackles   of 


104  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1859 

feudalism.  "  Is  the  theory  of  representation  to  become  in 
practice  identical  with  that  of  hereditary  rights  ?  "  was  the 
keynote  of  his  election  address.  But  writing  to  his  sister 
Emily  he  frankly  treated  the  episode  as  a  holiday  adventure. 
"  Whether  I  succeed  or  not,"  he  said,  "  it  is  great  fun  and, 
what  I  care  for  more,  excellent  practice.  I  have  to  speak 
all  day  and  all  night,  and  assure  you  have  become  already 
quite  a  mob  orator.  ...  I  shall  spend  very  little  money 
and  assure  you  I  never  had  so  much  amusement  so  cheap. 
...  In  a  few  days  I  shall  be  able  to  judge  better  of  the 
chances  of  success,  for  which,  to  say  the  truth,  I  don't  very 
much  care."  His  lack  of  official  support,  however,  was  a 
source  of  disquiet  to  him  and  he  described  his  dilemma  in  a 
letter  to  Lady  Melgund  (afterwards  Lady  Minto)  : 

Harcourt  to  Lady  Melgund. 

KEIR,  near  DUNBLANE,  N.B.,  April  17,  1859. — Having  a  holiday 
of  canvassing  I  cannot  resist  taking  up  my  pen  to  pay  you  the 
Sunday  visit  which  must  be  omitted  to-day.  I  started  as  I  told 
you  I  intended  to  Scotland  on  Tuesday  night  and  on  Wednesday 
morning  I  found  myself  in  Kirkcaldy.  By  the  greatest  luck  it 
turned  out  that  a  Committee  of  discontented  electors  in  that  distin- 
guished borough  had  just  come  to  a  resolution  the  night  before  to 
look  out  for  a  new  representative.  Of  course  I  descended  among 
them  like  an  angel  from  heaven  on  a  special  mission  to  fulfil  their 
righteous  aspirations — in  fact  like  a  raven  with  an  address  in  my 
mouth. 

I  started  at  once,  made  a  thundering  oration  and  secured  the 
mob  on  my  side.  It  is  the  greatest  fun  you  can  possibly  conceive. 
I  am  all  day  surrounded  by  Scotch  Baillies,  Free  Kirk  Ministers 
and  other  interesting  specimens  of  northern  Zoology  who  regard 
me  as  a  sort  of  divine  speaking  machine. 

Of  course  Scotch  questions  were  a  little  difficult  at  first  but  I 
provided  myself  with  a  Shibboleth  which  answers  every  purpose. 
I  always  say  that  "  I  perfectly  concur  in  the  views  on  that  subject 
taken  by  Lord  Melgund."  This  formula  embraces  everything  from 
religion  down  to  public  houses  and  turnpike  roads. 

My  opponent  is  happily  universally  detested  so  that  I  enjoy  the 
agreeable  position  of  the  "  popular  Candidate."  Of  the  result  it 
is  not  easy  to  predict  anything  just  yet.  In  all  the  other  boroughs 
except  Kirkcaldy  I  have  a  good  majority,  but  of  course  the  Raith 
influence  is  strong  in  Kirkcaldy. 

I  send  you  a  copy  of  the  Scotsman  which  contains  a  very  bad  report 
of  my  speech.  It  makes  nonsense  of  a  great  part  of  it  and  leaves 


i859]         A   POLITICAL   FREE   LANCE  105 

out  all  the  really  important  part  at  the  end.  But  the  quarrel 
between  me  and  Russel  of  the  Scotsman  will  amuse  you.  I  am 
sorry  I  have  not  a  copy  of  his  answer  to  me  yesterday.  He  of 
course  attacks  me  violently  about  the  Saturday  Review,  but  I  shall 
answer  him  to-morrow.  I  stand  on  Lord  John  Russell  principles. 
The  Scotsman  declares  I  am  the  author  of  the  abusive  articles  which 
of  course  I  shall  deny  in  public  as  I  have  already  denied  it  to  you 
in  private. 

I  can't  tell  you  how  the  whole  thing  amuses  me.  I  am  becoming 
I  assure  you  quite  an  accomplished  mob  orator  and  whether  I  succeed 
or  fail  it  is  capital  practice.  None  of  the  respectable  people  in  the 
constituency  will  vote  for  my  opponent — the  difficulty  is  to  get 
them  to  vote  for  me.  They  naturally  enough  ask  "  Who  are  you  ?  " 
Our  friend  Russel  is  doing  everything  he  can  to  prejudice  them 
against  me  by  insinuating  that  I  am  a  Tory  in  disguise  !  Fancy 
that !  ! 

My  respectable  friends  of  the  Free  Kirk  say  why  don't  you  bring 
us  a  testimonial  from  somebody  we  know — in  which  I  must  admit 
there  is  a  good  deal  of  Scotch  prudence  and  sense.  If  I  had  thought 
of  it  I  certainly  should  have  asked  Melgund  for  a  character  before 
I  came  to  Scotland.  I  am  afraid  that  now  he  would  not  like  to  inter- 
fere. .  .  .  However  I  shall  fight  the  battle  out  as  it  is  not  in  my 
nature  to  give  in  when  I  have  once  begun.  It  will  in  any  event 
I  think  be  a  close  contest.  If  I  could  get  any  one  to  give  me  a  good 
Liberal  character  I  should  be  sure  to  win. 

I  have  stood  out  like  a  man  against  the  Ballot  and  find  the  people 
don't  really  care  about  it  when  you  have  the  courage  to  reason  with 
them.  .  .  . 

But  having,  with  characteristic  waywardness,  entered  the 
contest  as  a  free  lance,  Harcourt  could  find  no  Liberal 
statesman  ready  to  back  him  against  the  sitting  member 
who  claimed  to  be  as  much  a  Liberal  as  himself.  The  other 
side  telegraphed  to  Melgund  and  Russell  alleging  that  use 
was  being  made  of  their  names  in  favour  of  Harcourt  against 
Ferguson,  and  their  replies  disclaiming  support  of  the  new- 
comer were  posted  throughout  the  constituency.  The  report 
was  spread  that  he  was  a  "Tory  in  disguise"  and  an 
"  emissary  of  the  Carlton  Club."  This  caused  a  good  deal 
of  annoyance  to  Harcourt  in  his  canvass,  but  the  incident  did 
not  impair  his  good  relations  with  either  Lord  Melgund  or 
Lord  John  Russell.  Lord  Melgund  wrote  to  him  : 

The  receipt  of  a  telegram  (and  its  terms)  from  a  place  with  which 
I  have  no  connection  or  interest  whatever,  puzzled  me.  .  .  .  Party 


io6  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1859 

ties  and  old  acquaintance  with  the  Raith  family  would  have  made 
it  impossible  for  me  to  place  myself  in  an  antagonistic  position  t 
Colonel   Ferguson,  gladly  as  under  other  circumstances  I 
have  seen  your  success. 

And  Lord  John  Russell  himself  on  April  27  wrote  thus  to 
the  "  Tory  in  disguise  "  : 

You  will  see  that  when  appealed  to  I  could  do  nothing  else  than 
adhere  to  my  old  party  attachments.     With  your  position  and 
convictions,  no  one  would  have  the  least  chance  in  an  attempt 
brand  you  as  a  social  and  political  impostor,  nor  could  I  give 
least  countenance  to  such  an  unwarrantable  course. 

So   much   for   the   methods   of   political   warfare.     The 
result  of  the  poll  was : 

FERGUSON  312 
HARCOURT  294 

so  that  it  was  only  by  a  slender  majority  of  eighteen  votes, 
one  of  them  cast  by  himself,  that  the  "  representative  of 
J  feudal  superiority "  kept  his  seat.  There  were  exciting 
scenes  after  the  declaration  of  the  poll.  The  street  in  front 
of  the  hustings  was  filled  chiefly  by  working  men,  who  had 
not  then  acquired  the  right  to  vote  and  who  were  wit 
Harcourt  to  a  man.  It  was  in  allusion  to  this  fact  that 
Harcourt  made  one  of  his  most  effective  points  in  returning 
thanks  from  the  hustings  : 

I  remember  (he  said)  an  incident  in  the  life  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte. 
Once  in  a  certain  battle  the  French  appeared  to  be  getting  the  wor 
of  it  and  one  of  his  generals  seeing  this  expressed  the  fear  that  i 
a  battle  lost.     "  No,"  replied  Napoleon,  pointing  to  reinforceme 
which  he  saw  approaching,  "  I  think  it  is  a  battle  won." 
tinued  Harcourt)  it  seems  now  a  battle  lost,  but  (looking  rou 
the  cheering  multitude  whom  he  hoped  soon  to  see  emancipate 
I  think  I  see  what  will  make  the  tide  of  battle  turn. 

The  crowd  took  their  revenge  on  the  victor  by  refusing 
to  let  him  speak.    The  attitude  was  so  hostile  that 
Colonel  had  to  stay  in  the  inn  in  front  of  which  the  hustings 
were  placed  until  the  attention  of  the  mob  was  diverted 
when  he  started  for  home  by  a  circuitous  route.     As  soon  i 
it  was  known  that  he  had  gone  the  mob  started  in  pursuit  1 
intercept  him  at  the  gates  of  Raith.    The  excitement  was 


i859]  ON   SCOTTISH   GRAVITY  107 

so  intense  that  a  local  paper  put  it  on  record  that :  "  Even 
on  Sunday,  when  men's  thoughts  are  generally  supposed  to 
take  a  much  loftier  flight  than  on  week-days— alas,  for 
human  nature  ! — grave  and  reverend  sages  might  have 
been  seen  during  the  interval  between  services  arguing  as  to 
whether  ability  or  '  use  and  wont  '  was  henceforth  to  rule 
the  Burghs." 

The  Sabbath-breaking  sages  would  have  been  shocked  if 
they  had  known  in  what  hilarious  spirit  Harcourt  was 
writing  of  his  Kirkcaldy  adventure.  In  a  letter  to  Lady 
Melgund,  written  on  his  return  from  his  Scotch  raid,  Harcourt 
said  : 

Harcourt  to  Lady  Melgund. 

THE  TEMPLE,  Thursday  morning. — I  was  very  sorry  not  to  find 
you  at  home  for  I  assure  you  I  am  at  this  moment  like  Baron  Mun- 
:hausen's  horn  frozen  up  with  pent-up  laughter  and  write  to  you 
;o  thaw  it  out  of  me.  In  the  presence  of  my  Free  Kirk  friends  and 
supporters  I  hardly  dared  to  smile  and  I  sadly  want  a  vent  for 
congested  amusement  by  which  my  moral  pipes  are  likely  to  be 
burst. 

I  shall  probably  go  down  to-morrow  to  Strawberry  Hill  and  might 
oerhaps  have  come  to  see  you  at  Pembroke  Lodge  but  for  fear  of 
mubbings  past  and  to  come  in  that  quarter.  Seriously  I  am  sorry 
Lord  J.  thought  it  necessary  to  decline  my  personal  adherence.  For- 
tunately the  "  liberty  of  the  subject  "  secures  to  me  the  right  to 
remain  attached  to  his  principles  whether  he  will  or  not.  Is  it  not 
in  odd  state  of  things  at  present  in  politics  where  none  of  the  fol- 
[owers  choose  to  have  leaders  and  the  leaders  in  order  to  be  even 
ivith  them  don't  choose  to  have  followers.  However  I  will  (is  that 
scotch  or  English  for  I  have  ceased  to  be  quite  sure)  be  a  Liberal  and 
in  M.P.  in  spite  of  you  all,  and  then  I  shall  perhaps  be  all  the  better 
or  owing  to  the  Whigs  nothing  but — forgiveness. 
i  However  a  truce  to  all  this  stuff.  The  long  and  the  short  of  it 
Is  that  I  have  nothing  to  regret  for  I  have  had  the  very  best  fun  I 
•ould  possibly  have  conceived.  I  have  learnt  to  talk  to  mobs  which 
1 3  a  blessed  experience,  I  have  sat  under  the  Free  Kirk  and  am  greatly 
[  dified,  I  have  pitched  right  and  left  into  my  foes  and  have  returned 
i  .midst  the  benedictions  of  my  friends.  Can  human  felicity  reach 
k  higher  point  ? 

There  are  two  things  which  I  am  most  proud  of — 

(1)  I  have  kept  a  whole  Scotch  community  for  a  month  in  a  state 
>f  laughter  and  enthusiasm, 

(2)  I  have  made  them  put  their  hands  in  their  pockets,  for  the 
lectors  have  subscribed  four  or  five  hundred  pounds  for  a  testi- 


io8  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1859 

monial  to  me  and  the  non-electors  are  to  give  me  another.     Could 
Orpheus  even  have  done  more  with  the  stocks  and  the  stones  ?  .  .  . 
I  hope  you  think  that  Bully  of  the  North  and  our  good  friend  the 
Scotsman  got  the  worst  of  it. 

At  a  meeting  of  his  supporters  after  the  declaration  of 
the  poll  Harcourt  had  assured  them  that  on  the  passing  of 
the  next  Reform  Bill  they  would  find  themselves  with  a 
majority  of  more  than  eighteen,  and  one  owing  nothing  to 
feudal  superiority.  "  I  pledged  myself  to  tell  you  that 
feudal  superiority  was  dead.  I  tell  it  you  now — feudal 
superiority  is  dead.  ...  It  is  true  that  I  have  not  gained 
a  seat  in  Parliament,  but  yet  you  have  acquired  your 
independence." 

There  was  an  unusual  sequel  to  the  Kirkcaldy  incident. 
So  pleased  were  Harcourt's  supporters  with  their  candidate 
that  they  organized  a  public  presentation  to  him,  and  nine 
months  later,  in  January  1860,  Harcourt,  having  been 
married  in  the  interval,  went  with  his  wife  to  receive  from 
the  electors  a  trophy  in  the  shape  of  a  silver  epergne, 
representing  a  giraffe  under  the  shade  of  palm  trees,  and 
from  the  non-electors  a  silver  claret  jug.  The  local  paper 
related  with  conscious  pride  that  the  epergne  cost  £125  and 
the  jug  £33.  "  I  believe,"  said  Harcourt  on  his  return, 
"  that  I  am  absolutely  the  first  Saxon  who  has  ever  taken 
bullion  out  of  Scotland."  Whatever  the  merits  of  these 
pieces  of  plate — and  the  epergne  must  have  been  alarmingly 
Victorian — they  provided  the  occasion  for  a  remarkable 
speech  in  which  Harcourt  expressed  his  distrust  of  the 
Emperor  of  the  French  and  his  views  on  Reform.  In 
company  with  many  of  his  contemporaries  Harcourt  was 
at  that  time  uncertain  in  what  direction  Napoleon  III 
might  turn  for  adventure,  and  impressed  on  his  hearers 
the  need  of  answering  the  call  for  volunteers  in  case  of 
invasion. 

On  the  question  of  parliamentary  reform  and  of  taxation, 
the  future  author  of  the  Death  Duties  Budget  of  1894  was 
at  great  pains  to  dissociate  himself  from  the  doctrines  urged 
by  Bright  in  a  speech  at  Liverpool,  in  which  Bright  had 


i859]  DUEL   WITH    RUSSEL  109 


advocated  a  tax  on  the  realized  p™pejty-  of  the  country. 
Long  afterwards,  in  a  speech  at  the  Glasgow  Liberal 
Club  (October  9,  1891),  Harcourt,  recalling  the  Kirkcaldy 
episode,  said  : 

Now  my  introduction  to  Scotland  was  not  to  study  Scotch  meta- 
physics. I  came  in  a  different  capacity,  and,  I  think,  for  a  more 
practical  form  of  education.  It  was  when  I  was  exactly  half  my 
present  age  that  I,  for  the  first  time,  crossed  the  border  on  a  rash 
and  daring  adventure.  Audacity  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of 
youth,  and  I  came  down  to  Scotland  to  contest  against  the  feudal 
superior  of  the  place.  .  .  .  I  came  to  Scotland  under  great  disadvan- 
tages, not  being  a  Scotchman,  but  I  had  also  one  great  advantage 
—  I  had  a  letter  of  recommendation,  which  I  find  always  a  passport 
to  the  confidence  of  Scotland  —  I  had  the  vehement  hostility  of  the 
Scotsman  newspaper.  That  I  found  a  constant  source  of  support. 
It  was  very  agreeable.  But  the  Scofowaw  was  not  then  exactly 
the  same  newspaper  that  it  is  to-day.  It  was  under  the  conduct 
of  a  man  who  was  an  original  genius  —  I  mean  Alexander  Russel. 
He  was  a  man,  and  there  was  no  stupid  glum  philosophy  about  the 
newspaper  in  those  days.  It  had  a  lambent  wit  and  bright  temper  ; 
it  was  a  hard  hitter,  and  was  not  incapable  of  reason.  I  enjoyed  the 
contest  in  those  days  with  the  Scotsman  newspaper.  Mr.  Russel 
wrote  an  article  against  me  every  morning,  and  I  made  a  speech 
against  him  every  night,  and  in  the  intervals  of  business  he  came 
over  to  have  luncheon  with  me  at  Kirkcaldy.  And  for  many  years 
after  whenever  I  came  to  Edinburgh  I  used  to  write  a  letter  to  him 
and  I  said  —  "  My  dear  Russel  —  I  have  always  maintained  you  are 
the  most  nefarious  character  in  Scotland,  and  I  hope  you  will  come 
to  dine  with  me."  Well,  Gentlemen,  I  was  beaten,  as  happens  to 
everybody  in  their  time.  I  think  it  was  a  very  small  majority  — 
twenty  or  thirty  and  the  local  influence  prevailed.  .  .  . 


CHAPTER  VI 
MARRIAGE  AND   BEREAVEMENT 

Miss  Therdse  Lister — Lady  Theresa  Lister — Sir  George  Cornewall 
Lewis — A  journey  to  Alsace — Death  of  Julian  Harcourt — Birth 
of  second  son  Lewis  and  death  of  Mrs.  Harcourt — Sir  G.  Lewis's 
death — Har court's  devotion  to  his  little  son  Lewis — Last 
articles  for  the  Saturday  Review — Political  work  for  the  Govern- 
ment. 

WHO  do  you  think  will  be  here  on  Monday  ?  " 
wrote  Lady  Minto  1  to  Lady  Charlotte  Portal 
on  December  31,  1859.     "  I  give  you  twenty 
guesses  ;   William  Harcourt  and  his  wife  en  route  for  Kirk- 
caldy.     I  am  of  course  delighted,  and  as  William  (Lord 
Minto)  admires  the  lady  as  much  as  I  do  the  gentleman,  and 
as  they  are  coming  a  good  deal  out  of  their  way  to  see  us,  it 
is  to  be  presumed  that  all  will  be  pleased." 

The  marriage  had  taken  place  the  previous  month,  after  a 
short  engagement,  and  the  journey  to  Kirkcaldy  to  receive 
the  thanks  of  his  supporters  immediately  followed  the 
honeymoon.  It  was  in  August  1859  that  Harcourt,  writing 
to  Monckton  Milnes,  had  disclosed  his  engagement : 

HACKNESS  HALL,  SCARBOROUGH. — I  meant  (he  said)  to  have 
proposed  myself  to  you  for  this  week  at  Fryston,  but  unfortunately 
I  have  proposed  myself  to  another  party  of  the  other  sex. 

Tell  Venables  with  my  best  regards  that  I  am  going  to  marry  a 
friend  of  his  and  a  Radnorshire  woman,  and  that  I  await  his  con- 
gratulations at  Harpton  on  behalf  of  myself  and  Therese  Lister. 

I  don't  know  if  you  are  acquainted  with  my  fiancee.  If  you  are 
you  will  not  wonder  that  I  insist  on  being  married  in  a  month.  I 
go  to  Harpton  to-morrow. 

Sir  Cornewall  [Lewis]  told  me  he  never  could  see  that  any  body 

1  The  Lady  Melgund  of  the  preceding  chapter.  Her  husband 
succeeded  to  the  earldom  in  July  1859. 

110 


i859]  MISS  THERESE  LISTER  in 

wanted  any  thing  to  live  on  and  the  affair  is  all  arranged  on  this 
"  basis." 

"  You  are  going  into  a  very  distinguished  family,"  replied 
Milnes,  "  and  will  be  connected  with  the  only  man  in  England 
I  look  on  as  certain  to  be  Prime  Minister,  so  you  will  probably 
not  be  overlooked  by  a  grateful  country."  He  added  : 

I  never  forget  what  the  phrenologist  said  about  your  mixture  of 
benevolence  and  combativeness — but  I  find  it  difficult  to  get  others 
to  believe  it.  You  are  lucky  enough  to  have  found  one  person  who 
does.  May  you  be  as  happy  as  is  good  for  you  ! 

The  lady  on  whom  Harcourt's  affections  had  fallen  was 
Therese  Lister,  daughter  of  Lady  Maria  Theresa  Lewis,  the 
wife  of  Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis,  by  her  first  husband, 
Thomas  Henry  Lister,  of  Armytage  Park,  Staffordshire. 
Lady  Theresa  Lewis,  who  wrote  Lives  of  the  Friends  and 
Contemporaries  of  Lord  Chancellor  Clarendon,  was  the 
daughter  of  the  Hon.  George  Villiers  and  Theresa  Parker, 
daughter  of  Lord  Boringdon.  On  her  father's  side  she  was 
descended  from  the  historian  Clarendon,  and  on  her  mother's 
from  Oliver  Cromwell.  Her  brother,  the  fourth  Lord 
Clarendon,  had  been  Foreign  Minister  under  Palmerston  in 
1855  and  filled  the  same  office  in  the  Russell  Ministry  of 
1865  and  the  Gladstone  Ministry  of  1868.  Harcourt  had 
been  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  the  Clarendons  for  some 
time  and  had  travelled  with  them  in  1857.  But  a*  ^^  he 
was  not  altogether  persona  grata  to  Lady  Theresa  who, 
writing  to  Lord  Clarendon  on  November  28,  1858,  remarks, 
"  The  article  in  the  Saturday  Review  was  odious  and  bitter,  so 
I  suppose  it  was  Mr.  Harcourt's."  But  her  feeling  under- 
went a  change  as  the  acquaintance  grew,  and  we  find  her 
less  than  a  year  later,  in  a  letter  to  her  daughter,  recording 
with  great  satisfaction  that  "  Mr.  Reeve  told  your  Papa 
(Sir  G.  C.  Lewis)  that  he  had  heard  Willie  conducting  a 
legal  argument  before  the  Privy  Council  and  was  much 
struck  with  his  ability." 

There  is  a  pleasant  picture  of  Miss  Lister  in  a  letter  written 
by  Lady  Minto,  when  the  engagement  was  announced,  to 
Harcourt  himself.  "  Therese,"  she  says,  "  if  I  may  call  her 


H2  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1859 

so,  has  always  been  more  simpatica  to  me  than  any  other 
young  lady  of  the  London  world,  and  I  think  the  man  very 
lucky  whose  house  is  to  be  brightened  by  her  pleasant  looks 
and  joyous  unspoilt  nature."  That  the  engagement  was 
approved  by  the  bride's  family  is  evident  from  a  letter  to 
Lady  Theresa  from  her  sister-in-law,  the  Hon.  Mrs.  Edward 
Villiers  : 

The  Hon.  Mrs.  Edward  Villiers  to  Lady  Theresa  Lewis. 

August,  1859. — Hurrah  !  dearest  Theresa,  I  really  am  so  enchanted, 
but  a  very  great  surprise  to  me — not  so  to  the  girls — they  had  an 
inkling  of  it  from  their  cousins.  As  for  myself,  I  can  safely  say 
there  is  not  one  single  man  in  the  United  Kingdom  I  could  have 
welcomed  half  as  cordially.  He  took  my  fancy  from  the  very 
moment  I  first  saw  him.  I  think  him  splendidly  handsome  and  a 
calibre  of  intellect  that  soars  far  and  away  above  the  generality. 
I  found  him  perfectly  charming  at  Florence,  and  as  Therese  knows 
have  always  said  I  would  give  the  world  to  have  him  for  a  nephew. 
I  consider  him  the  most  valuable  addition  to  our  already  fascinating 
Family  Circle  !  And  this  is  saying  a  great  deal,  for  what  I  find  is 
that  when  one  sits  in  judgment  upon  the  men,  there  is  scarcely  one 
whose  society  is  worth  cultivating.  Of  course  there  is  no  denying 
that  William  has  a  good  deal  of  bitterness  in  his  nature,  but  then  you 
will  seldom  find  a  very  powerful  large  nature  without  it.  Your 
own  noble  brothers  have  all  some.  People  cannot  be  thoroughly 
in  earnest,  active  and  vigorous  for  the  right,  without  undue  violence 
and  prejudice  at  times  for  what  seems  to  them  all  wrong. 

Although  Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis  had  told  Harcourt 
that  he  never  could  see  that  any  body  wanted  any  thing  to 
live  on,  he  wrote  to  Canon  Harcourt  gravely  enough  on  the 
subject  of  the  finances  of  the  young  people.  Sir  George 
gave  the  figures  of  Therese 's  fortune.  He  thought  it  desir- 
able that  Harcourt  should  agree  to  insure  his  life  for  a  certain 
sum,  the  amount  to  be  considered.  He  expressed  the  hope 
that  the  marriage  "  not  advantageous  from  worldly  point 
of  view  "  would  be  to  the  happiness  of  both  parties.  He 
spoke  of  the  "  clear  and  correct  understanding,  well  regulated 
mind,  sound  moral  perceptions  "  which  gave  Therese  "  an 
excellent  practical  judgment  and  discreet  conduct  in  the 
affairs  of  life." 

Harcourt  wrote  to  his  sister  Emily  on  the  same  subject : 


BEGINS   HOUSEKEEPING  II3 

Harcourt  to  his  Sister,  Emily  Harcourt. 
I  know,  darling,  that  you  are  well  aware  of  the  deep 

that 


has  three  rooms  on  the  ground  floor,  two  nice  drawing-roorr 
then  two  bedrooms,  and  on  the  third  floor  three  very  Too!  roo 
besides  servants'  wings.     The  offices  are  particularly  good  and  the 

abou^T  7  ^  WhiCh  1S  V6ry  Cheap  ;  but  I  shaU  have  tVlay  out 
about  £00  on  altering  the  ground  floor.  My  principal  difficulty  at 
present  xs  to  know  where  the  money  is  to  come  from  to  furSsh  ^th 

SU°Se 


S°mehow 


;  The  marriage  took  place  at  All  Saints'  Church,  Princes 
Gate  on  November  5,  1859,  at  n  o'clock,  and  the  party 
breakfasted  afterwards  at  Kent  House,  Knightsbridge,  Sir 

.eorge  Lewis  s  London  residence.  Reginald  Cholmondeley 
with  whom  Harcourt  still  shared  rooms,  acted  as  best  man 

-he  relations  between  the  bride  and  her  mother  were  very 

•ose  and  affectionate,  and  the  greatest  satisfaction  was 
expressed  that  the  Harcourts'  house  in  Pont  Street  would 
be  within  easy  distance  of  Kent  House. 


ii 


The  union  proved  one  of  singular  felicity.    There  was  no 
more :  marked trait  in  Harcourt's  character  than  his  inex- 
haushble  fund  of  family  affection,  and  with  his  marriage 
s  amiable  quality  found  expression  in  abundant  corre- 
spondence with  his  new  relations,  especially  Lady  Theresa 
On  the  visit  to  Kirkcaldy  to  receive  the  "bullion  " 
he  wrote,  presumably  from  Lady  Minto's  house,  a  New 
Year's  letter  to  his  "dearest  Mum"  in  which  he  saidT 
Harcourt  to  Lady  Theresa  Lewis. 


j~tt5X£SX 


SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1860 

less  than  an  angel.  I  did  not  think  it  was  possible  to  love  so  much 
or  to  be  so  perfectly  happy  as  I  am,  and  I  hope  she  is  too.  But  it  is 
impossible  for  any  one  to  be  otherwise  than  good  to  and  with  her.  .  .  . 

A  little  later,  writing  from  the  family  home  of  the  Lewises 
at  Harpton,  he  says  : 

MY  DEAREST  MUM, — I  think  you  will  probably  like  to  hear  some 
account  from  me  of  your  little  daughter  and  my  little  wife.  Of 
course  yesterday  there  was  a  slight  supply  from  the  waterworks  in 
recollection  of  all  the  happy  birthdays  we  had  spent  with  you, 
especially  when  we  went  to  visit  her  little  maiden  room.  But  on 
the  whole  I  never  saw  her  better  than  she  has  been  here  and  it  is 
so  charming  to  find  ourselves  together  in  this  delightful  place.  I 
assure  you  I  am  fully  worthy  of  Harpton  and  all  its  beauties.  .  .  . 

Therdse  tells  me  this  is  the  day  on  which  "  W.  H.  wrote  a  very 
foolish  letter."  However  all's  well  that  ends  well  and  it  has  ended 
very  well.  You  are  quite  right  in  saying  that  the  day  on  which  the 
darling  was  born  ought  to  be  to  me  the  happiest  of  the  year. 

Mrs.  Harcourt  gave  birth  to  a  son  on  October  6,  1860. 
The  child  was  named  Julian  after  his  father's  friend,  Julian 
Fane,  at  whose  wedding  in  1856  Harcourt  had  acted  as 
best  man.  He  was  christened  at  All  Saints',  and  writing  to 
her  mother  on  November  15,  Mrs.  Harcourt  says  : 

I  am  sure  we  must  all  have  felt  grateful  and  happy  at  All  Saints' 
last  Monday  and  I  most  of  all,  for  I  am  so  much  happier  than  any 
woman  can  confidently  expect  to  be. 

The  child  was  delicate,  and  Mrs.  Harcourt's  letters  to  her 
mother  are  full  of  concern  about  his  health.  Another  cause 
of  disquiet  is  indicated  in  the  following  letter  of  Harcourt 
to  Lady  Theresa : 

I  assure  you  I  deeply  feel  all  I  ought  to  repay  you  in  affection 
for  having  taken  Therese  from  you.  In  fact  I  think  it  is  only  you 
and  I  in  the  world  who  can  really  know  all  she  is,  for  it  requires  to  be 
always  with  her  to  know  how  constantly  perfect  such  a  woman  can 
be.  It  is  the  in  variableness  of  her  goodness  that  makes  the  happiness 
of  being  continually  with  her.  .  .  .  Th6r6se  will  have  told  you  that 
in  spite  of  all  her  eloquence  she  was  not  able  to  persuade  Wilson 
that  I  had  an  "  enlarged  liver  "  though  she  said  it  always  used  to 
so.  However  I  have  no  doubt  Homburg  will  brisk  me  up. 

The  visit  to  Homburg  in  the  summer  of  1861  was  made 
double  debt  to  pay.     Harcourt  was  at  this  time  deep  in  the 


i86i-2]  BEREAVEMENT  II5 

interminable  Bode  case,  and  varied  the  drinking  of  the 
water  with  the  discussion  of  law  and  the  search  for  evidence 
in  the  case  which  Baron  de  Bode  was  bringing  against  the 
British  Government.  Mrs.  Harcourt  writes  from  Baden 
early  in  October  to  her  mother : 

Luckily  Mr.  Treitt  was  on  the  look  out  for  W.  and  came  to  this 
hotel  to  inquire  after  him  a  few  minutes  after  our  arrival  He  seems 
a  jolly  man  and  I  hope  will  be  useful.  They  are  now  deep  in  feudal 
law  ...  to  Strassburg  on  the  i8th  where  we  must  stay  several 
days  for  Willie  to  poke  about  amongst  attorneys,  etc  etc  So 
please  direct  there  on  the  i5th.  The  result  of  all  this  is  that  we  have 
given  up  the  Tyrol  and  are  going  to  pass  the  intervening  days  in 
Switzerland  near  Lucerne. 

After  some  days  in  Switzerland  Harcourt  was  at  Strassburg 
"  poking  among  attorneys."  "  He  is  in  good  spirits  about 
Bode,"  writes  Mrs.  Harcourt,  "  and  thinks  he  will  find  out 
some  important  points."  Evidently  he  did,  for  writing 
himself  to  Lady  Theresa  he  says  : 

Tell  Sir  C.  that  my  Alsatian  researches  in  the  Bode  business  have 
been  not  only  very  interesting  in  point  of  law  but  very  important 
in  point  of  fact  and  to  my  mind  establish  completely  the  fraudu- 
lent character  of  the  whole  story. 

Harcourt  and  his  wife  returned  to  meet  an  affliction  which 
had  long  been  threatened.  On  February  24,  1862  their 
child  developed  fever  and  brain  disorder,  and  on  March  2 
he  died.  It  was  a  bitter  bereavement  to  the  Harcourts 
Writing  to  Thomas  Hughes,  in  reply  to  a  letter  of  condolence, 
he  says : 

Harcourt  to  Thomas  Hughes. 

Many  many  thanks  for  your  kind  note.     We  are  indeed  in  great 

need  of  sympathy  and  kindness,  for  it  is  a  very  heavy  and  bitter 

I  really  feel  as  if  all  my  heart  strings  were  snapped.     My 

happiness  was  so  wrapped  up  in  the  little  boy  that  I  feel  it  must  be 

ery  long  before  either  mind  or  body  can  rally  from  the  shock 

My  wife  bears  up  with  an  angelic  courage.     Women  behave  better 

their  trials  because  they  are  better.     Watts  did  for  me  yesterday 

:ch  from  the  cold  clay  which  Perugino  might  have  envied. 

It  really  ls  my  little  darling  as  he  lived.     I  shall  write  on  his  grave 

this  angel  doth  always  behold  the  face  of  my  father  which  is 

javen."     We  carry  him  to-morrow  to  the  Nuneham  Churchyard 


n6  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1863 

and  put  him  to  bed  (as  I  have  so  often  done)  for  the  last  time. 
Thank  you   again. 

There  was  a  deeper  shadow  soon  to  fall  over  the  domestic 
happiness  of  Harcourt.  In  the  spring  he  took  his  wife 
abroad  to  Brussels  and  Liege  on  a  tour  of  healing,  and  as 
the  summer  advanced  he  found  relief  in  the  heavy  pro- 
fessional and  semi-public  tasks  which  were  falling  upon  him. 
But  early  in  the  following  year  he  suffered  a  crowning 
bereavement.  On  January  31,  1863,  his  wife  gave  birth  to 
her  second  son,  Lewis,  the  late  Viscount  Harcourt,  and  died 
on  the  same  day.  It  was  a  shattering  blow  that  darkened 
all  the  summer  of  1863.  We  find  him  in  the  following 
September  writing  to  Spencer  Butler  from  Scotland,  where 
he  had  been  on  a  round  of  visits  to  the  Argylls  at  Inverary, 
the  Russells  at  Meiklour  and  the  Mintos  at  Minto,  and  con- 
fessing that  he  can  find  no  relief.  "  I  don't  think  Scotland 
has  answered  to  me  either  in  health,  spirits  or  sport.  We 
have  had  very  little  shooting  for  our  money,  and  I  find  my 
mind  will  not  bear  a  month's  idleness  now.  I  require  the 
constant  anodyne  of  work." 

The  affliction  had  been  swiftly  followed  by  another  which 
added  to  the  sorrows  of  a  singularly  affectionate  nature. 
Two  months  after  Mrs.  Harcourt's  death  Sir  George  Corne- 
wall  Lewis,  her  step-father,  died  at  Harpton,  and  Harcourt, 
writing  from  thence  to  his  mother,  said  :  "To  me  the  loss  is 
irreparable.  He  was  a  second  father,  my  guide,  philosopher 
and  friend.  Another  sheet-anchor  of  my  life  is  severed, 
and  I  am  more  than  ever  adrift."  It  was  no  idle  figure  of 
speech.  There  are  few  more  stainless  figures  in  the  records 
of  English  public  life  than  that  of  George  Cornewall  Lewis.1 

1  The  son  of  T.  F.  Lewis  of  Harpton  Court,  Radnorshire,  he  had 
a  distinguished  career  at  Oxford,  went  to  the  Bar  in  1831,  began 
public  work  in  1833  as  a  Commissioner  to  inquire  into  the  condition 
of  the  poor  Irish  residents  in  the  United  Kingdom,  wrote  many 
important  books  on  history  and  philology — among  them  an  Essay 
on  the  Origins  and  Formation  of  the  Romance  Languages,  Enquiry 
into  the  Credibility  of  the  Early  Roman  History,  attacking  the  Niebuhr 
theory  of  epic  lays,  etc.,  Essay  on  the  Government  of  Dependencies, 
Treatise  on  the  Methods  of  Observation  and  Reasoning  in  Politics, 
etc. — sat  in  Parliament  for  Herefordshire  in  1847  and  for  Radnor 


i863]  CORNEWALL  LEWIS  n7 

All  his  contemporaries,  whether  political  friends  or  foes 
bear  witness  to/the  beauty  of  his  character,  and  the  range  of 
his  intellect.     He  was  distinguished,  said  Lord  Aberdeen 
for  "  candour,  moderation  and  the  love_cL±Rrth,"  and  in 
his  speech  on  the  motion  for  the  adjournment  of  the  House 
on  the  occasion  of  his  death,  Disraeli  said  of  him  : 

Although  he  was  a  man  most  remarkably  free  from  prejudice  and 
passion,  that  exemption  from  sentiments  which  are  supposed  in 
general  to  be  necessary  to  the  possession  of  active  power  had  not 
upon  him  that  effect  which  they  generally  exercise,  and  he  was  a 
man  who  in  all  the  transacts  of  life,  brought  4Tgreat  organizing 
faculty  and  a  great  epwer  of  sustained  perseverance  to  the  transac- 
tion  of  public  affairs. 


But  the  best  picture  of  this  remarkable  man  appears  in 
that  rich  mine  of  memories,  Greville's  Diary.  Under  date 
February  8,  1857,  Greville  says  : 

Gladstone  seems  bent  on  leading  Sir  George  Lewis  (Lewis  was  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  at  that  time)  a  weary  life,  but  Lewis  is 
'US  Se  ma?  t0  encounter  and  baffle  such  an  opponent,  for  he  is 
cold-blooded  &  a  fish,  totally  devoid  of  sensibUity  or  nervousness 

VfVT?*111^16  tCmp^  caln^and  resolute,  laborious  and 
indefatigable,  and  exceedingly  popular  with  the  House  of  Commons 
from  his  general  good  humour'and  civility,  and  the  credit  given  him 
,or  honour,  sincerity,  plain  dealing,  and  good  intentions 

The  saying  attributed  to  him  that  "  life  would  be  tolerable 
but  for  its  amusements  "  illustrates  both  his  humour  and 
his  gravity.     Harcourt  was  always  attracted  by  the  qualities 
character  and  intellect,  and  in  falling  in  love  withTherese 
jster  he  fell  under  the  moral  and  political  influence  of  her 
step-father.    The   contact   with   Cornewall   Lewis   shaped 
s  conception  of  Liberalism,  and  corrected  his  judgment. 
'  sat  with  that  humility  which  mingled  so  curiously  with 
rather  despotic  temper  at  the  feet  of  his  step-father  and 
ought  his  counsel  on  all  public  and  professional  questions 
SSP^JJPalgafiL  (afterwards  Earl  of  Selborne),  whose  liking 
Harcourt   was   never  more   than   temperate,   perhaps 

?  Qfill<;d  successively  the  posts  of  Secretary 
(I847)>  Financial  Secretary  to  the  Treasury 

(I855)>  Home  Secretary 


n8  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1863 

because  of  the  latter's  incurable  Erastianism,  wrote  on  Sir 
George  Lewis's  death  : — "  The  death  of  Sir  George  Lewis, 
in  the  full  maturity  of  his  powers,  was  a  public  misfortune. 
.  .  .  For  Harcourt's  weak  points,  no  corrective  could  be 
more  salutary  than  the  guidance  of  such  a  man." 

Harcourt  was  conscious  both  of  his  debt  and  his  loss,  and 

made  recognition  of  them  in  a  characteristic  way.     The  son 

who  had  come  into  the  world  when  the  mother  left  it,  had 

jbeen  christened  in  the  name  of  Reginald,  after  Harcourt's  old 

I  friend  Reginald  Cholmondeley,  but,  after  Cornewall  Lewis's 

•  death,  he  was  christened  again  at  Nuneham  in  the  name  of 

Lewis,  Lord  Clarendon  acting  as  his  godfather.     In  that 

child,  the  shattered  affections  of  Harcourt  centred  with  an 

intensity  that  continued  unbroken  to  the  end  of  his  life,  and 

became  a  legend  of  the  social  and  political  world.     Lady  St. 

\>  Helier  has  left  a  touching  description  of  Harcourt's  devotion 

to  his  motherless  boy  in  her  Memories  of  Fifty  Years  : 

How  long  it  seems  since  I  used  to  go  and  sit  by  the  bedside  of  the 
dear,  thin,  pale-faced,  delicate  little  boy  to  whom,  as  a  great  treat, 
I  brought  early  strawberries.  Sir  William  Harcourt  was  then  living 
in  an  old-fashioned  house  in  Stratford  Place,  and  what  time  he  could 
spare  from  his  political  and  legal  work  was  devoted  to  his  son.  No 
more  tender  or  devoted  nurse  ever  watched  over  her  charge,  and 
though  his  methods  and  treatment  were  not,  perhaps,  in  accord  with 
the  first  principles  of  health,  one  cannot  scrutinize  too  severely  the 
regime  which  nurtured  and  brought  up  Mr.  Lewis  Harcourt.  Deep 
down  in  the  heart  of  every  child  there  is,  I  believe,  an  instinctive 
revolt  against  the  system  of  spoiling  which  too  indulgent  parents 
are  wont  to  carry  out,  and  I  am  quite  sure  that  that  instinct  was 
fully  developed  in  him,  for  in  his  quiet  way,  he  recognized  that  his 
father  was  wrong  in  acceding  to  his  ill-regulated  appetite  for  un- 
wholesome luxuries.  Sir  William  was  rough,  often  impatient, 
but  no  one  could  see,  as  I  used,  the  father  and  child  together  without 
realizing  how  tender  and  affectionate  he  was.  Perhaps  it  was  the 
memory  of  my  affection  and  friendship  for  the  little  boy  that  spared 
me  the  treatment  he  used  sometimes  to  mete  out  to  other  people, 
but  through  the  many  years  I  knew  him,  in  all  the  stress,  turmoil, 
and  conflict  of  his  political  life,  in  all  his  bursts  of  deep  indignation, 
his  bitter  attacks  on  his  opponents,  and  his  natural  pugnacity,  I 
never  could  forget  the  peep  I  had  had  into  the  heart  of  the  other  Sir 
William,  who  used  to  sit  by  the  little  sick  boy's  bedside. 

When  Henry  Fox  was  told  that  his  young  son,  Charles 


i863]  FATHER  AND   SON  H9 

James,  was  pulling  his  gold  watch  to  pieces,  he  replied, 
'  Well,  if  he  wants  to  pull  it  to  pieces  I  suppose  he  must,"' 
and  Harcourt's  idolatry  of  the  little  Loulou  was  of  the  same 
unregulated  kind.     The  joy  he  got  out  of  the  companionship 
was  unceasing.     He  bridged  the  gulf  of  years  by  assuming  a 
boisterous  rompishness  himself  and  elevating  Loulou  to  the 
dignity  of  an  equal.     In  1867  he  had  printed  cards- 
Mr.  William  Vernon  Harcourt 

and 
Mr.  Lewis  Harcourt 

at  home. 
Westcombe  Lodge, 

Wimbledon  Common  (Putney  Station). 

The  removal  from  Pont  Street  to  Wimbledon  Common 
was  in  order  that  his  boy  might  be  in  the  country.     Harcourt 
himself  drove  into  work  in  a  tea-cart,  and  Loulou  used  to 
meet  him  in  the  evening  at  the  top  of  Putney  Hill  and  be 
driven  by  his  father  through  the  horse-pond  on  the  Common. 
The  fiction  of  equal  comradeship  with  which   Harcourt 
delighted  to  play  was  shared  by  the  family.     "  Months  have 
passed  since  I  saw  Mr.  Lewis  Harcourt,"  writes  Clarendon 
to  Harcourt  when  the  boy  was  three,  "  and  I  shall  be 
delighted  to  renew  my  acquaintance  with  him.     I  often 
think  of  the  happiness  he  is  to  you."     "  I  am  spending  Christ- 
mas in  London  with  Loulou,"  Harcourt  writes  to  Julian 
Fane  when  Loulou  was  four.     "  You  would  have  laughed 
to  see  us  dine  in  state  on  Christmas  Day.     L.  in  his  finest 
clothes  and  a  crown  at  one  end  of  the  table  and  I  in  my 
black  velvet  court  suit  and  knees  and  buckles  at  the  other, 
drinking  solemn  toasts  in  fits  of  inextinguishable  laughter." 


in 


While  the  incidents  of  his  brief  married  life  passed  rapidly 
from  happiness  of  an  unusual  completeness  to  a  sorrow  no 
less  complete,  Harcourt  was  making  great  advances  in  his 
professional  and  political  standing.  His  definite  journalistic 
career  ended  with  the  issue  of  the  Saturday  Review  of  April  2, 
1859-  No  doubt  his  work  at  the  Bar,  where  his  practice 


120  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1859-62 

was  assuming  considerable  dimensions,  made  the  suspension 
inevitable.     Much  as  he  delighted  in  the  work— and  no 
journalist  can  ever  have  got  more  pleasure  out  of  his  calling — 
it  was  impossible,  even  for  a  man  of  his  energy  of  mind  and 
gifts  of  industry,  to  pursue  three  careers  indefinitely,  and 
the  fall  of  the  brief  Derby  administration,  followed  by  the 
General  Election  which  took  him  to  Kirkcaldy,  served  as  a 
convenient  occasion  to  close  his  connection  with  the  Review 
that  he  had  helped  to  make  famous.    The  fall  of  the  Govern- 
ment had  occurred  over  the  franchise  question,  which  had 
for  years  past  and  was  to  be  for  several  years  to  come  the 
standing  issue  of  domestic  politics.     On  that  issue,  Harcourt 
had  made  his  first  appearance  as  a  publicist  in  the  columns 
of  the  Morning  Chronicle  while  he  was  still  an  undergraduate 
at  Cambridge  ten  years  before,  and  one  of  the  last  two 
"  leaders  "  that  he  wrote  for  the  Saturday  Review  of  April  2, 
1859,  was  devoted,  apropos  of  the  defeat  of  the  Government, 
to  the  same  prolific  theme.     Disraeli,  anticipating  the  "  leap 
in  the  dark  "  of  eight  years  later,  had  introduced  "  a  so-called 
Reform  Bill  "  of  fancy  franchises  which,  while  frightening 
the  Tories,  dissatisfied  the  Whigs,  and  angered  the  Radicals. 
Harcourt  wanted  reform,  but  he  was  critical  of  all  parties 
on  the  subject— most  critical  of  Bright.     Generally  speaking, 
/he  was  in  sympathy  with  Lord  John  Russell,  but  he  was 
^  critical  of  him  too.     In  an  article  in  the  Saturday  on  the 
introduction  of  the  Disraeli  scheme,  he  said : 

If  the  truth  must  be  told,  there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  bunkum, 
not  to  say  of  downright  dishonesty,  on  all  sides  about  this  question 
of  Reform.  All  parties  in  turn,  and  almost  all  politicians,  have  for 
several  years  past  made  it  a  practice  to  give  vague  pledges  and  hold 
out  indistinct  expectations  on  a  subject  on  which  it  is  obvious  that 
they  felt  no  very  strong  interest.  ...  A  politician  who  pledges 
himself  to  a  Reform  Bill  ought,  in  common  honesty,  to  have  made 
up  his  mind  as  to  the  existence  of  certain  specific  evils  which  he 
proposes  to  remedy,  and  as  to  the  method  by  which  he  expects  to 
cure  them.  .  .  .  Lord  John  Russell  promises  a  Reform  Bill  just  as  he 
might  announce  another  volume  of  the  life  of  Mr.  Fox  or  an  historical 
essay  on  John  Hampden.  Lord  Palmerston,  too,  becomes  a  reformer 
in  his  old  age,  and  undertakes  to  reconstruct  the  fabric  of  the  Con- 
stitution in  the  same  jaunty  spirit  in  which  he  undertook  to  revolu- 


1859-62]         REGISTRATION   INQUIRY  I2I 

tionize  the  Indian  Government.  And  now,  to  drown  the  whole 
come  the  leaders  of  the  Conservative  Party  with  their  charlatan 
cry  of  a  Reform  Bill  to  satisfy  all  parties. 

The  result  of  the  General  Election  was  the  return  of  the 
Liberals  with  a  majority  of  forty-eight,  and  when  the  new 
Parliament  met  the  Derby  Government  was  beaten  in  an 
amendment  to  the  Address  moved  by  Lord  Hartington 
Palmerston  was  called  on  to  form  a  new  ministry,  and 
Gladstone  and  Lord  John  Russell  rejoined  him,  the  former 
as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  and  the  latter  as  Home 
Secretary. 

,    Although  Harcourt  had  not  got  his  foot  in  Parliament 
he  was  now  a  person  of  consideration  with  the  Government 
His  marriage  at  this  time  gave  him  powerful  connections 
with  the  Ministry,  and  we  find  him  writing  to  Lord  Clarendon 
protesting   against    the    Government    practice    of   sending 
special  information  to  The  Times,  and  receiving  an  elaborate 
explanation  from  Clarendon  who  pointed  out  that  The  Times 
could  not  be  considered  a  Government  organ,  for  "  one 
leading  article  generally  is  at  variance  with  the  other  and 
both  cannot  represent  the  opinions  of  the  Government  " 
t  was  on  the  eve  of  his  marriage  also  that  Harcourt  received 
from  Cornewall  Lewis,  his  future  father-in-law,  a  commission 
some  importance.     The  new  Liberal  Government  were 
pledged  to  Reform,  and  although  the  introduction  of  a  Bill 
was  deferred  till  the  following  spring,  the  preliminary  work 
was  put  in  hand  in  the  autumn.     Under  Lewis's  instructions 
Harcourt  carried  out  an  inquiry  into  the  changes  in  the 
register  which  might  be  expected  to  ensue  if  the  proposals 
which  Lord  John  had  in  mind  became  law.     These  were 
the  reduction  of  the  basis  of  the  country  franchise  to  a  /io 
ental  and  of  the  borough  qualification  to  £6.     A  limited 
scheme  of  redistribution  was  attached. 
The  inquiry,  which  was  the  beginning  of  a  close  connection 
the  Government,  was  carried  on  by  Harcourt  appar- 
ently m  the  midst  of  his  honeymoon,  for  on  New  Year's 
Day,  1860,  when  on  his  way  to  Kirkcaldy,  he  writes  to 
icwall  Lewis  from  York  giving  the  details  of  his  investi- 


122  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1859-62 

gation  into  the  effect   of  the  proposed  changes  on  the 
electorate  of  Scarborough,    It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue 
this  inquiry  at  length,  or  to  publish  the  extensive  corre- 
spondence which  passed  between  Harcourt  and  Cornewall 
Lewis   on   the   subject.     The   discussion   is  interesting  as 
showing  how  limited  the  proposed  reform  was.     It  was  not 
expected  on  either  side  to  add  more  than  200,000  voters  1 
the  register,  and  in  view  of  what  has  happened  since  it  is  a 
curious  comment  on  the  timidities  of  the  time  that  so  trifling 
a  measure  of  change  as  that  contemplated  should  have  been 
the  subject  of  controversy  for  a  generation.     When  the 
Reform  Bill  was  introduced  by  Lord  John  Russell  in  the 
spring  it  aroused  no  enthusiasm  and  was  withdrawn  in  May. 
But  the  inquiry  was  useful  to  Harcourt.     It  gave  him  that 
mastery  of  the  subject  of  electoral  reform  and  of  registration 
which  established  his  authority  in  regard  to  these  questions 
in  later  years. 

But  perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  achievement  of 
court  at  this  time  was  the  skill  and  energy  with  which  he 
disposed  of  a  grotesque  claim  which  had  been  before  the 
Courts  and  both  Houses  of  Parliament  for  three  generations. 
This  was  the  notorious  Bode  case,  to  which  reference  has 
been  made.     It  arose  from  the  Anglo-French  Conventions 
for  the  compensation  due  to  British  subjects  whose  property 
had  been  seized  during  the  Revolutionary  wars,  and  related 
to  estates  and  salt  mines  in  Alsace,  alleged  to  have  been 
assigned  by  the  father,  a  German  nobleman,  to  the  claimant, 
his  son  and  a  British  subject  by  birth.    The  Courts 
given  decision  after  decision  on  points  of  law,  and  Bode 
claim  had  been  considered  by  Committees  of  both  Houses, 
but  the  claimant  persisted.     As  Counsel  for  the  Treasury 
before  a  new  Select  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  : 
1861,  Harcourt  showed  conclusively  how  shadowy  were  the 
foundations  of  the  claim,  and  that  the  awards  already  given 
under  the  Convention  were  for  losses  suffered  because  the 
owners  were  British  subjects.     He  proved  that   a  great 
part  of  the  romantic  story  which  had  gone  to  create  tte 
Bode  legend  had  arisen  thirty  years  after  the  event. 


1859-62]          PALMERSTON'S  FORTS  123 

Select  Committee  were  unable  to  complete  their  sittings 
owing  to  the  late  period  of  the  session,  but  the  Report  of  the 
proceedings  as  far  as  they  had  gone  was  sufficient.  The 
Baron  retired  to  Russia  and  the  Treasury  heard  no  more  of 
the  claim  for  the  present,  though  years  later  another  claimant 
came  on  the  scene. 

In  another  connection  Harcourt  was  called  in  to  the 
service  of  the  Government.     The  country  was  once  more 
disturbed   about   the  intentions   of  Napoleon   III,   whose 
action  in  using  the  cause  of  the  liberation  of  Italy  in  order 
to  annex  Savoy  and  Nice  had  incurred  the  severe  hostility 
of    the    Government.     Harcourt    was    always    ready    to 
denounce  Napoleon,  and  he  had  cordially  supported  the 
new  Volunteer  movement  during  his  candidature  at  Kirk- 
caldy,  though  he  was  soon  to  base  his  idea  of  defence  entirely 
on  the  "  blue  water  "  doctrine.     In  answer  to  the  public 
alarm,  Palmerston,  in  a  letter  dated  December  15, 1860,  made 
a  demand  on  the  Exchequer  for  ten  millions  sterling  to  be 
spent  in  the  fortification  of  Portsmouth,  Plymouth,  Chatham, 
and  Cork.     The  proposal  nearly  caused  a  complete  break 
between  Palmerston  and  Gladstone.     The  latter,  speaking 
at  Manchester  on  the  1862  Budget,  complained  that  the 
country  had  forced  the  Government  to  undertake  needless 
expenditure,  and  when  he  introduced  his  Budget  he  got 
some  support  from  Disraeli  who  denounced  "  bloated  arma- 
ments," and  urged  some  agreement  with  France.     At  the 
suggestion  of  Cornewall  Lewis,  who  was  now  (1861)  Secretary 
State  for  War,  Harcourt  wrote  a  pamphlet,  with  the 
motto  "  Hannibal  peto  pacem,"  in  defence  of  Palmerston's 
tifications.     The  pamphlet  has  disappeared,  but  in  The 
Times  of  May  21,  1862,  there  appears  a  long  letter  signed 
istoncus,"  in  which  the  writer  makes  Disraeli's  phrase 
about  "  bloated  armaments  "  the  text  of  a  formidable  attack 
on  Disraeli's  defence  of  the  Emperor  of  the  French.     "  In 
Italian  policy,"  he  says,  "  Mr.  Disraeli  assumes  that  the 
objects  of  England  and  France  are  identical.     Since  when, 
I  should  like  to  know,  has  the  colleague  of  Lord  Malmesbury 
hscovered    this   remarkable   harmony?"    And   then   he 


i24  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1859-62 

proceeds  to  quote  from  the  speeches  of  Lord  Derby,  the 
leader  of  Disraeli's  party,  the  severest  indictments  of  France 
and  the  "  despotic  "  Emperor  of  the  French  as  the  source 
of  a  mischievous  policy  in  Italy  and  of  the  disquiet  in  Europe 
and  in  this  country. 


CHAPTER  VII 
HISTORICUS 


Hostile   feeling  in   England-Delane   and   Harcourt-A   Plea   for 

Jefferson  Davis-Declaration  of  neutrality-The  "recognition  " 

issue-The     Trent    incident-A    duel    %*h    Hautefeuille- 

the  Alabama— Harcourt's  contention   on  behalf  of 

tne  British  Government. 

THE  public  were  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of 
Historicus."    Harcourt  had  embarked  in  the 
previous  autumn  on  the  famous  series  of  letters 
which  he  wrote  to  The  Times  under  that  name  on  the  grave 
that  now  chiefly  occupied  the  mind  of  the  country 
In  1861  the  smouldering  fire  that  had  long  menaced  the  peace 
of  the  United  States  had  burst  into  flames.    The  Southern 
States  had,  on  the  election  of  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency 
declared  for  secession  from  the  North,  had  fired  on  the  Union 
flag  at  Fort  Sumter,  and  had  plunged  the  country  in  civil 
The  struggle  raged  for  four  years,  and  throughout 
that  time  the  relations  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
Federal  Government  were  of  the  most  delicate  character 
:onstantly  verging  on    complete  rupture.     The  causes  of 
irritation  were  many,  and,  though  history  has  laid  the  chief 
burden  upon  this  country,  they  were  not  wholly  one-sided, 
the  first  crisis  was  precipitated  from  Washington, 
reward  the  American  Foreign  Secretary,  conceived  the  idea 
that  civil  strife  might  be  averted  by  external  strife,  and  that 
by  an  appeal  to  the  common  patriotism  against  the  foreigner 
nation  might  be  reunited    within  itself.     Hence  the 
paper  of  April,   1861,  entitled  "Some  Thoughts  for  the 
Jtata  Consideration/'  in  which  he  proposed  to  divert 


126  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1861-65 

the  public  mind  from   the  domestic  issue   by  creating  a 
quarrel  with   Europe  at  large.    He  proposed   to  demand 
from  Spain  and  France  explanations,  "  categorical  and  at 
once,"  of  their  proceedings  in  the  West  Indian  Islands  and 
Mexico,  also  "  explanations  from  Great  Britain  and  Russia," 
to  "  send  agents  into  Canada,  Mexico  and  Central  America  to 
rouse  a  vigorous  continental  spirit  of  independence  in  this 
continent  against  European  intervention,"  and  if  satisfactory 
explanations  were  not  received  from  Spain  and  France  ' 
convene  Congress  and  declare  war  against  them." 
counsel  of  panic,  and  though  the  wisdom  of  Lincoln  modified 
the  dispatch  and  saved  the  situation,  it  created  a  disastrous 

impression.  . 

No  such  folly  was  needed  to  imperil  the  situation  in  Eng- 
land.   The  attitude  of  society  and  the  Press  was  over- 
whelmingly hostile  to  the  North  in  the  early  years  of  the 
war     It  would  not  be  just  to  assume  from  this  that  the 
intellectual  and  wealthy  classes  in  England  were  in  favour 
of  slavery.     They  were  not.     But  though  the  slavery  issue 
lay  at  the  root  of  the  struggle,  that  fact  was  not  so  clear  to 
the  contemporary   judgment  as  it  is  to   the  judgment  of 
history.     It  was  masked  by  the  secession  issue.    The  rival 
interests  of  the  North  and  South  caused  both  to  disguise 
or  at  least  to  blur  the  real  question.     The  South  did  so 
because  they  knew  that  their  "peculiar  institution"   of 
slavery  did  not  furnish  a  ground  on  which  they  could  hope 
to  win  the  active  sympathy  of  nations  to  whom  slavery  was 
an  unholy  practice.    The  North  did  so  because  they  did 
not  enter  the  war  with  the  idea  of  abolishing  slavery,  but 
preserve  the  Union,  and  at  the  same  time  prevent  the  exten 
sion  of  slavery  to  territories  outside  those  in  which  it  already 
existed.     It  is  true  that  before  his  election,  Lincoln  had 
made  his  famous  declaration  that  no  nation  could  continue 
"  half  slave  and  half  free,"  but  his  own  general  attitude  was 
more  exactly  represented  by  his  statement  that  he  looked 
for  abolition  to  be  a  long  process,  perhaps  occupying  a 
century.     He  would  not  permit  the  extension  of  the  evil,  but 
apart  from  that  he  was  concerned  to  avoid  the  disruption  o 


1861-65]         AMERICAN  CIVIL  WAR  I2; 

the  Union  rather  than  to  secure  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and 
it  was  not  until  his  proclamation  of  emancipation  in  the 
darkest  hour  of  the  war  that  the  true  issue  was  presented 
clearly  and  unequivocally  to  the  world. 

From  this  time  the  tide  turned,  and  popular  opinion  began 
to  overwhelm  the  prejudices  of  society  and  the  Press.     The 
sympathies  of  aristocratic  and  governing  England  were  with 
the  South  because  the  South  represented  their  own  stock  and 
their  own  traditions.     The  colonization  of  the  South  had 
been  carried  out  in  the  spirit  of  the  old  landed  aristocracy 
and   like   appealed   to   like   across   the   Atlantic.     All  the 
hostility  which  a  privileged  and  monarchical  society  enter- 
tained towards  the  Republic  was  directed  against  the  indus- 
trial and  democratic  North  whose  foundations  were  laid  by 
the  Puritan  migration  of  1620.     Conservative  England  had 
never  reconciled  itself  to  the  Republic,  and  the  break  between 
the  two  elements  in  the  United  States  seemed  to  offer  what 
the  contemporary  Times  called  the  opportunity  of  pricking 
"  the  bubble  of  the  Republic."     In  short,  it  was  hostility 
to  the  Union  and  not  support  of  slavery  that  made  all  the 
powerful  influences  in  English  society  take  the  side  of  the 
South  and  inspired  what  Cobden  described  as  "  the  diabolical 
tone  of  The  Times  and  the  Post." 

It  was  on  the  part  which  he  played  in  this  great  controversy 

Harcourt  founded  that  reputation  as  an  international 

lawyer  which  was  subsequently  recognized  by  his  election 

as  the  first  holder  of  the  Whewell  Chair  of  International  Law 

at  Cambridge.     The  problems  that  arose  between  England 

and  the  United  States  as  the  war  proceeded  called  for  an 

instructed  and  competent   interpretation  of  the  duties  of 

neutral  nations  towards  belligerent  nations,  and  the  letters 

Histoncus  "  in  The  Times  supplied  this  requirement 

with  a  luminous  force  and  a  wealth  of  learning  that  pro- 

undly  influenced  the  course  of  events  and  made  them  a 

permanent  contribution  to  the  discussion  of  the  relations 

nations  in  time  of  war.     The  choice  of  The  Times  as  the 

medium  of  these  famous  papers  was  creditable  alike  to  Har- 

ourt  and  Delane.     They  had  been  personal  friends  since 


128  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT     [1861-65 

'  they  were  neighbours  in  the  Temple  ten  years  before,  but  in 
the  columns  of  the  Saturday  Review  Harcourt  had  been  a 
ceaseless  critic  of  the  policy  of  The  Times,  and  on  the  main 
issue  raised  by  the  Civil  War  in  America  the  two  men  were 
remote  from  each  other.  Harcourt  stood  throughout,  not 
i/ only  for  political,  but  for  moral  neutrality,  and  had  no 
sympathy  with  the  "  diabolical  tone  "  of  The  Times.  But 
that  great  newspaper  gave  him  the  ear  of  the  world,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  Delane  recognized  the  journalistic  value  of 
so  weighty  a  discussion  and  so  powerful  a  contributor.  He 
groaned  occasionally,  however,  under  the  demands  which 
Harcourt's  voluminous  pen  made  upon  his  space. 

In  one  letter  Delane  tells  Harcourt  that  he  seems  to  be 
departing  from  the  judicial  spirit  of  his  contributions  ; 
but,  generally  speaking,  the  temper  of  the  manifestoes  is 
calm  and  argumentative.  His  intellect  was  engaged  in  the 
struggle  more  than  his  feelings,  and  his  main  concern  was, 
in  the  language  of  Francis  Homer,  "  to  reinspire  a  deference 
to  solemn  precedents  and  established  rules  "  in  the  relation 
of  nations.  On  the  issue  of  the  war  itself  he  was  with  the 
l&orth.  His  general  view  was  expressed  later  in  the  letter 
which  he  wrote  when  the  war  was  over  and  Jefferson  Davis's 
life  was  in  the  balance.  In  the  course  of  this  letter  (June 
15,  1865),  which  was  a  plea  for  clemency  to  Davis,  he 
said  : 

I  have  never  been  able  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  right  of  seces- 
sion. I  have  read  the  great  arguments  of  Webster  and  Calhoun 
V/  on  either  side  of  this  subject,  and  they  appear  to  have  exhausted  the 
discussion.  For  myself  I  cannot  doubt  on  which  side  the  deliberate 
judgment  of  a  lawyer  and  a  statesman  should  incline.  .  .  .  The 
truth  is  that  the  Federal  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  from 
the  commencement,  a  clumsy  and  almost  cowardly  compromise 
between  two  parties  of  antagonistic  and  almost  irreconcileable  views, 
one  of  whom  desired  Federal  unity  and  the  other  State  independence. 
That  fundamental  and  original  rent  in  the  body  politic  of  America 
was  skinned  over,  but  never  healed.  From  that  day  to  this  the  party 
of  Hamilton  and  the  party  of  Jefferson  have  represented  two  hostile 
camps,  whom  a  series  of  compromises  more  or  less  sound  alone  kept 
from  breaking  out  into  open  hostility.  The  irrepressible  question 
of  slavery  at  last  precipitated  the  struggle  and  the  issue  has  been 


i86i-65]       HOLDING  THE   BALANCE  129 

referred  to  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword.  I  do  not  regret  the  award 
which  the  ordeal  of  battle  has  delivered.  I  believe  that  a  decision 
has  been  pronounced  which  is  for  the  lasting  benefit  of  the  human 
race.  .  .  . 

They  [the  South]  have  committed,  it  is  true,  the  greatest  of  political 
faults,  that  of  attempting  a  revolution  which  could  not  possibly  be 
successful.  But  if  the  error  was  immense,  the  expiation  has  also 
been  terrible.  By  an  appeal  to  force  they  have  accomplished  nothing 
but  the  absolute  destruction  of  their  cause  and  the  utter  ruin  of  its 
supporters.  The  retribution  is  an  awful  one,  and  might  satisfy 
the  rancour  even  of  the  most  insatiable  foe.  If  prevention  be  the 
proper  end  of  punishment,  can  any  one  pretend  that  the  execution 
of  a  single  political  victim  could  add  anything  to  the  terrible  lesson 
which  is  read  in  the  fall  of  Richmond,  the  ruin  of  Charleston,  and 
the  desolation  of  the  homes  and  the  lands  of  the  South. 

But  though  his  sympathies  were  with  the  North,  he  pre- 
served through  the  long  discussion  a  judicial  detachment 
from  the  merits  of  the  quarrel,  and  aimed  solely  at  stating 
the  legal  case  as  each  new  issue  between  the  countries  arose. 
His  intercourse  with  the  Government,  and  especially  Lord 
John  Russell,  the  Foreign  Secretary,  became  so  close  and 
constant  that  it  was  assumed  in  the  United  States  that  he 
was  the  semi-official  voice  of  the  Ministry.  Nor  was  the 
opinion  wholly  without  foundation.  Harcourt  was  the 
spokesman  of  English  policy  to  the  unofficial  world,  but  he 
was  also  in  no  small  degree  the  author  as  well  as  the  defender 
of  that  policy.  He  not  only  justified  action  when  it  was 
taken,  but  he  largely  dictated  the  nature  of  the  action  by 
the  force  of  his  preliminary  arguments.  At  each  critical 
stage  it  was  his  robust  thought  and  his  astonishing  industry 
in  the  pursuit  of  precedents,  especially  precedents  provided 
by  the  jurists  of  the  United  States,  that  clarified  the  dis- 
cussion and  cleared  the  path  to  reasonable  decisions.  Read 
in  the  light  of  the  verdict  which  history  has  passed  upon 
events,  the  letters  are  as  remarkable  for  their  wisdom  as 
for  their  learning.  In  no  capital  instance  has  time  reversed 
the  judgment  which  "  Historicus  "  pronounced  in  the  heat 
of  a  debate  which  constantly  trembled  on  the  verge  of  war. 
Sometimes  that  judgment  served  the  interests  of  the  South, 
sometimes  the  interests  of  the  North,  but  always  it  stood 

K 


130  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1861-65 

for   neutrality   not   merely   according    to   the   letter,   but 
according  to  the  spirit. 

In  the  first  serious  question  that  arose  he  came  into  con- 
flict with  the  North  and  the  friends  of  the  North  in  this 
country.  Within  three  weeks  of  the  proclamation  of  the 
blockade  of  the  Southern  ports  by  the  North,  Great  Britain 
recognized  a  state  of  belligerency,  and  issued  a  declaration 
of  neutrality.  The  fact  created  great  bitterness  of  feeling 
in  the  North,  and  led  to  the  first  suspicion  of  the  intentions 
of  this  country.  It  was  argued  that  the  South  were  "  rebels  " 
and  that  to  recognize  them  thus  hastily  as  belligerents  was 
an  affront  to  the  cause  of  the  Union  and  an  act  of  unfriendli- 
ness to  the  North.  The  grievance  continued  to  rankle 
throughout  the  war,  and  it  was  endorsed  as  late  as  March, 
1865,  by  John  Bright  in  a  speech  at  Manchester.  But  there 
is  no  escape  from  the  dilemma  with  which  Harcourt  met  the 
attack  in  the  letter  published  in  The  Times  of  March  22, 
1865. 

The  date  of  the  proclamation  of  the  blockade  was  April  19, 1861. 
In  virtue  of  this  proclamation,  the  Northern  Government  by  the 
law  of  nations  became  entitled  to  search  English  merchant  vessels 
in  every  part  of  the  high  seas,  to  divert  them  from  their  original 
destination,  and  to  confiscate  the  vessels  and  their  cargoes.  If  a 
state  of  legitimate  warfare  did  not  exist,  such  action  on  the  part  of 
the  Northern  Government  would  have  been  unlawful,  and  would 
have  been  a  just  cause  of  war  on  the  part  of  England,  against  whom 
such  a  course  would  have  been  in  such  case  pursued  without  justifica- 
tion. The  proclamation  of  blockade  of  April  19  was  therefore  either 
a  declaration  of  war  against  the  South,  or  it  was  a  cause  of  war  on 
the  part  of  all  neutral  nations  against  whom  it  should  be  put  in 
force.  From  that  dilemma  there  is  no  escape.  So  far  as  regards 
the  position  of  the  Northern  Government  as  brought  to  the  notice 
of  the  English  Cabinet  on  May  10,  1861.  Now  let  us  see  what  was 
our  situation  with  respect  to  the  Southern  States.  The  proclama- 
tion of  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  authorizing  the  issue  of  letters  of  marque 
was  dated  April  17,  1861.  The  English  Government  were  conse- 
quently advertised  that  the  high  seas  were  about  to  be  covered  by 
armed  vessels,  who  under  the  colour  of  a  commission  claimed  to 
exercise  against  neutrals  the  rights  of  warfare — i.e.,  claimed  to  stop, 
and  to  search  English  merchant  vessels,  to  capture  them,  and  to 
carry  them  into  their  ports  for  adjudication,  and  to  condemn  them  in 
case  they  had  on  board  contraband  of  war.  Nor  was  this  all. 


i86i-65]         STATES   THE   DILEMMA  131 

If  legitimate  war  existed,  the  penalties  of  the  Foreign  Enlistment 
Act  came  into  operation.  If  no  such  war  existed,  then  the  ship- 
builders might  equip,  arm  and  despatch  vessels  of  war  equally  to 
New  York  and  Charleston.  English  subjects  might  enlist  and  take 
service  in  the  forces  of  either  party. 

I  would  venture  to  ask  him  whether  it  was  compatible  with  the 
duty  of  the  English  Government  to  leave  them  (the  mercantile 
interests  of  Great  Britain)  for  a  single  instant  in  doubt  of  their 
real  situation  in  respect  to  the  condition  which  had  arisen  in  America. 
Was  an  English  merchantman,  sailing  peaceably  in  pursuance  of 
his  ordinary  trade,  to  be  left  in  ignorance  whether  an  armed  vessel 
which  overhauled  and  captured  him  was  regarded  by  his  own  Govern- 
ment in  the  light  of  a  pirate  committing  a  robbery  on  the  high  seas, 
or  whether  it  was  a  lawful  belligerent  exercising  the  recognized 
rights  of  war  ?  What  was  to  be  the  position  of  the  English  navy, 
who  are  posted  in  every  corner  of  the  habitable  globe,  to  protect 
by  their  presence,  and  if  necessary  to  vindicate  by  their  arms  the 
security  of  our  mercantile  marine  ?  Were  they  or  were  they  not 
to  be  informed  whether  they  were  "  to  sink,  burn  and  destroy  " 
as  pirates  or  to  respect  as  lawful  belligerents  the  cruisers  of  either 
party  who  exercised  against  our  merchantmen  those  acts  of  force 
which  the  rights  of  war  alone  could  justify  ?  .  .  . 

The  North  created  belligerent  rights  in  both  parties  by  making 
war  on  the  South.  The  North  have  enjoyed  their  rights  and  we 
have  endorsed  them.  They  have  seized  our  merchantmen  and 
crippled  our  trade,  and  they  have  had  a  right  to  do  it.  If  the  South 
had  not  had  belligerent  rights  it  could  only  be  because  there  was  no 
war.  But  if  there  was  no  war  then  the  North  could  have  enforced 
no  blockade,  they  could  have  seized  no  combatant,  they  could  have 
made  no  prizes.  English  merchants  might  have  traded  as  before 
to  Charleston  and  Wilmington  and  Savannah  and  Mobile  and  New 
Orleans  with  impunity.  To  have  seized  our  ships  would  have  been 
to  make  war  on  England.  If  there  had  been  no  war  Mr.  Laird 
might  have  equipped  for  the  South  500  Alabamas  without  inter- 
ference. This  is  what  the  North  have  gained.  But  war  is  a  quarrel 
which  necessarily  requires  two  sides.  In  order  to  exercise  belli- 
gerent rights  yourself  you  must  have  an  antagonist,  and  that  antagon- 
ist must  have  belligerent  rights  also.  And  yet  it  is  this  just  and 
inevitable  consequence  of  their  own  policy  which  the  North  seem 
disposed  to  lay  at  our  doors,  and  to  make  a  ground  of  complaint 
against  us. 

II 

But  on  a  much  more  vital  question  Harcourt's  influence 
was  decisively  in  the  interests  of  the  North.  This  was  the 
question  of  the  recognition  of  tjie  Southern  States,  From 


132  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT       [1861-65 

the  outbreak  of  the  war  this  had  been  the  aim  of  powerful 
social  interests,  and  the  early  successes  of  the  South 
in  the  field  lent  weight  to  a  demand  which  was  backed  by 
all  the  reactionary  influences  in  the  country  and  endorsed 
by  Napoleon,  who  was  engaged  in  an  adventure  of  his  own 
in  Mexico,  with  unceasing  vehemence.  As  the  summer  of 
1862  advanced  and  the  victories  of  the  South  seemed  to  fore- 
shadow the  defeat  of  the  North,  the  clamour  increased  and 
opinion  in  the  Cabinet  itself  became  sharply  divided.  Out- 
side, Gladstone,  then  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  gave 
utterance  at  Newcastle  to  his  lamentable  declaration  that 
Jefferson  Davis  had  "  made  a  nation,"  and  his  prophecy 
that  the  success  of  the  South  was  "  as  certain  as  any  event 
yet  future  and  contingent  can  be."  Inside  the  Cabinet 
Harcourt's  step-father-in-law,  Cornewall  Lewis,  was  fighting 
the  battle  against  recognition  with  characteristic  tenacity. 
He  summoned  his  brilliant  relative  to  his  aid,  and  together 
they  produced  a  powerful  memorandum  for  the  Cabinet 
against  recognition.  Meanwhile  "  Historicus  "  was  arguing 
the  question  publicly  in  letters  in  which  he  ransacked 
history  for  precedents  against  the  recognition  of  an  insur- 
rectionary power  which  had  not  fully  established  its  claim  to 
independence. 

He  met  the  advocates  of  recognition  on  their  own  ground 
and  overwhelmed  them  by  superior  learning  and  energy  of 
mind.  They  brought  forward  the  action  of  the  Great 
Powers  in  the  Wars  of  Independence  of  Greece  and  Belgium 
and  the  South  American  Republics.  Harcourt  pointed  out 
that  in  the  first  two  instances  the  Great  Powers,  impelled 
by  their  conviction  of  the  justice  of  the  claims  of  these 
countries  to  independence  (and  possibly  by  other  political 
considerations),  definitely  intervened  by  military  means 
against  the  sovereign  state  from  which  these  countries  had 
revolted.  These  were  acts  of  high  policy  "  above  and  beyond 
the  domain  of  law."  The  case  of  the  South  American 
Republics  in  revolt  against  Spain  was  one  of  true  "  recog- 
nition "  within  the  understood  limits  of  normal  international 
law.  The  British^Government  did  not  dictate  to  Spain ; 


i86i-65]  ON    "RECOGNITION'  133 

what  they  did  was  to  recognize  the  Republics  as  and  when 
they  had  won  their  independence  in  fact,  when  it  was 
evident  that  Spanish  control  was  gone. 

The  practical  rule  that  emerged  from  the  historical  prece- 
dents, "  Historicus  "  stated  as  follows  (November  7,  1862)  : 

When  a  Sovereign  State,  from  exhaustion  or  any  other  cause,  has 
virtually  and  substantially  abandoned  the  struggle  for  supremacy 
it  has  no  right  to  complain  if  a  foreign  State  treat  the  independence 
of  its  former  subjects  as  de  facto  established  ;  nor  can  it  prolong  its 
sovereignty  by  a  mere  paper  assertion  of  right.  When,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  contest  is  not  absolutely  or  permanently  decided,  a  recog- 
nition of  the  inchoate  independence  of  the  insurgents  by  a  foreign 
State  is  a  hostile  act  towards  the  Sovereign  State  which  the  latter 
is  entitled  to  resent  as  a  breach  of  neutrality  and  friendship. 

The  dialectical  method  pursued  in  this  great  argument  on 
which  the  issue  of  peace  or  war  with  the  United  States  largely 
depended,  may  be  illustrated  by  a  few  passages  from  the 
letter  of  November  7,  1862,  a  month  after  Gladstone's 
declaration  for  the  South  at  Newcastle.  He  asks  :  What 
is  the  "  South,"  and  proceeds  : 

Is  "  the  South  "  which  we  are  to  recognize  to  include  the  Mississippi 
and  New  Orleans  ?  If  so,  what  is  to  become  of  its  de  facto  inde- 
pendence while  the  Federal  gunboats  hold  the  former  and  General 
Butler  the  latter  ?  Is  Kentucky  North  or  South  ?  Which  is 
Virginia  and  what  of  Tennessee  and  Alabama  ?  "  The  South  "  at 
present  is  a  cloud,  apparent  enough  and  sufficiently  menacing, 
but  still  a  cloud,  varying  in  size  and  shape  with  every  victory  and 
every  reverse,  and  never  presenting  the  same  outline  for  two  mails 
together.  Who,  then,  is  to  settle  this  question  of  limits  ?  The 
belligerents  have  not  yet  been  able  to  settle  it  by  their  arms.  Is  it 
we,  then,  who  are  to  determine  what  is  the  "  South  which  we  are 
called  upon  to  recognize  "  ? 

To  the  argument  that  the  South  was  entitled  to  recogni- 
tion on  the  grounds  of  the  original  sovereignty  of  the  several 
States  he  replies  : 

If  South  Carolina  is  and  always  was  an  independent  Sovereign 
State,  no  struggle  was  necessary  antecedently  to  her  recognition  by 
the  European  Powers.  In  this  view  of  the  case  she  might  at  any 
time,  without  an  effort  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  the  Federal  Union,  have 
negotiated  a  treaty  with  England.  And  Charleston,  for  instance, 
might  have  proclaimed  a  free  trade  tariff  while  the  Government 


134  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT    [1861-65 

of  Washington  was  exacting  a  protective  duty.  The  argument  must 
go  to  this  length  or  it  is  good  for  nothing  at  all.  The  truth  is  that 
from  the  time  that  the  States  chose,  for  their  own  interests  and 
in  order  to  enhance  their  own  importance,  to  organize  and  present 
themselves  to  the  world  as  a  collective  Federal  Government,  foreign 
nations  have  ceased  to  have  anything  to  do  except  with  that  Govern- 
ment which,  for  the  purpose  of  all  foreign  relations,  the  States  them- 
selves constituted  their  representative  and  plenipotentiary. 

He  turns  to  the  demand  for  intervention,  friendly  or  for- 
cible, to  put  an  end  to  "  this  horrible  strife."  Intervention 
is  a  question  of  policy  and  not  of  law.  It  is  above  and 
beyond  the  domain  of  law. 

But  .  .  .  it  is  obviously  necessary  that  those  who  are  to  intervene 
should  know  and  be  able  to  declare  what  they  are  prepared  to  enforce, 
or  that  those  who  offer  to  mediate  should  be  in  a  position  to  state 
what  they  propose  to  recommend.  In  the  cases  of  Belgium  and  of 
Greece  the  Powers  of  Europe  knew  very  well  what  they  intended  to 
accomplish,  and  they  effected  their  purpose.  When  Louis  Napoleon 
intervened  in  Italy  he  had  a  policy  which  he  more  or  less  carried  out. 
But  if  Europe  is  to  intervene  in  America,  either  by  mediation  or 
otherwise,  what  is  the  view  on  which  she  proposes  to  act  ?  Whatever 
may  be  thought  of  the  original  causes  and  motives  of  the  American 
quarrel,  it  is  obvious  enough  that  in  its  final  solution  the  question 
of  slavery  must  in  some  form  or  other  be  dealt  with.  Its  limits 
must  be  defined  and  its  conditions  determined.  What  scheme  are 
the  great  Powers  prepared  to  recommend  or  to  enforce  on  the  subject 
of  slavery  which  "  the  South  "  would  accept  and  which  would 
not  shock  the  conscience  of  Europe  ?  Is  Europe  prepared  with  a 
substitute  for  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  or  has  it  settled  a  new  edition 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise  ?  Yet  if  we  are  to  mediate,  it  can  only 
be  by  urging  some  plan  which  we  approve.  What  is  that  solution 
of  the  negro  question  to  which  an  English  Government  is  prepared  to 
affix  the  seal  of  English  approbation  ?  If  the  combatants  settle 
the  question  for  themselves,  we  can  accept  the  result  without  re- 
sponsibility. If  the  matter  is  to  be  negotiated  through  our  mediation 
we  must  lend  our  moral  sanction  to  the  settlement  at  which  we  assist. 
There  are  many  things  which  we  cannot  help,  but  there  are  some 
things  with  which  it  were  wise  to  have  nothing  to  do.  And  to  this 
latter  category  I  venture  to  think  most  eminently  belongs  the  defini- 
tion of  that  permanent  line  of  demarcation  which  must,  no  doubt,  one 
day  separate  the  Slave  from  the  Free  States  of  America. 

"  I  am  extremely  glad  that  you  have  written  the  letter," 
writes  Cornewall  Lewis  to  Harcourt  apropos  of  this 
deliverance.  "  It  will  be  very  useful,  and  will  teach  such 


i86i-65]  PRESSURE   BY  NAPOLEON   III        135 

shallow  writers  as  Robert  Cecil  (Lord  Salisbury)  that  there 
is  something  more  than  they  see." 

It  was  the  practice  of  "  Historicus  "  to  clinch  his  case  by 
appealing  to  the  example  of  the  United  States.  He  used 
the  precedents  set  up  at  Washington  with  extraordinary 
skill  in  all  his  controversies,  If  he  was  aiming  at  making 
the  British  Government  fair  to  the  North  he  showed  how 
fair  an  example  Washington  had  set,  in  the  face  of  popular 
clamour,  when  we  were  in  trouble  ;  if  his  purpose  was  to  meet 
some  criticism  from  the  Federal  Government  he  produced 
an  avalanche  of  precedents  set  up  by  the  American  jurists 
which  sustained  our  action.  In  this  way  he  disarmed  the 
attack  from  both  sides.  Throughout  the  critical  autumn 
of  1862,  the  struggle  over  recognition  went  forward.  The 
Confederate  agents,  Slidell  and  Mason,  brought  every  gun 
to  bear  upon  the  Government,  and  they  had  behind  them 
the  ceaseless  activities  of  France.  "  All  through  the  summer 
of  1862,"  says  C.  F.  Adams  in  his  biography  of  his 
father,  the  American  Minister  in  London,  "  the  Ministers  of 
Napoleon  III  were  pressing  the  British  Government  towards 
recognition."  Napoleon  told  W.  S.  Lindsay,  the  Pro-South 
Englishman,  that  "  he  would  long  since  have  declared  the 
inefficiency  of  the  blockade  and  taken  steps  to  put  an  end 
to  it,  but  that  he  could  not  obtain  the  concurrence  of  the 
English  Ministry."  And  the  interview  with  Lindsay  was 
granted,  on  the  Emperor's  own  admission,  in  the  hope  that 
he  would  be  a  channel  through  which  he  could  once  more 
approach  the  British  Government  with  a  view  to  prompt  and 
decisive  action  which  was  to  take  the  shape  of  the  despatch 
of  a  joint  fleet  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  But  Lord 
John  Russell  was  indisposed  to  fall  into  the  trap,  and  his 
own  judgment  was  fortified  by  the  firmness  of  Cornewall 
Lewis  and  the  industrious  researches  and  powerful  dialectic 
of  "  Historicus."  Cornewall  Lewis's  letters  to  Harcourt  at 
this  time  show  how  closely  the  two  men  were  working 
together,  and  Russell's  notes  to  Harcourt  indicate  an  in- 
creasing tendency  to  look  to  him,  not  only  for  support  in 
public  but  for  assistance  in  private.  By  the  end  of  1862, 


136  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1861-65 

the  battle  over  recognition  had  been  practically  won,  and 
in  his  introduction  to  the  collected  edition  of  the  "  His- 
toricus  "  letters,1  Harcourt  summed  up  as  follows  : 

I  rejoice  that  the  English  Government  have  proclaimed  the  policy 
of  an  absolute  neutrality.  I  most  earnestly  hope  that,  through  good 
report  and  through  evil  report — in  spite  of  all  solicitations  and  every 
menace — they  will  religiously  adhere  to  the  only  course  which  can 
bring  credit  to  themselves  or  advantage  to  the  country.  We  are 
told,  indeed,  that  a  policy  of  neutrality  will  bring  us  the  hatred  of 
both  belligerents.  It  may  be  so  ;  for,  to  men  inflamed  by  passion 
and  hatred,  nothing  is  so  odious  as  the  spectacle  of  justice  and 
fairness  in  others.  It  is  said  that  neutrality  is  not  popular  in  this 
country.  I  do  not  believe  it ;  but  if  it  were  so,  I  hope  that  fact 
would  not  influence  the  policy  of  an  English  Administration  on  so 
critical  a  question.  The  quality  by  which  statesmen  are  distin- 
guished from  the  clamorous  mob,  and  the  title  which  they  possess 
to  govern  the  destinies  of  a  people,  he  in  the  power  to  look  beyond 
the  exigency  of  the  moment,  and  to  forecast  the  horoscope  of  the 
future.  To  be  firm  when  the  vulgar  are  undecided,  to  be  calm  in 
the  midst  of  passion  and  to  be  brave  in  the  presence  of  panic 
are  the  characteristics  of  those  who  are  fit  to  be  the  rulers  of 
men.  Such  men  bear  obloquy  and  put  aside  vituperation,  be- 
cause they  know  that  the  time  will  come  when  their  assailants 
themselves  will  feel — though  perhaps  not  acknowledge — the 
wisdom  of  their  acts,  and  that,  in  the  return  of  moderation  and 
good  sense,  justice  will  be  done  to  the  equitable  policy  of  a  true  and 
faithful  neutrality. 

In  the  year  1818,  in  the  debates  on  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Bill, 
Mr.  Canning  held  up  to  the  imitation  of  the  English  House  of 
Commons  the  example  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  Revolutionary  War  in  Europe.  I  know  no 
story  in  the  page  of  history  more  striking  or  more  instructive  than 
the  noble  stand  made  by  Washington  and  the  great  statesmen  by 
whom  he  was  surrounded,  against  the  excited  passions  of  Ms  own 
countrymen,  who  sought  to  force  the  Government  into  hostilities 
with  Great  Britain.  The  narrative  is  told  in  the  closing  chapters 
of  Marshall's  Life  of  Washington — the  worthy  biography  of  a  noble 
life.  No  spectacle  so  sad  or  so  memorable  has  been  transmitted 
for  the  instruction  of  posterity  as  that  of  an  ungovernable  people 
who  clouded,  by  their  ingratitude,  the  closing  days  of  the  patriot 
chief  who  had  led  them  through  the  wilderness  and  brought  them 
into  the  land  of  promise.  But  those  were  days  in  which  American 
statesmen  had  the  courage  to  be  wise,  and  dared  to  be  unpopular. 
In  the  midst  of  almost  universal  obloquy  Washington  stood  firm, 

1  Letters  of  Historicus  on  some  Questions  of  International  Law. 
Reprinted  from  THE  TIMES.  Macmillan  &  Co.  1863. 


i86i-65]    ON   AMERICAN   PRECEDENTS          137 

and  refused  to  adopt  the  rash  and  short-sighted  policy  of  a 
frantic  people  and  a  violent  Press.  He  knew  too  well 
How  nations  sink,  by  daring  schemes  opprest, 
When  vengeance  listens  to  the  fool's  request. 
I  have  spoken  with  the  respect  they  deserve  of  the  judicial  records 
of  American  decisions.  But  an  equal  if  not  higher  reputation  belongs 
to  the  archives  of  American  diplomatic  statesmanship,  at  the 
close  of  the  last  and  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  The 
published  volumes  of  American  States  Papers  during  the  early  years 
of  the  French  Revolutionary  War  present  a  noble  monument  of 
dignity,  moderation  and  good  faith.  They  are  repertories  of 
statesmanlike  principles  and  juridical  knowledge.  Their  relation 
to  the  publications  of  modern  transatlantic  politicians  is  much  that 
of  the  literature  of  Rome  under  Augustus  to  that  of  the  Lower 
Empire.  Pressed  upon  either  side  by  the  violence  and  menaces 
of  the  rival  combatants,  Washington  persisted  to  the  last  in  an 
inflexible  attitude  of  strict  neutrality.  The  country  over  whose 
destinies  he  presided  reaped  the  lasting  advantage  of  his  wise  and 
prudent  counsels.  And  the  verdict  of  an  enlightened  posterity 
has  indemnified  his  fame  for  the  odium  which  was  cast  upon  him 
by  an  unjust  and  ignorant  populace.  I  trust  that  the  administration 
which  may  be  charged  with  the  fortunes  of  this  Empire,  to  whatever 
party  they  may  belong,  will  sustain  the  same  superiority  above  the 
solicitations  of  interested  partisans  and  the  clamour  of  ignorant 
passion. 

Ill 

I  have  dealt  at  some  length  with  the  recognition  issue, 
because  it  was  the  crucial  question  of  the  first  two  years  of 
the  war,  and  because  it  discloses  better  than  any  other 
phase  of  the  great  battle  of  words  the  central  position  which 
Harcourt  took  up  in  the  varying  argument.  But  side  by 
side  with  this  main  stream  of  controversy,  there  were  con- 
stant episodes  of  violence  which  threatened  an  outbreak  of 
hostilities  and  in  regard  to  which  Harcourt's  powerful  pen 
was  always  at  work  to  keep  the  discussion  in  the  realm  of 
law.  "  The  jurist  should  know  no  distinction  between  the 
Trojan  and  the  Tyrian  camps,"  he  says  in  one  letter  (January 
3,  1863).  "  I  have  observed  with  some  satisfaction  that  the 
letters  which  I  have  addressed  to  you  have  been  in  turn 
displeasing  to  each  set  of  partisans  who  espouse  opposite 
sides  in  the  American  quarrel."  They  were  sufficiently 
displeasing  to  the  North  in  the  matter  of  the  Trent,  which 


138  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1861-65 

was  the  first  incident  that  brought  the  countries  to  the  brink 
of  war.  The  American  steamship  San  Jacinto,  which  had 
been  cruising  off  the  West  Coast  of  Africa  for  the  suppression 
of  the  slave  trade,  was  returning  home  in  October  1861, 
when  Captain  Wilkes,  the  commander,  learned  at  Cienfuegos 
that  the  British  steamer  Trent  was  to  leave  Havana  on 
November  7  with  the  Confederate  envoys,  Slidell  and 
Mason,  who  were  duly  accredited  to  Paris  and  London 
respectively.  Wilkes  steamed  to  the  Bahama  Channel, 
sighted  the  Trent  on  November  8,  ran  up  the  United  States 
flag  and  fired  a  shot  across  the  Trent's  course.  The  Trent 
showed  the  British  colours,  but  did  not  stop  until  a  shell 
was  exploded  across  her  bows.  Thereupon  her  course  was 
stayed,  a  boat's  crew  from  the  San  Jacinto  boarded  her, 
and  Mason  and  Slidell,  with  their  secretaries,  were  forcibly 
removed,  after  which  the  Trent  proceeded  on  her  way. 

A  storm  of  unprecedented  fury  broke  out  on  both  sides  of 
the  Atlantic  and  for  six  weeks  war  seemed  imminent.  The 
North,  depressed  and  angry  with  the  deplorable  failures  of 
the  war,  hailed  the  feat  of  Wilkes  as  if  it  were  a  great  victory, 
and  jurists  and  statesmen  as  well  as  journalists  and  stump 
orators  exalted  Wilkes  as  a  hero  and  endorsed  his  action  as 
in  conformity  with  international  law.  He  was  entertained 
at  a  banquet  at  Boston  at  which  the  most  extravagant 
praise  was  heaped  on  him  by  the  Governor  of  Massachusetts 
and  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  State  (George  T.  Bigelow),  who 
declared  that  "  Commodore  Wilkes  acted  more  from  the 
noble  instincts  of  his  patriotic  heart  than  from  any  sentence 
he  read  from  a  law  book,"  adding  that  in  such  circumstances 
"  a  man  does  not  want  to  ask  counsel,  or  to  consult  judges 
upon  his  duty  ;  his  heart,  his  instinct,  tells  him  what  he 
ought  to  do." 

This  hysteria  was  answered  by  a  violent  tempest  in  Eng- 
land. It  mobilized  all  the  sympathies  for  the  South  around 
a  grievance  in  regard  to  which  the  legal  merits  were  clearly 
on  the  side  of  England.  The  Government  issued  an  imme- 
diate demand  for  the  release  of  the  prisoners,  and  for  two 
months  the  issue  hung  in  the  balance.  During  this  crucial 


1861-65]  THE   TRENT  CASE  139 

time  the  pen  of  "  Historicus  "  was  working  at  high  pressure 
on  the  law  of  the  subject,  and  he  bandied  argument  and 
precedent  with  the  American  controversialists  with  torren- 
tial energy.  And,  as  usual,  he  scored  by  his  appeal  to 
American  history.  George  Sumner,  the  brother  of  Charles 
who  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
at  Washington,  had  himself  unfortunately  appealed  to 
American  history.  He  defended  in  the  Boston  Transcript  the 
seizure  of  Mason  and  Slidell  on  the  ground  that  in  the  War 
of  Independence  the  British  had  seized  Henry  Laurens, 
colonial  envoy  to  Holland.  Sumner's  argument  was  based 
on  the  inaccurate  statement  that  Laurens  was  on  a  Dutch 
(neutral)  packet,  the  Mercury,  when  the  seizure  took  place. 
Harcourt  looked  up  Sumner's  authority,  and  pointed  out 
that  the  Mercury  was  not  a  Dutch  packet,  but  an  American 
belligerent.  No  complaint  was  made  of  the  incident  at  the 
time,  as  would  assuredly  have  been  the  case  if  the  Mercury 
had  been  a  neutral.  Harcourt  says  (December  5,  1861)  : 

If  the  San  Jacinto  had  taken  Messrs.  Slidell  and  Mason  out  of 
the  Charleston  packet  when  she  was  running  the  blockade  under  the 
Confederate  flag,  the  cases  would  have  been  parallel.  So  far  the 
precedent  of  Mr.  Laurens  carries  the  argument,  but  not  a  step 
farther. 

Driven  from  the  Laurens  precedent,  the  American  con- 
troversialists took  new  ground. 

"  A  mouse  that  is  confined  to  one  poor  hole 
Can  never  be  a  mouse  of  any  soul," 

writes  "  Historicus  "  five  days  later  (December  10,  1861), 
"  and,  accordingly,  now  that  the  H.  Laurens  case  has  broken 
down,  we  hear  of  nothing  but  the  great  Lucien  Bonaparte 
case."  The  new  parallel  brought  forward  by  the  Americans 
was  the  capture  of  Lucien  Bonaparte  by  the  English  in  1810. 
Harcourt  proves  that  this  precedent  is  as  fallacious  as  the 
Laurens  case.  Lucien  Bonaparte  was  not  taken,  as  alleged, 
from  a  neutral  ship,  but  from  an  American  boat  chartered 
by  Murat,  a  belligerent,  for  the  express  purpose  of  carrying 
Lucien  Bonaparte,  a  belligerent,  and  his  property.  If 
the  Trent  had  been  chartered  by  Jefferson  Davis  expressly 


140  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1861-65 

to  carry  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  the  case  might  have  been 
similar.  Moreover  Lucien  had  placed  himself  under  Sar- 
dinian jurisdiction  in  Sardinian  waters.  Sardinia  was 
at  war  with  France,  and  virtually  handed  over  Lucien 
Bonaparte  to  the  British  cruisers  defending  the  Island,  by 
refusing  him  permission  to  land. 

Not  less  effective  was  his  reply  to  Randolph  Clay,  a  former 
American  charge  d'affaires  at  St.  Petersburg  and  Vienna, 
against  whom,  in  regard  to  the  arrest  of  belligerents  on 
board  neutral  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  he  quoted  weighty 
American  authority  in  the  shape  of  a  message  to  Congress 
during  the  war  of  1813  by  President  Madison.  In  this 
message  it  is  stated  that  a  search  for,  or  seizure  of,  British 
persons  or  ^property  on  board  neutral  vessels  on  the  high  seas 
is  not  a  belligerent  right  derived  from  the  law  of  nations. 

On  the  argumentative  as  on  the  historical  issue,  "  His- 
toricus "  claimed  the  victory.  Seward,  the  American 
Secretary  of  State,  insisted  that  the  men  and  their  despatches 
were  contraband  of  war.  Harcourt  in  his  reply  said  (January 
15,  1862)  : 

In  order  to  constitute  contraband  of  war  it  is  absolutely  essential 
that  two  elements  should  concur — viz.  a  hostile  quality  and  a  hostile 
destination.  If  either  of  these  elements  is  wanting  there  can  be  no 
such  thing  as  contraband.  Innocent  goods  going  to  a  belligerent 
port  are  not  contraband.  Here  there  is  a  hostile  destination,  but 
no  hostile  quality.  Hostile  goods,  such  as  munitions  of  war  going 
to  a  neutral  port,  are  not  contraband.  Here  there  is  a  hostile 
quality  but  no  hostile  destination.  .  .  .  The  unquestioned  and 
unquestionable  neutral  destination  of  the  Trent  proves  beyond  all 
possibility  of  cavil  that  neither  persons  nor  goods  on  board  of  her 
could  be  treated  as  contraband. 

This,  and  much  else  in  the  prolific  judgments  of  "  His- 
toricus  "  on  the  various  issues  raised  on  the  war — "  Block- 
ade," "  Right  of  Search,"  "  Neutral  Trade  in  Contraband 
of  War,"  "  Essential  Qualities  of  Contraband  "  and  "  Bel- 
ligerent Violations  of  Neutral  Rights,"  read  strangely  in  the 
light  of  the  ruthless  practice  during  the  European  War  of 
1914-18  ;  but  his  argument  and  his  precedents  prevailed 
then.  The  hot  fit  passed  in  America,  and  on  January  8, 1862 
Cornewall  Lewis  wrote  to  Harcourt  from  the  War  Office  : 


1861-65]  CHARLES   SUMNER  141 

You  will,  I  am  sure,  be  glad  to  hear  that  we  are  to  have  peace,  and 
not  war,  with  the  United  States.  A  telegram  has  been  received  this 
afternoon  from  Lord  Lyons,  announcing  that  the  four  prisoners 
(Mason,  Slidell  and  then:  secretaries)  are  to  be  surrendered,  and  that 
he  remains  at  his  post. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  in  the  controversy  Harcourt 
mixed  his  law  with  a  good  deal  of  pepper.  He  ragged  Seward 
and  the  Sumners  unmercifully,  scoffed  at  their  law  and  their 
"  swagger,"  contrasted  them  unfavourably  with  the  great 
Americans  of  the  past,  spoke  slightingly  of  Lincoln,  and  made 
violent  attacks  on  John  Bright  who  had  espoused  the 
American  case  and,  said  Harcourt,  seemed  to  think  that 
"  Justice  and  Wisdom  when  they  left  the  rest  of  the  earth 
took  refuge  in  the  broad  beavered  shades  of  Boston."  It 
was  always  a  trait  of  Harcourt  that  he  was  not  content  with 
beating  his  man.  He  had  to  roll  him  ignominiously  in  the 
dust.  That  he  was  unjust  to  Charles  Sumner  he  came  later 
to  realize,  and  his  opinion  of  Lincoln  underwent  a  profound 
change  which  evoked  perhaps  the  noblest  tribute  paid  to 
that  great  man  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  after  his  assassina- 
tion. There  is  no  doubt  that  the  fact  that  the  peace  was 
kept  was,  apart  from  Lincoln  himself,  as  much  the  work  of 
Sumner  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  as  of  Russell,  Lewis 
and  Harcourt  on  this  side.  He  was  in  close  touch  with  the 
better  mind  of  this  country  throughout,  and  the  letters  of  the 
Duke  of  Argyll  to  Harcourt  from  1863  onwards  are  full  of 
the  most  intimate  revelations  of  Sumner's  private  views. 
Sumner's  own  letters  from  Cobden,  Bright,  Gladstone  and 
Argyll  were,  at  Lincoln's  request,  always  read  to  the  Cabinet 
and  formed  a  chief  source  of  light  as  to  the  trend  of  thought 
in  England.  It  was  Sumner's  word  that  convinced  Lincoln 
that  Mason  and  Slidell  must  be  given  up  and  reconciled 
the  public  to  that  step.  This  was  the  first,  but  not  the  last 
great  service  he  performed  in  helping  to  keep  the  peace  be- 
tween the  two  countries. 

But  the  most  sustained  and  powerful  argument  which 
"  Historicus  "  conducted  was  not  against  the  American 
statesmen  and  jurists,  but  against  a  French  international 
lawyer,  M.  Hautefeuille.  It  covered  almost  the  whole 


142  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1861-65 

ground  of  controversy  in  regard  to  neutrals  and  belligerents, 
and  by  its  clarity,  force  and  learning,  it  remains  one  of  the 
weightiest  contributions  to  the  discussion  of  international 
law  extant.  M.  Hautefeuille  was  a  very  voluble,  but  not 
very  formidable  opponent.  His  object  was  not  so  much  to 
clear  up  the  law  of  the  sea  as  to  make  mischief  between 
England  and  the  North  and  between  England  and  the  Con- 
tinent. He  frankly  avowed  that  his  deliberate  object  was  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  an  European  confederation  against  the 
maritime  interests  of  Great  Britain.  The  scheme  was  developed 
in  a  passage  which  began  in  the  following  amiable  terms : 1 

Des  faits  qui  precedent  il  resulte  que  faute  d'un  e"quilibre  maritime 
toutes  les  nations  sont  a  la  merci  d'un  peuple  qui  a  toujours  use1 
et  use  encore  de  sa  preponderance  pour  les  opprimer  and  pour 
an6antir  leur  commerce  et  leur  navigation.  Un  pareil  e"tat  de  choses 
est-il  done  sans  r6mdde  ?  N'existe-il  aucun  moyen  pour  le  monde 
opprime',  de  mettre  un  frein  a  de  si  graves  abus  ?  .  .  . 

To  the  assertion  of  M.  Hautefeuille  that  France  was 
historically  the  protector  of  the  small  nations  and  that  Eng- 
land was  the  universal  oppressor  of  the  sea,  "  Historicus  " 
replied  with  a  torrent  of  facts  dealing  with  the  French  record 
at  sea  from  the  days  of  Louis  XIV  to  the  Berlin  Decrees  of 
Napoleon,  and,  having  stripped  every  rag  from  his  unhappy 
victim,  exclaimed : 

It  is  time  that  this  line  of  argument  should  be  put  a  stop  to,  if 
not  for  fairness'  sake  at  least  for  shame.  If  England  has  erred,  the 
last  Power  in  Europe  who  is  entitled  to  fling  a  stone  at  us  is  that  of 
which  M.  Hautefeuille  is  a  citizen.  We  may  be  no  better  than  our 
neighbours,  but  we  have  never  been  so  bad  as  France.  The  black 
deeds  with  which  a  criminal  ambition  has  scarred  the  face  of  Europe 
from  the  days  of  Louis  XIV  to  those  of  the  First  Napoleon — from 
the  smoking  villages  of  the  Palatinate  to  the  dark  ditch  of  Vincennes 
— find  no  parallel  in  the  annals  of  Great  Britain.  If  France  has 
repented  of  these  acts,  and  has  abjured  the  spirit  which  gave  birth 
to  them,  it  is  well  and  I  should  be  the  last  to  desire  to  revive  their 
memory.  If  France  desires  to  appear  in  a  new  character — as  just  in 
peace  and  moderate  in  war — I  shall  be  happy  to  hail  the  Magdalen 
in  her  new  capacity.  But  I  demur  at  the  outset  to  the  light  in 
which  M.  Hautefeuille  presents  her — of  the  Pharisee  of  Europe, 
who  thanks  God  that  she  is  not  as  other  nations  are,  nor  even  as  the 
English  publican. 

1  Letters  of  Historicus,  p.  55. 


1861-65]    PULVERISES   HAUTEFEUILLE        143 

Having  routed  him  in  the  field  of  history,  "  Historicus  " 
pursued  M.  Hautefeuille  into  the  field  of  law,  first  on  the 
subject  of  blockade,  next  on  the  subject  of  neutral  trade  in 
contraband  of  war,  convicting  the  Frenchman  of  invincible 
ignorance  or  deliberate  suppression  of  the  authorities,  and 
hurling  at  him  the  judgments  and  declarations  of  Grotius, 
Vattel,  Stowell,  Bynkershoeck,  Lampredi,  Ortolan,  Jefferson, 
Story,  Martens,  Kluber,  and  "  the  greatest  jurist  this  age 
has  produced,"  the  American  Chancellor  Kent.  In  main- 
taining against  Hautefeuille  and  Dr.  Phillimore  the  right 
of  neutrals  to  sell  contraband  of  war  to  belligerents — a  right 
without  which,  by  the  way,  neither  France  nor  England 
would  have  survived  the  European  War  of  1914-18,  for  its 
denial  would  have  cut  off  the  American  supplies — "  His- 
toricus "  said  : l 

If  the  doctrine  against  which  I  am  contending  were  to  be  estab- 
lished, and  the  duty  of  neutral  Governments  to  prohibit  the  domestic 
trade  in  contraband  by  their  subjects  were  once  to  be  admitted,  it  is 
easy  to  perceive  the  monstrous  and  intolerable  consequences  that 
would  ensue.  Instantly  upon  the  declaration  of  war  between  two 
belligerents,  not  only  the  traffic  by  sea  of  all  the  rest  of  the  neutral 
Powers  of  the  world  would  be  exposed  to  the  inconveniences  of  which 
they  are  already  impatient,  but  the  whole  inland  trade  of  every 
nation  of  the  earth,  which  has  hitherto  been  free,  would  be  cast  into 
the  fetters.  The  neutral  Government,  being  on  this  assumption 
held  responsible  to  the  belligerent  for  the  trade  of  its  subjects  within 
its  own  territory,  must  establish  in  every  counting-house  a  sort  of 
belligerent  excise.  It  must  have  an  official  spy  behind  every  counter, 
in  order  that  no  contract  may  be  concluded  for  which  either  belliger- 
ent may  call  it  to  account,  and  in  respect  of  which  it  may  possibly 
find  itself  involved  in  war.  This  newfangled  and,  forsooth,  Liberal 
doctrine  would  introduce  the  irksome  claims  of  belligerent  rights 
into  the  bosom  of  neutral  soil,  from  which  they  have  been 
hitherto  absolutely  excluded,  and  in  which  they  ought  to  have 
nothing  to  do.  It  would  give  to  the  belligerent  State  a  right  of 
interference  in  every  act  of  neutral  domestic  commerce,  till  at  last 
the  burden  would  be  so  enormous  that  neutrality  itself  would  become 
more  intolerable  than  war,  and  the  result  of  this  assumed  reform, 
professing  to  be  founded  on  "  the  principles  of  eternal  justice," 
would  be  nothing  less  than  universal  and  interminable  hostilities. 
In  reference  to  this  letter  Clarendon  wrote  to  Cornewall 
Lewis  : 

1  Letters  of  Historicus,  p.  134. 


144  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1861-65 

THE  GROVE,  December  23,  1862. — How  clearly  and  completely 
W.  Harcourt  has  brought  out  the  case  of  the  Neutrals  and  their  com- 
mercial rights  with  belligerents.  .  .  .  Historicus  deals  so  deferenti- 
ally with  American  authorities  Kent,  Story,  Wheaton  and  Peirce, 
that  if  I  was  in  John  Russell's  place  I  would  send  the  letter  to  Lyons 
and  tell  him  to  have  it  privately  printed  and  circulated  at  N.  York 
by  the  Consul. 

IV 

But  meanwhile  a  much  more  dangerous  subject — by  far 
the  gravest  of  the  war — engaged  Harcourt 's  pen.  It  was  the 
launching  of  the  Alabama  from  Laird's  shipyard  at  Liverpool. 
There  was  never  any  real  doubt  as  to  the  purpose  and  destina- 
tion of  this  famous  vessel.  Adams,  the  U.S.  Minister,  in 
London,  gave  the  Foreign  Office  the  complet.est  evidence 
that  it  was  ordered  by  the  Confederate  Government  and 
intended  for  their  use.  At  the  eleventh  hour  Russell  decided 
to  detain  her,  but  a  singular  accident  defeated  his  intention. 
New  evidence  on  which  Russell  proposed  to  act  was  sub- 
mitted to  Sir  John  Harding,  the  Queen's  Advocate.  What 
followed  is  told  in  the  Life  of  Charles  Francis  Adams  by  his  son : 

He  (Sir  John)  just  then  broke  down  from  nervous  tension  and 
thereafter  became  hopelessly  insane.  His  wife,  anxious  to  conceal 
from  the  world  knowledge  of  her  husband's  condition,  allowed  the 
package  to  He  undisturbed  on  his  desk  for  three  days — days  which 
entailed  the  destruction  of  the  American  merchant  marine,  and  it 
was  on  the  first  of  these  days,  Saturday,  July  26,  1862,  that  Captain 
Bullock  (the  Confederate  Agent  who  had  ordered  the  ship)  "  received 
information  from  a  private  but  most  reliable  source  that  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  leave  the  ship  at  Liverpool  another  forty -eight  hours  !  ' ' 
On  the  following  Monday  accordingly  the  Alabama,  alias  the  "  290," 
alias  the  Enrica,  was  taken  out  of  dock  and  under  pretence  of  making 
an  additional  trial  trip  steamed,  dressed  in  flags,  down  the  Mersey, 
with  a  small  party  of  guests  on  board.  It  is  needless  to  say  she  did 
not  return.  The  party  of  guests  was  brought  back  on  a  tug,  and  the 
Enrica,  now  fully  manned,  was  on  the  3ist  off  the  North  Coast 
of  Ireland,  headed  seawards  in  heavy  weather. 

It  was  the  most  disastrous  blow  struck  at  the  cause  of  the 
North  from  any  external  source.  The  American  mercantile 
marine  was  destroyed  by  a  ship  built  in  a  British  yard,  and 
manned  by  British  seamen  whose  achievements  were  openly 
applauded  in  the  English  Press  and  by  English  passengers, 
who  hailed  it  with  cheers  as  they  passed  it  at  sea.  Even 


1861-65]  THE   ALABAMA  145 

the  patience  and  wisdom  of  Lincoln  could  not  have  prevented 
so  flagrant  a  breach  of  neutrality  issuing  in  a  declaration  of 
war  if  the  circumstances  of  the  moment  had  not  been  too 
heavy  to  admit  of  action,  and  for  ten  years  the  incident  was 
destined  to  cloud  the  sky  of  Anglo-American  relations. 
There  was  no  doubt  of  the  culpability  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment in  the  matter  and  Russell,  who  throughout  the  war 
was  genuinely  anxious  to  play  fair  and  keep  the  peace,  was 
distressed  at  having  been  outwitted  by  the  Confederate 
agents  and  afterwards  frankly  admitted  that  he  was  to  blame. 
He  was  badly  served  by  the  legal  advisers  of  the  Crown,  and 
it  is  noticeable  that  from  this  time  forward  his  habit  of 
consulting  Harcourt  on  legal  problems  and  the  drafting  of 
documents  became  more  marked.  Harcourt  made  no  con- 
cealment of  his  opinion  that  the  Government  were  in  the 
wrong.  It  may  seem  perplexing  that  while  he  was,  on  the 
one  hand,  defending  the  right  of  neutral  trading  with  bel- 
ligerents, he  was,  on  the  other  hand,  insisting  that  the 
launching  of  the  Alabama  was  an  illegal  act.  If  the  bel- 
ligerents could  buy  guns  from  a  neutral,  why  could  they  not 
charter  a  warship  ?  The  answer  was  that  international  law, 
confirmed  by  all  the  highest  authorities,  permitted  neutral 
trading,  but  that  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  of  this  country 
forbade  the  "  fitting  out,  equipping  and  arming  of  vessels  for 
warlike  purposes  "  in  foreign  quarrels.  International  law 
did  not  forbid  it,  but  our  own  municipal  enactment  did.  In 
allowing  the  equipping  and  manning  of  the  Alabama  we  had, 
therefore,  offended  not  against  the  law  of  nations,  but  against 
a  law  which  Canning  had  passed  for  our  own  protection,  and, 
although  the  North  had  no  legal  case  against  us  on  the  ground 
of  international  law,  it  had  an  overwhelming  moral  case 
against  us  on  the  ground  that  we  had  sanctioned  a  grave 
breach  of  our  own  law  to  the  serious  and  almost  irreparable 
hurt  of  the  North.  When  the  mischief  was  done  "  Histori- 
cus  "  argued  forcibly  against  the  Alabama  and  the  Florida 
being  allowed  the  hospitality  of  British  ports  (the  former  had 
been  admitted  to  Saldanha  Bay)  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
been  equipped  in  violation  of  the  rules  of  a  neutral  state. 

L 


146  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1861-65 

But  while  on  the  broad  question,  Harcourt  took  the  side 
of  the  North,  he  disclaimed  any  responsibility  on  the  part 
of  this  country  over  the  acts  of  the  Alabama  beyond  the 
limits  of  territorial  waters.  It  was  an  offence  against  this 
country  in  those  waters :  it  was  not  an  offence  against 
international  law  outside  those  waters : 

If  policy  and  interest  did  not  forbid,  the  neutral  State  would  be  at 
liberty  to  permit  enlistment  or  equipment  to  either  party  so  long  as 
it  acts  impartially  to  both.  But  the  forbidding  a  thing  which  the 
neutral  is  at  liberty,  if  he  chooses  to  permit,  cannot  confer  on  the 
belligerent  any  larger  right  than  that  which  he  originally  possessed. 
All  that  he  can  strictly  claim  is,  that  what  is  permitted  to  one  shall 
be  conceded  to  the  other. 

His  conclusion,  therefore,  was  that  "  this  '  tall  talk '  of 
claims  of  compensation  against  Great  Britain  for  prizes  taken 
by  the  Alabama  is  mere  nonsense,  which  has  no  colour  or 
foundation  either  in  reason,  history  or  law."  On  the  strict 
law  of  the  matter  it  may  be  that  Harcourt  was  right,  but  he 
was  to  discover  as  the  years  went  on  that  a  grave  wrong  was 
not  to  be  airily  dismissed  by  what  was  in  spirit  if  not  in  fact 
a  legal  quibble. 

But  on  the  main  issue  raised  by  the  Alabama  he  prevailed. 
Slidell,  the  Confederate  envoy,  having  succeeded  once,  tried 
to  repeat  the  success  on  a  more  ambitious  scale.  He  com- 
missioned armoured  vessels,  both  at  Laird's  and  in  France, 
nominally  for  non-belligerent  powers.  Harcourt  not  only 
denounced  in  public  the  Confederate  attempts  to  violate 
English  municipal  law,  but  brought  his  private  influence  to 
bear  on  the  Foreign  Secretary  during  his  stay  with  him  in 
Scotland  in  the  August  of  1863.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
Russell  himself  did  not  wish  to  be  caught  napping  a  second 
time,  but  that  the  danger  point  was  not  past  is  clear  from  a 
letter  from  Lord  Clarendon  to  his  sister  Lady  Theresa  Lewis, 
the  mother  of  the  late  Mrs.  Harcourt,  on  September  13, 1863  : 

Lord  Clarendon  to  Lady  Theresa  Lewis. 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  truth  in  your  remarks  about  "  Historicus," 
whose  style  moreover  discloses  the  cloven  foot  of  the  old  Saturday 


1861-65]      'LETTERS   OF   HISTORICUS "        147 

Reviewer,  but  at  the  same  time  I  must  say  that  the  question  of  these 
ships  of  war  is  so  beset  with  difficulties  and  is  so  likely  to  become 
a  more  or  less  fair  casus  belli  against  us  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  that  many  people,  while  still  adhering  to  the  standpoint  of 
strict  neutrality,  now  incline  to  the  view  of  "  Historicus,"  i.e.  of 
not  allowing  ships  of  war  to  depart  from  an  English  port  which  are 
manifestly  intended  for  the  Confederates.  .  .  .  The  whole  thing, 
however,  resolves  itself  into  a  question  of  expediency,  and  there  is 
as  much  to  be  said  on  one  side  as  the  other  whenever  that  is  the  case. 
I  may  mention,  however,  that  Layard,  whom  I  had  a  talk  with  on  my 
way  through  London  and  who  had  just  seen  Roundell  Palmer  (the 
Attorney- General),  told  me  he  had  written  to  Lord  John  to  advise 
much  the  same  course  as  W.  Harcourt  dictates. 

At  this  time  Russell  had  issued  an  order  detaining  the 
Laird  Rams  and  a  month  later  they  were  seized  by  the 
Government.  "  Historicus "  celebrated  the  victory  in  a 
letter  of  prodigious  length  in  which  he  disclosed  the  docu- 
ments that  showed  that  these  so-called  Egyptian  ships  were 
commissioned  for  the  Southern  States. 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  his  domestic  afflictions  that  the  first 
of  the  two  collected  volumes  of  the  Letters  of  Historicus  ap- 
peared in  book  form.  One  of  the  latest  of  Cornewall  Lewis's 
letters  to  Harcourt  (February  20,  1863)  announced  the 
receipt  of  copies  of  the  book,  together  with  the  following 
list  of  the  persons  to  whom  he  had  sent  them  :  Lord  Claren- 
don, Sir  E.  Head,  Robert  Lowe,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  Lord 
John  Russell,  Dr.  Ferguson  and  the  Attorney-General  (Sir 
Roundell  Palmer).  Lewis  himself  had  taken  the  deepest 
interest  in  the  letters  as  they  had  appeared,  and  his  notes 
to  Harcourt  were  full  of  suggestion,  criticism  and  comment 
on  their  effect  on  his  colleagues  and  intimates  in  the  Govern- 
ment. Lord  Wensleydale  "  is  satisfied  with  your  argument  " 
though  "  his  political  tendencies  would  draw  him  the  other 
way  "  ;  "I  shall  be  surprised  if  the  Lord  Chancellor  does  not 
concur  unless  he  goes  the  other  way  out  of  jealousy  "  ;  "I 
enclose  a  letter  from  Clarendon,  in  which  you  will  see  his 
opinion  of  '  Historicus  '  on  the  trade  and  contraband  in 
war,"  and  so  on.  Harcourt,  in  sending  a  copy  of  the  volume 
to  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  said,  referring  to  the  crucial  point  of 
"  obligation  "  in  the  matter  of  the  Alabama  : 


148  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1861-65 

Harcourt  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll. 

You  will  find  in  the  letter  on  "  Belligerent  Violations  of  Neutral 
Rights,"  p.  149,  the  question  which  we  discussed  at  Cliveden 
examined  at  length  and  the  reasons  which  lead  me  to  think  that  the 
Foreign  Enlistment  Act  is  not  a  Statute  "  in  furtherance  of  an 
international  obligation."  This  was  a  point  on  which  I  myself 
was  for  a  long  time  in  considerable  doubt  and  argued  myself  into 
conviction  by  the  process  stated  in  this  letter.  I  thought  the  matter 
so  important  and  so  difficult  that  I  would  not  print  it  till  I  had  taken 
the  opinion  of  Sir  Cornewall  Lewis,  Lowe  and  Sir  E.  Head,  who  all 
concurred.  You  will  see  that  the  Solicitor-General  in  his  speech  on 
the  A  labama  adopted  the  same  view. 

Among  the  congratulations  and  thanks  which  Harcourt 
received  on  the  publication  of  the  collected  letters  were 
several  from  members  of  the  Government,  including  Lord 
John  Russell  and  the  Attorney-General,  and  one  which 
doubtless  gave  him  special  satisfaction  from  R.  H.  Dana, 
junior,  of  Boston,  in  which  the  distinguished  American 
lawyer  said  : 

The  Government  and  people  of  the  United  States  owe  you  a  debt 
of  gratitude  for  your  convincing  and  fearless  exposition  of  many 
principles  of  international  law  which  have  borne  in  our  favour  in 
this  our  life  and  death  struggle.  We  know  your  purpose  has  not 
been  to  aid  one  side  or  the  other,  but,  with  a  judicial  mind,  to  quiet 
excitement,  clear  the  atmosphere,  and  correct  the  public  mind  ; 
but  this  course  so  ably  pursued,  has  been  of  incalculable  benefit 
to  us,  and  I  assure  you,  is  appreciated. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  LAWYER 

First  Brief  at  the  Parliamentary  Bar — Railway  Development — 
Defence  of  Public  Interest  against  the  Crown  on  the  Embank- 
ment Controversy — The  Crawley  Court  Martial — Autumn  Shoot- 
ing with  Millais — The  Alabama  again — Eulogy  of  President 
Lincoln — Consultations  with  Lord  Russell — The  Reform  Bills 
of  1866-67 — Disraeli's  Coup — Assistance  to  Lord  Stanley 
on  American  Controversy. 

IT  is  time  to  turn  to  another  phase  of  Harcourt's  many- 
sided  activities.  The  argument  he  carried  on  with  so 
much  energy  and  success  during  the  Civil  War  was 
incidental  to  his  profession,  but  not  associated  with  it.  In 
that  profession  he  had  by  this  time  established  himself 
securely.  After  some  preliminary  practice  on  the  Home 
Circuit  and  at  the  Law  Courts  he  had  gone  to  the  Parliamen- 
tary Bar,  where  he  became  a  leading  expert  on  railway  mat- 
ters, this  being  a  period  of  great  railway  expansion.  Indeed 
the  first  brief  preserved  among  his  papers  relates  to  a  railway 
case : 

BATHGATE  AND  MONKLAND  RAILWAYS.  .  .  .  Messrs.  Dean  and 
Rogers  present  their  compliments  to  Mr.  Har court  and  beg  to  inform 
him  that  in  accordance  with  their  interview  with  him  after  the  rising 
of  the  Committee  this  afternoon,  the  Consultation  with  Counsel 
is  fixed  for  to-morrow  morning  at  a  J  to  10  o'clock  at  Mr.  Serjt. 
Wrangham's  Chambers,  12,  Gt.  George  St. 

23  Fludyer  St.,  Westminster,  S.W., 
8th  June,  1857. 

The  brief  was  delivered  at  breakfast  time  and  very  little 
opportunity  was  left  for  its  study  before  the  hour  fixed  for 

149 


150  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1857-67 

the  consultation.  Harcourt  appeared  punctually,  suggested 
a  settlement,  and  so  gained  time  to  read  his  brief. 

In  a  letter  to  the  late  Lord  Harcourt,  the  ist  Lord  Brassey 
gives  a  glimpse  of  Harcourt  in  those  early  days  at  the 
parliamentary  bar : 

I  vividly  remember  the  first  occasion  when  I  saw  him.  In  1860 
I  was  a  pupil  in  the  chambers  of  John  Buller,  the  leading  parlia- 
mentary draughtsman  of  his  day.  There  was  a  continual  va  et  vient 
between  Buller  and  his  clients  in  the  parliamentary  Committee 
Rooms,  as  the  need  arose  for  amendments  or  new  clauses.  When- 
ever the  news  came  that  a  distinguished  advocate  was  about  to 
address  a  Committee,  John  Buller 's  chief  clerk  would  rush  into  the 
pupil-room  and  send  us  off  to  study  eloquence,  as  displayed  by  the 
leaders  of  the  parliamentary  bar.  It  was  in  the  corridor  leading 
to  the  Committee  Rooms  that  I  first  saw  your  father,  then  in  the 
prime  of  early  manhood.  He  was  pacing  leisurely  to  and  from, 
in  consultation  with  his  leader,  Hope-Scott.  Clients,  witnesses,  and 
lookers-on,  more  or  less  interested,  formed  a  busy  throng.  In  stature 
and  dignity  of  bearing  your  father  and  Hope-Scott  were  conspicuous 
in  the  crowd.  For  the  successful  men  incomes  were  large  in  those 
palmy  days  of  private  bill  legislation.  When  your  father  left  the 
Bar  to  enter  Parliament  he  made  a  sacrifice  which  did  him  honour. 

A  gay  episode  of  his  career  at  the  parliamentary  bar  is 
recorded  by  Lord  Shaw  of  Dunfermline  in  his  Letters  to  Isabel 
(Cassell,  1921).  It  was  told  to  Lord  Shaw  (then  Mr.  Thomas 
Shaw)  during  a  dull  debate  in  the  House  at  a  time  when 
Harcourt  was  leader  of  the  Opposition.  Mr.  Shaw  had  asked 
Harcourt  to  tell  him  something  of  his  life  at  the  Parliamen- 
tary Bar : 

He  gave  that  gurgling  chuckle  of  his  which  shook  his  heavy  frame, 
and  then  he  said  : 

"I  was  once,  about  the  beginning,  taken  in  as  third  counsel.  My 

seniors  were  Mr.  Hope-Scott  and  Mr.  Pope.  We  were  for  Lord 

and  we  were  to  oppose  an  Irish  railway  scheme.  So  we  had  a 

conference,  and  Lord came  to  it.  Said  Hope-Scott,  '  Would 

your  Lordship  tell  us  in  a  word  what  your  case  is  ?  '  '  My  case,' 
said  his  Lordship,  '  is  that  the  directors  are  all  damned  scoundrels.' 

'  Any  more  ?  '  said  Scott.  '  No,'  said  Lord , '  that's  enough, 

isn't  it  ?  That  is  my  case.'  "  We  both  laughed,  and  I  said,  "  Very 
definite." 

Then  he  resumed  :  "  The  very  thing  I  said  at  the  blessed  confer- 
ence. I  struck  in,  '  Your  instructions,  Lord  ,  are  very  clear. 

You  wish  the  case  run  on  those  lines.'  '  I  do,'  said  his  Lordship. 


1857-67]    "  ANY   MORE   DIRECTORS  ?  "  151 

"So  we  all  agreed  there  was  no  more  to  be  said.  And  when 
the  Bill  came  on,  of  course,  Hope-Scott  and  Pope  were  not  there." 

"  What  happened  ?  "  said  I. 

"  Oh,"  he  said,  "  I  ran  the  case  according  to  instructions.  I 
cross-examined  the  first  director.  It  rather  appeared,  after  all, 
there  was  something  in  Lord 's  idea.  When  the  cross-examina- 
tion finished,  my  clerk  pulled  my  gown,  and  said  to  me  :  '  Lord 

has  given  instructions  to  double  your  brief  fee.' 

"  Then  came  on  another  director.  At  the  close  of  his  evidence 

my  clerk  again  pulled  my  gown  and  said  :  '  Lord has  given 

instructions  to  treble  your  brief  fee.'  I  turned  to  him  and  said, 
'  Any  more  directors  ?  '  " 

"  And  were  there  ?  "  said  I  to  him.  "  Alas,  no,  Shaw,"  said  he. 
"  They  wouldn't  face  the  music.  The  Bill  collapsed." 

What  the  extent  of  the  sacrifice  was  to  which  Lord 
Brassey  refers  is  not  known  with  precision.  There  is  a 
statement  in  Harcourt's  own  handwriting  of  earnings  at 
the  parliamentary  bar  in  one  session  of  1865  as  follows : 

Unpaid,  Paid, 

6,910  gns.  1.370  gns. 

and,  according  to  the  best  authority  on  the  subject,  it  would 
appear  that  when  he  sacrificed  law  for  politics  his  income 
was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  £20,000  a  year.  That  it  was 
considerable  is  evident  from  the  fact  that,  starting  without 
a  fortune  of  his  own,  he  in  ten  years  or  so  of  professional 
practice  secured  such  a  position  of  independence  that  he  was 
able  for  the  rest  of  his  days  to  devote  himself  to  the  uncertain 
and,  in  his  case,  highly  unprofitable  calling  of  politics. 

It  was  always  characteristic  of  Harcourt's  legal  activities 
that  they  widened  out  into  the  sphere  of  public  affairs  and 
not  seldom  into  public  discussion.  For  example,  his  ex- 
perience in  connection  with  railway  legislation  led  him  early 
to  the  consideration  and  discussion  of  the  enhancement  of 
land  value,  whether  by  railway  building  or  otherwise.  He 
did  not  live  to  see  the  great  controversy  on  the  subject  in 
the  decade  before  the  European  War,  but  the  letters  which 
he  contributed  to  The  Times  on  various  occasions  show  that 
he  had  formed  very  clear  ideas  on  the  subject.  In  his 
argument  with  Lord  Redesdale  in  regard  to  the  opposition 
which  the  latter's  committee  was  putting  in  the  way  of 


152  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1857-67 

railway  construction,  he  insisted  that  "  public  advantage  " 
governed  the  matter.  It  was  not  the  duty  of  Parliament  to 
ask  whether  the  projected  railway  would  pay : 

I  say  a  line  may  be  distinctly  for  the  public  advantage,  and 
therefore  justify  the  concession  of  compulsory  powers  over  private 
property,  though  the  contractor  who  constructs  the  line  makes  a 
bad  speculation  and  the  shareholders  who  invest  in  it  make  an  un- 
profitable investment. 

Harcourt  was  concerned  to  meet  the  prejudice  of  landlords 
and  others  who  feared  the  destruction  of  the  amenities  of 
the  countryside  by  the  coming  of  the  railway,  the  objection 
of  existing  railway  companies  to  reasonable  development 
which  might  limit  their  share  of  business,  and  so  on.  One 
contention  put  forward,  apparently  by  Lord  Redesdale,  that 
if  a  railway  was  desirable  in  any  district  the  money  for  its 
construction  would  be  locally  forthcoming,  seems  an  odd 
one.  Harcourt  pointed  out  that  it  was  desirable  that 
farmers,  traders,  and  manufacturers  should  employ  their 
money  in  their  own  businesses,  and  that  the  objection  to 
"  foreign  "  capital  was  a  revival  of  the  old  Protectionist 
theory. 

He  was  under  no  illusion  as  to  the  class  who  were  really 
profiting  by  the  new  development. 

Whatever  gains  or  losses  (he  writes)  have  been  made  by  railroad 
enterprises,  there  is  one  set  of  persons  who  have  derived  from  them 
unmixed  advantages,  and  that  is  the  landed  interest.  From  the 
owners  of  the  barren  moors  in  Scotland  down  to  the  proprietor  of 
a  small  plot  of  building  land  near  the  metropolis  there  is  not  a 
landowner  in  the  country  whose  property  has  not  been  enormously 
enhanced  by  the  construction  of  railroads  (The  Times,  June  4,  1866). 

His  brother,  E.  W.  Harcourt,  who  succeeded  to  the  Nune- 
ham  estate,  might  well  complain,  as  he  did  on  another  occa- 
sion, "  You  have  no  landed  ideas,"  to  which  Harcourt  gaily 
retorted,  "  You  have  the  land,  and  may  leave  the  ideas 
to  me." 

Some  of  his  contentions  on  railway  development  are  more 
open  to  criticism  in  the  light  of  later  events.  He  thought 
that  the  expense  of  railway  construction  did  not  concern  the 


1857-67]        THAMES   EMBANKMENT  153 

general  public  at  all.  If  there  was  extravagance  on  the  part 
of  contractors  that  was  the  business  of  the  contractors  and 
of  the  shareholders,  and  no  one  else's.  But  sixty  years  ago 
no  one  who  was  not  endowed  with  prophetic  powers  could 
have  foreseen  to  what  extent  agriculturists  and  manufacturers 
would  depend  on  cheap  freights,  still  less  that  the  purchase 
of  the  railways  by  the  State  would  ever  become  a  question 
of  practical  politics. 

Parliament  (he  says)  will  have  regard  alone  to  the  general  interests 
of  the  whole  community,  and  not  to  that  of  particular  individuals. 
And  from  this  general  and  national  point  of  view  I  venture  boldly 
to  assert  that,  so  long  as  a  railway  is  properly  constructed  and 
worked  at  fair  rates,  it  matters  not  one  jot  to  the  public  or  to  Parlia- 
ment how  much  it  cost — where  the  money  comes  from,  or  whether 
it  pays  any  dividend.  .  .  .  (The  Times,  June  4,  1866). 

It  is  clear  that  the  validity  of  this  argument  depends  on 
the  definition  of  "  fair  rates,"  and  that  extravagance  in  the 
sums  paid  for  land,  excessive  costs  of  construction,  and  lavish 
watering  of  capital  have  handicapped  farmers,  merchants, 
and  traders  by  preventing  the  establishment  of  cheap  rates. 

In  another  case,  that  of  the  Thames  Embankment,  Har- 
court  was  conspicuous  in  the  defence  of  the  public  interest — 
in  this  case  against  the  Crown.  In  1862  he  was  Counsel  to 
the  Board  of  Trade  in  the  controversy  which  arose  over  the 
rights  of  the  holders  of  the  property  facing  the  river.  The 
Crown,  as  represented  by  the  Department  of  Woods  and 
Forests,  claimed  special  treatment  in  respect  of  the  frontage 
reclaimed,  and  Harcourt  wrote  to  The  Times  (July  7,  1862), 
under  the  name  of  "  Observer,"  putting  the  case  for  the 
public  very  strongly.  The  Department  demanded  the  in- 
sertion in  the  Bill  of  a  clause  which  would,  in  Harcourt 's 
view,  create  a  position  such  that — 

The  Crown,  alias  Mr.  Gore,  will  obtain  the  whole  enjoyment  of 
the  land  which  the  public  has  been  at  the  expense  of  reclaiming, 
and  the  public  will  have,  in  addition,  to  compensate  the  Crown's 
lessees,  whom  the  Crown  has  expressly  provided  shall  not  be  com- 
pensated by  itself. 

Messrs.  Gore  and  Pennithorne,  acting  for  the  Department 
of  Woods  and  Forests,  had  stated  that  they  "  made  a  distinc- 


154  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1857-67 

tion  between  the  Crown  and  the  Public."    This  was  too 
much  for  Harcourt. 

The  lands  of  the  Crown  (he  wrote)  are  just  as  much  public  property 
as  Trafalgar  Square  or  the  House  of  Parliament.  The  notion  that 
the  Crown  could  or  would  ever  abandon  the  Civil  List,  and  resume 
the  management  of  its  own  territories,  is  about  as  probable  as  that 
some  one  should  take  up  the  glove  at  the  coronation  and  challenge 
the  title  of  the  Sovereign  ;  but,  perhaps,  it  may  be  said  that  what 
is  amassed  by  the  rapacity  of  Mr.  Gore's  department  on  the  one 
hand  flows,  on  the  other,  into  the  public  Treasury  ;  and  that,  there- 
fore, if  Peter  is  robbed,  it  is  only  in  order  to  pay  Paul.  But  this 
is  not  so  ;  unfortunately  Mr.  Gore  has  the  spending  as  well  as  the 
extorting  power.  We  have  seen  that  he  was  ready  to  pay  £90,000 
out  of  the  funds  of  his  department  to  keep  the  public  off  the  Embank- 
ment. It  is  certainly  not  the  interest  of  the  public  to  tolerate 
the  grasping  policy  of  the  Woods  and  Forests,  which,  while  it  greedily 
exacts  from  the  public  claims  to  which  it  has  no  title,  is  on  the 
other  hand  ready  to  spend  with  profusion  the  funds  of  which  it  has 
so  possessed  itself,  wholly  without  regard  to  the  public  interests, 
and  even,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Thames  Embankment,  absolutely 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  public  rights. 

The  sequel  to  this  struggle  came  ten  years  later,  when 
Harcourt  was  able  to  give  effect  in  Parliament  to  the  view 
for  which  he  had  fought  outside.  The  matter  may  be  con- 
veniently disposed  of  here  by  the  following  extract  from 
The  Times  "  Summary  of  the  Session  "  published  on  August 
10,  1872  : 

Mr.  Gladstone  and  Mr.  Lowe  reverted  with  characteristic  tenacity 
of  purpose  to  their  claim  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  to  a  portion  of  the 
reclaimed  land  near  the  western  end  of  the  Thames  Embankment. 
A  Select  Committee  was  induced  to  reverse  the  recommendation 
of  last  year,  and  a  Bill  for  the  settlement  of  the  disputed  question 
was  about  to  be  passed  through  the  House  of  Commons,  when  Mr. 
Harcourt  moved  and  passed  against  the  Government  a  resolution 
that  it  was  not  expedient  to  proceed  further  with  the  matter  during 
the  present  year.  In  this  instance,  whatever  may  be  thought  of 
the  tact  and  judgment  of  Ministers,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that 
their  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  London  ratepayers  and  to  the 
feelings  of  the  House  of  Commons  must  be  dictated  by  conscientious 
convictions. 

I 

It  was  in  a  case  of  an  entirely  different  sort,  however,  that 
Harcourt  came  conspicuously  before  the  general  public  as  a 


1863]      DEFENDS  COLONEL  CRAWLEY      155 

great  combatant  lawyer.  Towards  the  end  of  1863  the 
country  was  excited  by  one  of  those  trials  which  periodically 
seize  its  imagination  and  arouse  its  anger.  The  Crawley 
Court  Martial  has  long  been  forgotten  by  the  public,  but  it 
still  lives  in  the  annals  both  of  the  Army  and  of  the  Law.  It 
involved  problems  of  military  discipline  and  military  tyranny 
that  never  fail  to  awaken  public  feeling,  and  it  was  accom- 
panied by  an  element  of  tragedy  that  moved  the  public  mind 
and  led  to  a  fierce  outcry  both  in  the  Press  and  in  Parliament. 
The  case  was,  briefly,  as  follows  : 

Colonel  Crawley  had  assumed  command  of  the  6th  (Ennis- 
killen)  Dragoons  at  Ahmednuggur  early  in  1861.  His  efforts 
to  promote  discipline  in  the  regiment  may  have  been  severe  ; 
they  certainly  aroused  violent  feeling  in  the  regiment,  in 
which  a  clique  hostile  to  the  Colonel  was  formed.  Paymaster 
Smales,  one  of  his  chief  opponents,  was  court-martialled  at 
Mhow  in  1862,  and  cashiered.  While  this  court  was  pending, 
three  non-commissioned  officers  were  placed  under  arrest,  by 
direct  orders  from  Colonel  Crawley's  superiors,  in  connexion 
with  Smales's  case.  Reports  reached  England  that  the 
Colonel  had  been  guilty  of  gross  inhumanity  towards  these 
men. 

Public  opinion  was  indeed  so  stirred  by  the  stories  of  the 
treatment  of  the  three  non-commissioned  officers,  one  of 
whom,  Lilley,  died  under  arrest,  while  a  second  was  reported 
to  have  been  a  raving  lunatic  when  released,  that  it  was 
eventually  agreed  to  institute  a  public  inquiry  at  Aldershot, 
the  witnesses  being  brought  over  from  India  for  the  purpose. 
Meanwhile  the  verdict  of  the  Mhow  court  martial  had  been 
quashed  on  the  advice  of  the  law  officers  at  home,  though  it 
had  been  approved  by  the  Indian  military  authorities. 

The  court  martial  assembled  at  Aldershot  on  November  17. 
1863,  under  the  presidency  of  Lieut. -Gen.  Sir  G.  A.  Wetherall, 
Colonel  James  Kennard  Pipon  acting  as  officiating  Judge- 
Advocate.  The  charges  were  limited  to  the  case  of  Sergt.- 
Major  Lilley  and  were,  substantially,  that  Colonel  Crawley 
had  carried  out  the  orders  for  his  close  arrest  with  unnecessary 
severity  and  that  he  had  at  the  Mhow  court  martial  tried  to 


156  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1863 

shift  responsibility  for  undue  severity  and  for  the  incon- 
venience caused  to  the  sergeant's  wife  on  to  the  shoulders 
of  a  subordinate 

The  trial  lasted  for  twenty-one  days,  Harcourt  acting  as 
counsel  for  Crawley.  He  was  not  permitted  to  speak,  but 
sat  beside  his  client  prompting  his  questions  and  preparing 
his  defence.  He  threw  himself  into  the  case  with  his  accus- 
tomed energy,  and  as  the  trial  proceeded  the  public  interest 
grew  "  Crawley  is  confounding  the  prosecution  daily," 
wrote  Delane  to  G.  W.  Dasent  (November  26, 1863). l  "  Head- 
lam  tells  me  he  will  be  convicted,  but  I  don't  seem  to  see  that, 
and  in  the  United  Service  and  Junior  United  Service  Clubs 
the  betting  is  all  in  favour  of  an  acquittal."  The  charges 
were  entirely  broken  down.  It  was  proved  that  the  quarters 
in  which  Sergt. -Major  Lilley  and  his  wife  were  confined 
were  ordinary  married  quarters,  and  that  the  wife  preferred 
to  stay  with  her  husband.  Great  play  had  been  made  about 
the  intrusion  of  the  sentry  on  the  sick  woman's  privacy,  but 
this  also  was  proved  to  be  a  myth.  The  defence  put  into 
Crawley's  mouth  by  Harcourt  created  something  of  a  sensa- 
tion. Blackburn,  the  Chief  Justice  of  Appeal  in  Dublin,  de- 
clared that  "  Crawley's  defence  was  the  ablest  and  the  most 
masterly  and  conclusive  one  he  had  ever  read,  and  that  he 
did  not  think  it  had  been  transcended  by  any  other  on 
record."  Crawley  was  found  "  Not  guilty,"  and  after  the 
trial  Harcourt  addressed  the  following  letter  to  his  client : 
Harcourt  to  Colonel  Crawley. 

December  i,  1863. — Now  that  your  defence  is  over,  my  duties  as 
your  Counsel  are  at  an  end.  I  am  therefore  at  liberty  to  say  now 
what  professional  etiquette  would  have  prohibited  before. 

From  the  first  time  that  I  really  understood  the  true  nature  of 
your  case,  I  made  up  my  mind  that  it  was  one  in  which  I  could  take 
no  fees. 

You  belong  to  one  profession  and  I  belong  to  another,  both  equally 
honourable  and  equally  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  our  common 
country.  To  yours  it  belongs  to  defend  us  all  from  foreign  and  open 
enemies  ;  to  ours  is  attributed  the  not  less  necessary  task  of  defending 
society  from  the  more  dangerous  and  treacherous  foes  of  slander  and 
falsehood. 


1  A.  I.  Dasent,  John  Thadeus  Delane.     Murray,   1908.     ii.  79. 


i863]  A   GENEROUS   ACT  157 

If  my  professional  efforts  have  been  of  any  service  to  you  in 
helping  to  unravel  the  trammels  of  a  great  conspiracy,  I  desire  no 
other  satisfaction  than  the  hope  that  they  have  been  so,  and  I  can 
accept  no  other  reward. 

Pray  express  to  Mrs.  Crawley  my  sincere  admiration  of  the  feminine 
devotion  and  the  more  than  feminine  fortitude  with  which  she  has 
supported  you  and  sustained  herself  through  the  greatest  trial  which 
a  woman  can  undergo.  Alas,  I  know  too  well  what  it  is  to  have  the 
devotion  of  such  a  wife  and  to  feel  what  it  is  to  have  lost  it.  In 
all  your  sufferings  you  have  been  spared  the  bitterest  of  all. 

Harcourt  was  the  recipient  of  a  host  of  congratulations  on 
his  triumph,  from  people  who,  like  Martin  Tupper,  had 
"  fancied  your  client  in  the  wrong  "  and  had  been  converted 
by  his  speech,  from  others  who,  like  Lady  Minto,  had 
throughout  regarded  the  Colonel  "  as  the  object  of  a  most 
malignant  attack,"  and  from  legal  colleagues.  Among  the 
latter,  Thomas  Hughes  wrote  : 

Thomas  Hughes  to  Harcourt. 

Waller  showed  me  to-day  in  court  your  letter  to  Crawley  refusing 
to  take  fees — I  cannot  resist  writing  to  thank  you  as  a  barrister 
and  an  Englishman  for  what  you  have  done.  It  does  one  real  good 
in  these  weary,  dark  days  to  come  upon  such  a  glimpse  of  a  nobler 
and  worthier  way  of  life  ;  all  honour  to  the  man  who  has  shown  it 
to  us.  I  know  well  that  such  acts  carry  their  own  reward,  but  hope 
that  you  will  not  object  to  the  fact  being  made  public.  I  am  sure 
from  my  own  case  that  it  will  do  great  good,  both  in  our  profession 
and  outside. 

I  need  add  nothing  as  to  your  long  and  trying  fight — I  have 
followed  it  carefully  from  day  to  day,  and  can  honestly  say  I  do  not 
know  the  man  who  could  have  pulled  the  case  through  so  well. 

"  You  may  be  amused  to  hear  that  the  countryside  has 
been  enthusiastic  in  its  admiration  of  Col.  Crawley' s  brilliant 
powers  of  speech,"  wrote  Lady  Minto.  "  William  heard  of 
nothing  else  in  the  hunting-field  for  days,  and  I  should  not 
wonder  if  the  Roxburghshire  farmers  were  to  suggest  him  as 
a  suitable  candidate  next  election  to  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch  ! 
You  certainly  have  drawn  your  sword  against  the  many- 
headed  Press  with  extraordinary  pluck,  and  I  am  glad  to  see 
the  weapon  as  bright  as  ever  it  was."  In  the  course  of  his 
reply  to  Lady  Minto,  written  from  Nuneham,  where  he  had 
been  spending  Christmas  with  his  parents,  Harcourt  said : 


158  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1864 

Harcourt  to  Lady  Minto. 

January  g,  1864. — The  Crawley  case  was  one  which  for  many 
reasons  really  interested  me  much  and  I  was  very  lucky  in  being 
entrusted  with  its  sole  management.  There  is  (nothing)  so  exas- 
perating as  to  be  on  board  a  ship  when  you  cannot  command  the 
helm  yourself.  It  was  a  real  good  stand-up  fight  with  the  Press, 
and  it  is  not  often  one  has  such  good  materials  for  giving  it  a  thrash- 
ing. What  I  am  most  proud  of  is  having  made  The  Times  cry 
peccavi.  But  you  know  an  old  poacher  makes  the  best  gamekeeper, 
and  when  one  knows  the  tricks  of  the  trade  one  learns  exactly  how 
and  when  to  hit.  Those  who  have  not  served  a  journalistic  appren- 
ticeship don't  know  whereabouts  its  fifth  rib  is. 

I  was  restrained  only  by  a  prudent  regard  for  the  interests  of  my 
client  from  saying  what  I  think  of  that  biggest  of  moral  poltroons 
H.R.H.  the  Commander -in-Chief,  who  from  sheer  funk  would  sacrifice 
anyone  to  the  newspapers.  What  a  pity  it  is  that  people  will  not 
understand  the  truth  of  Byron's  saying  that  "  no  one  ever  was  written 
down  by  anyone  but  himself."  I  should  as  soon  think  of  being 
afraid  of  the  Press  as  I  should  of  a  bogie  made  out  of  a  turnip  with 
a  candle  in  it.  "  Resist  the  Devil  and  he  will  flee  from  you."  My 
old  tutor  Willes  (the  Judge)  used  to  say  that  the  true  rule  of  life 
was  to  be  found  in  the  non  euro  damnum  principle  which  translated 

in  Crawleian  English  means  "  I  don't  care  a  d ."  What  a  pity 

you  were  not  born  a  man !  You  are  one  of  the  few  people  I  know 
capable  of  acting  on  this  sublime  philosophy.  .  .  . 

In  the  summer  of  1864  Harcourt's  name  was  mentioned 
in  the  Press  in  connection  with  the  post  of  Junior  Counsel 
to  the  Treasury,  and  Sir  Roundell  Palmer  (afterwards  Lord 
Selborne),  the  Attorney-General,  who  had  appointed  Hannen 
to  the  position,  wrote  to  Harcourt  (July  20)  regretting  the 
"  liberty  taken  with  your  name,"  adding : 

I  need  not  tell  you  how  high  an  opinion  I  have  of  you,  nor  how 
much  it  would  always  rejoice  me  to  manifest  that  opinion  in  any 
suitable  way  :  and,  if  it  did  not  occur  to  me,  that  an  appointment, 
requiring  special  attainments  in  the  technical  parts  of  professional 
learning,  would  be  particularly  suitable  to  you  (whom  I  have  always 
thought  qualified  and  destined  for  much  greater  things),  you  will 
not,  I  am  sure,  attribute  it  to  any  lack  of  friendship. 

A  few  days  later  Palmer  asked  Harcourt  to  act  as  junior 
counsel  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  in  proceedings  against 
Rumble,  a  dockyard  official  at  Sheerness,  accused  of  helping 
to  enlist  men  for  the  Rappahannock.  Among  his  other 


1857-67]     ON  THE  SCOTTISH   MOORS  159 

professional  engagements  at  this  time  was  one  in  which 
Lord  Hartington  asked  him  to  act  as  the  counsel  before  the 
Committee  which  had  been  appointed  to  decide  the  question 
of  the  legality  of  his  seat  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

In  additional  to  his  professional  work  he  was  engaged  in 
many  semi-professional  duties,  such  as  the  arrangement  of 
the  settlement  made  by  G.  F.  Watts  with  Ellen  Terry  at  the 
time  of  their  separation  in  1865.  In  this  matter  he  acted 
for  Watts,  who  was  a  fellow-member  of  the  Cosmopolitan 
Club,  and  worked  with  his  friend  Tom  Taylor,  from  whom 
there  are  several  letters  on  the  subject  among  Harcourt's 
papers.  In  his  letter  of  thanks  to  Harcourt  for  his  services, 
Watts  says  that  what  he  pays  in  pocket  is  "  the  least  penalty 
that  is  inflicted  on  me."  Of  Harcourt's  delicacy  in  this 
episode  there  is  touching  evidence  in  an  undated  note  to  him 
from  the  great  actress  long  after : 

You  looked  exactly  the  same  as  you  looked  on  a  certain  evening 
in  (I  fancy  in  February)  when  you  stood  by  the  fireplace  in  a  certain 
big  studio  and  said  a  few  kind  words  to  a  poor — almost  child  then — 
but  that's  long  ago.  .  .  . 

It  was  at  this  period  that  Harcourt  began  those  autumnal 
visits  to  Scotland  which  became  for  many  years  his  chief 
source  of  recreation.  His  first  sporting  adventure  was  in 
1862,  when  with  a  friend  he  took  a  moor  at  Suie,  near 
Crieff,  in  Perthshire.  The  next  autumn  he  paid  a  round  of 
visits  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll  at  Inverary,  Lord  John  Russell 
at  Meiklour,  and  the  Mintos,  finding,  however,  as  we  have 
seen  from  his  letter  to  Butler,  that  idleness  was  no  cure  for 
the  depression  with  which  the  bereavements  of  that  year  had 
afflicted  him.  Soon  afterwards  he  contemplated  taking  the 
moor  of  Killean  in  Argyllshire,  but  the  Duke  of  Argyll  warned 
him  that  the  game  was  not  plentiful  and  that  the  rain  was 
— 87  inches  in  the  year — and  the  scheme  fell  through, 
Harcourt  spending  the  autumn  holiday  of  1864  in  a  shooting 
at  Roehallion  near  Inverary,  where  he  met  Livingstone  and 
stayed  with  Sir  John  Millais.  It  was  the  beginning  of  a 
close  sporting  friendship  with  the  painter,  who,  with  Sir 
John  Fowler,  the  engineer,  became  his  most  constant 


160  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1857-67 

companion  in  the  Highlands.  The  usual  rendezvous  was 
Fowler's  house  at  Braemore.  He  was  there  on  the  eve  of 
the  election  of  1868,  when  the  house-party  included  Russell 
of  The  Times,  Millais,  and  Landseer.  There  are  among 
Harcourt's  papers  many  letters  from  Millais  and  Fowler, 
but  the  best  glimpse  of  these  days  is  given  in  The  Life 
and  Letters  of  Sir  J.  E.  Millais,  written  by  his  son  : 

August  12,  1865. — He  (Sir  J.  Millais)  and  his  friend  Reginald 
Cholmondeley  went  off  to  the  North — this  time  to  Argyll,  where  Sir 
William  Harcourt  had  taken  a  shooting  called  Dalhenna,  amongst 
the  lovely  hills  near  Inverary.  The  great  leader  of  the  Liberals 
proved  a  most  admirable  host,  and  many  are  the  good  stories  told 
of  the  jovial  times  the  three  friends  had  together.  How  Millais 
enjoyed  it  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  letters  to  his  wife, 
all  dated  in  August  1865.  In  the  first  he  says  : 

"  Harcourt  and  I  shot  twenty-three  brace  yesterday  in  a  frightful 
sun,  and  enjoyed  the  day  very  much.  Cholmondeley  is  not  well 
(knocked  up  by  the  heat),  so  he  didn't  accompany  us.  H.  is  sending 
all  the  birds  to  England,  and  we  don't  like  to  have  birds  for  ourselves. 
The  cuisine  is  like  that  of  a  good  club.  His  cook  is  here  and  man- 
servant, and  the  comfort  is  great — altogether  delightful — and  the 
grapes  and  peaches  were  thoroughly  appreciated.  The  Duke 
and  Duchess  of  Sutherland  left  yesterday.  She  looked  so  pretty 
at  luncheon  on  Sunday.  We  have  a  great  deal  of  laughing.  To-day 
we  are  going  to  fish  in  Loch  Fyne  for  lythe,  which  afford  good  sport ; 
and  to-morrow  we  shoot  again.  Cholmondeley  has  his  keeper  and 
dogs  with  him.  H.  has  a  kilted  keeper  of  his  own,  besides  the  ponies 
for  the  hill  with  saddlebags.  We  are  going  to  visit  the  islands  in 
a  yacht,  as  the  rivers  are  too  dry  for  fishing  salmon.  .  .  . 

"  Harcourt  is  having  a  new  grate  put  into  his  kitchen  to  soften  his 
cook.  We  have  come  in  the  dog-cart  here  for  the  day,  taking  boat 
at  Cladich  and  leaving  it  almost  immediately  in  terror,  from  the  un- 
safeness  of  the  boat  in  heavy  waves.  We  walked  on  here,  and  H.  at 
once  let  go  a  storm  of  invective  against  the  landlady  and  the  waiter, 
both  being  so  supremely  indifferent  about  our  custom  that  we  had 
great  difficulty  in  assuaging  our  appetites.  After  long  suffering 
we  obtained  only  very  tough  chops  and  herrings.  .  .  . 

"  We  have  killed  comparatively  little  game,  but  enough  to  make  it 
pleasant,  and  I  expect  plenty  of  blackgame.  Rabbits  are  abundant, 
and  no  one  could  be  more  kind  and  jolly  than  Harcourt.  .  .  . 

Of  these  Dalhenna  days  Millais  loved  to  recall  an  amusing  incident, 
the  hero  (Harcourt)  being  one  of  the  three  shooters,  who  shall  be 
nameless.  One  evening  during  a  casual  stroll  about  the  domain, 
the  sportsman  spied  a  magnificent  "  horned  beast  "  grazing  peace- 
fully on  their  little  hill.  In  the  gloaming  it  looked  like  a  stag  of 


1857-6]  HUNTS  THE   STAG  161 

fine  proportions  ;  and  without  pausing  to  examine  it  through  a 
glass,  he  rushed  into  the  house,  and,  seizing  a  rifle,  advanced 
upon  his  quarry  with  all  the  stealth  and  cunning  of  an  accom- 
plished stalker.  The  crucial  moment  came  at  last.  His  finger 
was  on  the  trigger,  and  the  death  of  the  animal  a  certainty,  when  a 
raucous  Highland  voice  bellowed  in  his  ear,  "  Ye're  no  gaen  to  shute 
the  meenister's  goat,  are  ye  ?  " 

Harcourt  always  gave  a  Roland  for  an  Oliver,  and  he  took 
his  revenge  for  this  humiliation  in  the  next  autumn.  The 
jest  is  contained  in  the  following  merry  exchange  between 
the  two  friends  : 

Millais  to  Harcourt. 

CALLANDER,  N.B.,  September  20,  1866. — DEAR  HARCOURT, — How 
can  I  convey  the  bitter  intelligence  (after  all  your  unsuccessful 
efforts)  that  yesterday  I  had  my  second  shot  at  a  stag  at  ninety 
yards  and  killed  him  as  dead  as  a  door- nail  right  through  the  heart  ? 
It  was  the  most  difficult  and  exciting  stalk  possible,  and  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  day  I  was  lying  on  my  back  in  a  torrent,  whilst 
a  deluge  of  rain  battered  my  upturned  countenance.  Working 
down  with  our  elbows  the  keeper  and  I  eventually  reached  some 
rocks  which  concealed  us,  and  there,  after  a  council,  I  did  the  deed. 
From  below  we  must  have  presented  this  appearance  (here  follows 
a  picture  of  Millais  and  the  keeper  sliding  down  a  gully  on  their 
backs  and  another  of  the  triumphant  shot ;  also  a  picture  of  a  cock 
crowing  lustily,  labelled  "  I,"  and  another  of  the  stag  shot). 

I  feel  this  to  be  rather  a  painful  communication,  but  you  have 
brought  it  on  yourself.  You  needn't  tear  your  wig,  but  come  quietly 
some  day  to  me,  and  I  will  coach  you  before  you  try  your  hand  again 
upon  the  Monarch  of  the  Forest.  Yours  sympathizingly,  J.  EVERETT 
MILLAIS. 

Harcourt  to  Millais. 

STUD  LEY  ROYAL,  RIPON,  October  3,  1866. — MY  DEAR  MILLAIS, — 
I  received  your  insane  letter,  from  which  I  gather  you  are  under 
the  impression  that  you  have  killed  a  stag.  Poor  fellow,  I  pity 
your  delusion.  I  hope  the  time  is  now  come  when  I  can  break  to 
you  the  painful  truth.  Your  wife,  who  (as  I  have  always  told  you) 
alone  makes  it  possible  for  you  to  exist,  observing  how  the  dis- 
appointment of  your  repeated  failures  was  telling  on  your  health 
and  on  your  intellect,  arranged  with  the  keepers  for  placing  in  a 
proper  position  a  wooden  stag  constructed  like  that  of  ...  You 
were  conducted  unsuspectingly  to  the  spot  and  fired  at  the  dummy. 
In  the  excitement  of  the  moment,  you  were  carried  off  by  the  gillie, 
so  that  you  did  not  discern  the  cheat,  and  believed  you  had  really 
slain  a  "  hart  of  grease."  Poor  fellow,  I  know  better,  and  indeed 

M 


162  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1865 

your  portrait  of  the  stag  sitting  up  smiling,  with  a  head  as  big  as  a 
church  door  on  his  shoulders,  tells  its  own  tale.  I  give  Mrs.  M. 
great  credit  on  this,  as  on  all  other  occasions,  for  her  management 
of  you.  I  am  happy  to  hear  that  the  result  of  the  pious  fraud  has 
been  to  restore  you  to  equanimity  and  comparative  sanity,  and  I 
hope  by  the  time  I  see  you  again  you  may  be  wholly  restored.  .  .  . 
Pray  remember  me  to  Mrs.  M.  Yours  ever,  W.  V.  HARCOURT. 

I  see  that,  in  order  to  keep  up  the  delusion,  puffs  of  your  per- 
formance have  been  inserted  in  all  the  papers. 


II 

Meanwhile  the  activities  of  Harcourt  in  connection  with 
the  Civil  War  were  assuming  a  new  character.  That  struggle 
was  drawing  to  a  decision,  the  nature  of  which  had  become 
increasingly  apparent  as  the  campaign  of  Grant  in  the 
Wilderness  proceeded  through  the  summer  and  autumn  of 
1864.  In  the  November  of  that  year  Lincoln  had  been 
re-elected  President,  and  in  the  following  March  he  had 
delivered  the  greatest  and  most  moving  utterance,  perhaps, 
that  ever  issued  from  the  lips  of  a  statesman — the  Second 
Inaugural.  The  danger  of  a  sudden  rupture  between  Eng- 
land and  America  had  long  since  passed  away ;  but  the  old 
wounds  rankled,  and  as  the  end  drew  near  the  battle  of 
words  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  grew  more  intense.  There 
were  two  main  points  which  embittered  American  feeling. 
With  both  of  them  the  reader  is  familiar.  They  were  (i) 
the  early  recognition  of  belligerency  by  England,  which  the 
North  regarded  as  an  encouragement  to  the  South,  (2)  the 
question  of  compensation  in  regard  to  the  destruction  of 
American  commerce  by  the  Alabama.  On  these  questions 
Harcourt  had  taken  a  decisive  line  in  support  of  the  British 
Government.  On  the  first  point  he  was  clearly  right ;  on 
the  second  he  was  right  as  a  lawyer,  but  wrong  in  his 
estimate  of  the  moral  weight  of  the  case  for  compensation. 
Pursuing  his  custom  of  basing  his  case  on  American  precedent, 
he  confronted  his  antagonists  with  the  action  of  the  United 
States  during  the  Wars  of  Independence  in  South  America 
and  with  the  declarations  of  their  own  lawyers  and  statesmen. 

But  the  issue  was  becoming  so  grave  that  he  contem  plated 


i86s]         ON   ENGLISH   NEUTRALITY  163 

other  action.  He  proposed  to  write  a  letter  to  President 
Lincoln  showing  how  honourably  England  had  observed  the 
spirit  and  letter  of  neutrality  and  how  that  observance  had 
been  to  the  advantage  of  the  Union  cause.  He  refers  to  this 
project  in  a  letter  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll : 

Harcourt  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll. 

LONDON,  April  6,  1865. — I  have  no  reason  to  think  that  C.  Sumner 
is  right  or  that  I  am  wrong.  On  the  contrary,  from  what  I  know 
of  the  two  persons  I  should  be  disposed  to  believe  the  reverse.  I 
don't  think  it  very  probable  that  either  he  or  I  are  likely  to  appreciate 
one  another's  merits,  though  I  hope  that  you  will  tell  the  Duchess 
that  some  disagreeable  sentences  to  his  address  were  scratched  out 
of  my  last  letter  solely  from  consideration  for  her  feelings. 

Nevertheless  I  should  like  to  see  what  he  says  on  the  subject  to 
which  your  letter  refers  if  I  may  be  trusted  with  that  portion  of 
the  precious  MS.,  as  in  the  course  of  the  Easter  recess  I  am  about 
to  prepare  a  complete  argument  on  the  case  of  the  Alabama  in  the 
form  of  a  pamphlet  in  which  I  shall  publish  the  said  Portuguese 
correspondence  in  extenso.  .  .  . 

My  pamphlet  will  be  in  the  form,  I  think,  of  a  letter  to  Lincoln 
on  the  neutrality  of  England.  I  have  formed  a  very  high  opinion 
of  Lincoln  and  mean  to  be  very  civil  to  him.  .  .  . 

I  fear  a  very  nasty  question  has  arisen  in  the  seizure  of  some 
Englishmen  whom  the  Yankees  are  going  to  try  for  being  engaged 
in  equipping  the  Stonewall  on  the  high  seas.  They  are  going  to  try 
them  as  enemies  by  a  Military  Commission,  and  I  am  not  sure  that 
they  have  not  a  right  to  do  so. 

The  American  proclamation  ordering  all  persons  who  have  been 
engaged  in  blockade  running  to  leave  the  States  is  very  foolish  and 
spiteful  just  at  the  moment  when  it  ceases  to  be  of  any  use.  They 
might  just  as  well  expel  all  episcopalians. 

Writing  to  Harcourt  on  the  subject  of  the  contemplated 
letter  to  Lincoln,  Lord  Clarendon  says : 

Clarendon  to  Harcourt. 

THE  GROVE,  April  16,  1865. — It  occurs  to  me  that  in  your  letter  to 
Lincoln  you  might  lay  stress  upon  the  signal  service  we  have  rendered 
to  the  North  for  nearly  three  years  by  preventing  the  E.  of  the 
French  from  recognizing  the  South — he  did  not  venture  upon  such 
a  step  singlehanded,  but  in  conjunction  with  us  he  would  have  done 
so  at  any  moment,  and  the  tallest  talkers  among  the  Federals  will 
hardly  deny  the  importance  of  our  refusal  to  associate  ourselves 
with  the  pro-Confederate  policy  of  the  Emperor.  Recognition  by 
England  and  France  two  years  ago  would  have  been  everything  to 


164  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1865 

the  Confederates.  The  Federals  might  possibly  have  declared  war 
against  us,  and  in  a  month  they  would  have  found  themselves  in  the 
same  position  as  the  Confederates  have  been  in  with  their  ports 
blockaded  and  their  intercourse  with  Europe  paralysed. 

As  the  overtures  of  the  French  Government  to  us  have  been  rather 
in  the  nature  of  feelers  and  have  not  been  made  public,  I  think  that 
before  alluding  to  them  it  would  be  prudent  to  consult  Lord  Russell. 

But  the  pro] ected  letter  was  not  written.  While  Clarendon 
was  penning  his  note  to  Harcourt,  Lincoln  lay  dead  in 
Washington.  A  fortnight  later  (May  2, 1865)  there  appeared 
in  The  Times  the  noble  eulogium  which  "  Historicus  "  wrote 
on  the  murdered  President.  One  passage  will  serve  to 
indicate  the  dignity  and  beauty  of  this  tribute  : 

.  .  .  Upon  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  the  world,  even  before  his  death 
had  passed  a  just  and  favourable  judgment.  Situated  in  circum- 
stances of  unexampled  difficulty,  he  had  achieved  unexpected 
greatness.  As  the  leader  in  a  revolution  which  he  had  not  made,  he 
adhered  as  closely  as  that  revolution  permitted  him  to  the  law.  In 
disaster  he  was  undismayed,  in  success  he  was  sober,  in  the  presence 
of  provocation  he  was  moderate,  in  the  hour  of  victory  he  was  merci- 
ful. If  these  are  not  the  constituents  of  greatness,  political  and 
moral,  I  know  not  what  is  the  meaning  of  that  word.  .  .  .  Mr. 
Lincoln  grew  to  be  what  he  at  length  became  by  the  hard  discipline 
of  adversity  and  the  strict  school  of  responsibility.  He  became 
great — as  such  natures  do  become  great — by  the  action  of  the  ennob- 
ling duties  of  such  a  station  upon  a  mind  honest,  courageous,  con- 
scientious, and  truthful.  Under  the  purifying  influences  of  this 
fiery  assay  the  ore  is  purged  from  the  dross,  and  shines  out  at  length 
in  a  sterling  lustre  which  did  not  belong  to  its  native  state.  Those 
who  have  compared  his  earlier  with  his  later  discourses  will  have 
marked  the  striking  growth  of  his  moral  stature.  No  one,  I  think, 
can  have  read  the  Message  of  March  4,  1865,  distinguished  as  it  was 
by  a  tone  of  chastened  and  saddened  earnestness,  without  feeling 
that  it  was  the  true  language  of  a  good  and  a  great  man,  sober  in 
the  midst  of  political  success  and  moderate  in  the  hour  of  military 
triumph.  The  lesson  to  be  learnt  from  the  history  of  such  a  character 
is  to  abstain  from  hasty  judgments  upon  untried  men.  I  trust  it 
will  not  be  lost  at  this  moment  either  at  home  or  abroad.  .  .  . 

From  the  panegyric  he  passed  to  a  weighty  defence  of  the 
cause  of  the  North  as  the  cause  of  freedom,  closing  with  a 
moving  appeal  for  peace  : 

This  is  the  moment  of  reconciliation — of  reconciliation  both  at 
home  and  abroad.  I  earnestly  trust  it  will  not  be  lost.  There 


i865]  EULOGY   OF  LINCOLN  165 

can  be  few  among  your  readers  who  have  been  so  happy  as  not  some 
time  or  other  to  have  stood  by  the  death-bed  of  a  friend.  In  the 
awful  sadness  of  the  scene  old  enmities  are  forgotten  and  former 
grudges  are  removed.  Fortunate  are  the  mourners  who  have  nothing 
to  be  forgiven  or  to  be  forgotten.  But  there  are  others  less  happy 
in  their  grief,  who  after  long  times  of  alienation  are  reconciled  and 
made  friends  at  last.  The  grave  of  Mr.  Lincoln  seems  to  me  to  offer 
such  an  occasion  of  charity  and  of  peace.  He  was  a  friend  to  peace 
and,  therefore,  a  friend  to  us  all.  He  was  eminently,  I  believe,  a 
friend  to  peace  between  England  and  America.  I  hope  and  I  believe 
that  as  a  nation  England  has  been  neither  unjust  nor  unkind  towards 
America  in  her  trouble.  The  heart  of  the  people  of  England  has 
been  throughout  with  the  cause  of  freedom.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  the  friends  of  the  Southern  cause  have,  I  believe,  never  ventured 
to  call  a  free  open  meeting  in  this  country  to  support  their  views. 
To  my  mind  that  in  itself  is  a  conclusive  test  of  the  real  preponder- 
ance of  public  opinion.  The  action  of  the  English  Government,  for 
which  alone  the  English  nation  can  be  held  responsible,  has  been 
such  as  ought  to  satisfy  the  American  people.  There  may  have 
been  on  either  side  idle  provocation  employed  by  irresponsible 
persons  which  had  better  be  forgotten  and  forgiven.  Let  them  be 
buried  in  the  grave  of  President  Lincoln.  ...  If,  Sir,  America  and 
England  walk  forth  from  this  sad  chamber  of  death  friends  with  one 
another  and  among  themselves,  then  we  may  still  pluck  consolation 
from  this  dreadful  disaster.  Then,  in  the  result,  the  death  of  Presi- 
dent Lincoln  will  have  helped  to  achieve  the  ends  which  he  had  most 
at  heart  in  his  honourable  and  useful  life. 

But  the  cloud  between  the  two  countries  did  not  pass, 
and  the  loss  of  the  wise  and  magnanimous  influence  of 
Lincoln  was  to  be  felt  here  as  well  as  in  America.  In  the 
storm  that  was  working  up  Russell  turned  increasingly  for 
help  to  Harcourt.  He  writes  to  him  : 

Russell  to  Harcourt. 

CHESHAM  PLACE,  March  15,  1865. — I  should  be  much  obliged  to 
you  if  you  would  look  through  the  cases  in  Wheaton's  Reports  of 
prizes  taken  by  cruisers  fitted  out  in  U.S.  ports  to  prey  on  the 
commerce  of  Spain  and  Portugal  during  the  War  of  South  American 
Independence,  with  a  view  to  see  how  far  their  enterprises  resembled 
or  exceeded  in  open  violation  of  neutrality  the  doings  of  our  Lairds 
and  other  speculators. 

I  want  this  that  I  may  be  ready  with  an  answer  to  Seward  when  he 
makes  his  demand,  and  you  shall  have  payment  for  the  work  if  you 
think  proper. 

I  have  now  (he  writes  on  April  23)  to  answer  a  very  groundless, 
though  civilly  worded  complaint  of  Adams  against  our  conduct  for 


166  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1865 

the  last  four  years,  and  after  my  answer  has  been  before  the  Cabinet, 
I  should  like  to  show  it  to  you.     This  would  be  about  Friday  next. 

The  next  day  Harcourt  wrote  to  Russell  providing  him 
with  further  precedents,  especially  of  American  origin,  to  be 
put  forward  in  defence  of  the  British  case  on  the  questions 
of  blockade  running  and  the  concession  of  belligerent  rights. 
Russell  replied  (April  26)  asking  Harcourt's  consent  to 
sending  his  letter  to  the  Attorney-General  and  adding  : 

I  think  the  American  Government  will  be  assisted  by  a  sound 
substantial  answer  from  us,  and  then  they  will  say  to  their  own 
people  as  they  did  in  the  case  of  the  Trent,  "  You  see  we  cannot  fly 
in  the  face  of  our  own  doctrines,"  or  (in  Castlereagh's  language) 
"  We  cannot  turn  our  backs  upon  ourselves." 

But  the  disquiet  in  the  Government  about  American 
feeling  continued,  and  Clarendon  wrote  to  Harcourt  a  few 
days  later : 

Clarendon  to  Harcourt. 

FOREIGN  OFFICE,  April  30,  1865. — If  Sumner  reigns  in  Se ward's 
stead  I  would  not  give  much  for  the  maintenance  of  peace.  He 
writes  to  the  Argylls  that  the  army  is  very  impatient  for  the  payment 
of  the  Alabama  bill,  and  he  seems  to  think  that  the  army  is  quite 
right.  I  shall  be  curious  to  see  whether  the  genuine  feeling  manifested 
here  in  re  Lincoln  will  have  a  good  effect  in  America.  Lyons  thinks 
it  will. 

The  Whitsuntide  was  occupied  by  Harcourt  in  more  work 
for  Russell,  who  had  written  to  him  "  to  furnish  me  with 
ammunition  for  a  reply."  Meanwhile  Harcourt  was  engaged 
on  his  vindication  of  British  neutrality,  which,  originally 
designed  as  a  letter  to  Lincoln,  was  now  taking  the  form  of 
a  memorandum.  In  the  preparation  of  this  document 
Russell  took  much  interest,  and  his  notes  to  Harcourt  have 
frequent  references  to  the  subject.  "  I  am  much  obliged  to 
you  for  the  different  points  of  your  memorandum,"  he  writes 
to  Harcourt  on  August  5.  "I  shall  now  finish  my  despatch 
and  submit  it  to  the  Law  Officers.  I  hope  you  will  publish 
your  memorandum.  ...  It  is  a  very  complete  argument." 
Ten  days  later  he  writes  : 


i86s]       COMMISSION   FROM   RUSSELL         167 

Russell  to  Harcourt. 

PEMBROKE  LODGE,  August  15,  1865. — I  have  finished,  with  the 
assistance  of  your  valuable  papers,  my  reply  to  Adams,  and  it  is 
now  gone  to  Lord  Palmerston,  and  the  Law  Officers.  As  soon  as 
it  comes  back,  I  will  send  you  a  copy.  I  think  your  publication 
may  appear  some  time  next  month,  or  early  in  October.  I  don't 
think  public  attention,  either  here  or  in  America,  will  be  awake 
to  the  importance  of  the  question  before  that  time.  The  use  the 
American  Government  makes  of  the  question  is  to  show  unfriendly 
tendencies,  and  refuse  a  Reciprocity  Treaty. 

A  few  days  later  Russell  was  again  urging  publication  of 
"  your  '  Neutrality  of  England  Vindicated,'  a  very  good 
title,"  and  complaining  that  his  own  despatch  was  hanging 
fire  in  the  hands  of  the  law  officers.  Palmer,  the  Attorney- 
General,  was  also  delaying  the  publication  of  the  memor- 
andum, which  eventually  appeared  under  the  title,  The 
Neutrality  of  England  and  the  United  States  Compared, 
Harcourt,  writing  to  Russell  from  Dunblane  on  August 
27,  says  : 

Harcourt  to   Russell. 

Many  thanks  for  your  notes  and  for  the  kind  way  in  which  you 
speak  of  my  Memorandum.  It  is  by  no  means  up  to  the  mark  of 
what  I  should  wish  in  a  formal  publication,  but  I  think  I  could  lick 
it  into  shape  in  a  short  time.  I  have  received  a  letter  from  the  A.  G. 
on  the  subject,  which  I  enclose  to  you.  I  confess  I  cannot  follow 
the  reasoning  in  all  respects.  It  seems  to  me  to  go  almost  the  length 
of  denying  the  existence  of  actual  rights  as  between  nations,  which 
I  should  be  sorry  to  do.  Indeed,  unless  there  be  some  fixed  standard 
to  appeal  to,  there  can  be  no  redress  except  in  force.  Especially 
also  in  such  cases  as  that  of  the  Alabama,  I  think  it  is  eminently 
the  interest  of  a  powerful  maritime  nation  like  Great  Britain  to 
maintain  that  there  is  a  duty  on  the  part  of  the  neutral  nations  to 
prevent  armaments  within  their  jurisdiction.  I  should  desire, 
therefore,  to  found  the  argument  as  a  distinct  admission  of  the  duty 
and  a  proof  that  we  have  not  failed  in  it,  rather  than  as  a  traverse 
of  the  duty  itself,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  for  us  a  most 
mischievous  contention  in  its  future  consequences.  Besides,  all 
nations,  in  practice,  have  acted  on  the  admission  of  such  a  duty.  .  .  . 

"  I  have  got  your  note,"  writes  Russell  from  Minto  on 
August  31,  "  and  send  you  in  return  my  despatch,  which  is 
made  up  in  great  part  of  the  fragments  of  your  clothes.  .  .  . 
What  about  payment  ?  I  think  you  ought  to  accept  3, 


168  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1865 

4,  or  £500  for  your  labour."  In  acknowledging  the  despatch 
Harcourt  wrote  to  Russell  from  Keir  on  September  5. 
After  discussing  "  two  weak  points  in  our  armour,"  he  says : 

Harcourt  to  Russell. 

...  I  am  sure  that  among  the  great  services  of  your  long  political 
life,  next  after  the  great  triumph  of  domestic  Reform,  the  criticism 
of  posterity  will  rank  that  of  having  conducted  the  fortunes  of 
England  in  peace  through  the  crisis  of  the  American  War.  Perhaps 
posterity  will  know,  what  is  a  secret  to-day  to  all  but  a  few,  how 
that  important  and  happy  result  was  due  in  chief  to  your  personal 
influence. 

I  think  you  have  very  skilfully  selected  this  moment  for  bringing 
the  Alabama  question  to  a  head.  The  relations  of  the  American 
Government  to  France  make  this  a  very  favourable  moment  for  a 
selection.  They  must  give  a  definite  reply  to  your  despatch  and 
they  cannot  afford  to  bring  down  England  and  France  at  once  upon 
their  backs.  It  will  puzzle  Seward  on  what  pretext  to  hang  up 
the  question  to  a  "  more  convenient  season."  I  shall  be  very  sorry 
to  miss  you  at  Minto  as  I  counted  much  on  seeing  you  there. 

As  to  what  you  say  anent  "  payment,"  International  Law  is  my 
passion  rather  than  my  profession.  What  I  have  done  was  solely 
with  a  view  of  being  of  use  to  you  and  to  the  country.  I  don't  like 
to  marchander  mes  amours.  But  if  the  F.O.  choose  to  send  an 
honorarium  quelconque  to  my  clerk  I  shall  not  be  too  proud  to  accept 
it,  and  shall  apply  it  to  the  publication  of  that  which  will  not  be 
otherwise  remunerative. 

In  replying  to  Harcourt's  criticisms,  Russell  makes  (Sep- 
tember 7)  the  following  caustic  comment : 

As  to  our  not  preventing  the  Alabama  going  into  our  ports,  it 
was  a  small  fault,  but  I  agree  with  you  that  it  was  a  fault.  Lord 
Westbury  in  that  case  over -ruled  my  opinion,  and  Lord  Palmerston 
naturally  agreed  with  him. 

It  was  the  last  criticism  that  Russell  had  to  make  on  a 
colleague  with  whom  he  had  worked  so  long  and  had  had  so 
many  disagreements.  A  month  later  Palmerston  was  dead, 
and  Lord  Russell  was  called  upon  to  succeed  him  as  Prime 
Minister,  with  Gladstone,  still  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
as  leader  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  Lord  Clarendon  as 
his  successor  at  the  Foreign  Office.  Harcourt's  view  of  the 
new  Government  is  indicated  in  a  note  to  Lord  Houghton 
(Monckton  Milnes)  : 


i866]  THE   REFORM   BILL  169 

Har court  to  Houghton. 

I  have  work  now  in  London  anent  the  American  business,  and  am 
sleeping  at  the  Grove  (Lord  Clarendon's). 

Lord  Clarendon  is  not  at  all  dissatisfied  that  Johnny  should  be 
chief.  I  am  surprised  that  The  Times  should  have  admitted  the 
absurdity  of  pressing  Gladstone  to  stand  out  for  the  Treasury. 
His  position  in  the  H.  of  C.  will  be  so  great  and  his  succession  so 
certain  I  don't  see  what  more  he  could  desire.  I  have  no  doubt 
there  is  to  be  a  mild  Reform  Bill. 

And  writing  to  Earl  Russell  himself  in  November,  he  says  : 

Harcourt  to  Russell. 

I  have  not  yet  had  an  opportunity  of  expressing  to  you  with 
what  great  satisfaction  I  have  seen  the  recent  changes  in  the  Govern- 
ment. It  is  impossible  not  to  regret  the  loss  of  so  experienced  a 
statesman  as  Lord  Palmerston,  but  under  his  lead  the  Liberal  Party 
has  always  been  in  a  false  position,  and  it  has  now  regained  its 
natural  chief.  I  have  always  thought  that  American  affairs  acted 
as  a  singularly  true  touchstone  of  English  Liberalism,  and  by  that 
test  the  true  friends  of  the  Liberal  cause  have  recognized  you  as 
their  leader.  You  have  a  first-rate  Lieutenant -General  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  .  .  .  He  has  much  of  the  afflatus  of  Burke.  I  hope 
he  will  show  that  he  has  more  self-control  and  discretion.  If  he  has 
there  is  clearly  no  man  in  the  country  who  can  stand  in  competition 
with  him  for  an  instant.  .  .  . 

Ill 

With  the  advent  to  power  of  .a  Government  with  which 
he  was  in  full  sympathy,  Harcourt  turned  aside  from  the 
American  issue  to  the  defence  of  the  new  Ministry's  Reform 
policy.  That  issue  had  now  behind  it  the  driving  force  of 
Gladstone  as  well  as  the  tenacity  of  Russell.  The  Bill  was 
introduced  by  Gladstone  on  March  12,  ig66^  It  was  less 
advanced  in  some  respects  than  the  Bill  of  1860,  which  had 
been  ignominiously  withdrawn  in  the  first  year  of  the 
Liberal  Government's  life.  It  proposed  a  rent  qualification 
of  £7  for  the  boroughs  and  £14  for  the  counties.  Compound 
householders  were  to  be  on  the  same  footing  as  other  house- 
holders, and  lodgers  whose  rooms  were  worth  £10  a  year  were 
to  have  a  vote.  But  this  modest  measure  was  met  by  a 
wrecking  amendment — seconded  by  Harcourt's  old  friend 
of  the  Apostolic  days,  Lord  Stanley — which  provided 


170  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1866 

that  the  question  of  the  franchise  should  be  postponed  until 
the  redistribution  proposals  were  produced.  Harcourt  sailed 
in  to  the  attack  of  the  wreckers,  and  seized  the  opportunity 
to  pronounce  in  The  Times  a  eulogium  on  Earl  Russell. 

The  last  fifty  years  has  probably  witnessed  the  greatest  moral, 
social,  and  political  progress  which  this  nation  has  ever  achieved,  and 
the  captain  of  the  van  of  the  army  which  has  compassed  these 
victories  is  Lord  Russell. 

Harcourt  had  not  yet  advanced  so  far  as  to  give  more 
than  tempered  praise  to  Bright,  who  had  some  claims  to  be 
regarded  as  a  champion  of  Reform.  But  he  had  at  least  got 
beyond  the  scorn  of  the  Saturday  Review  days.  In  a  short 
time  he  was  to  become  one  of  that  great  man's  warm 
admirers.  He  writes  (The  Times,  May  8)  : 

I  desire  to  do  full  justice  to  the  course  which  Mr.  Bright  has 
pursued  with  reference  to  this  question.  .  .  .  Forgetting  his  words, 
and  looking  only  at  his  acts,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  steady  and 
sincere  support  which  he  has  given  to  the  Government  measure, 
falling  as  it  does  far  short  of  the  wishes  and  expectations  of  the  party 
with  which  he  acts,  is  a  proof  of  prudence  and  moderation  deserving 
of  all  commendation  and  of  imitation. 

The  amendment  was  defeated  by  five  votes,  but  another 
amendment  by  Lord  Dunkellin  providing  that  a  rating 
should  be  substituted  for  a  rental  qualification  was  carried 
on  June  19  by  eleven  votes,  and  the  Russell  Government 
went  out  of  office  and  Russell  himself  into  retirement. 

There  followed  that  strange  episode  variously  remembered 
as  the  "  leap  in  the  dark  "  and  the  "  dishing  of  the  Whigs." 
Lord  Derby  came  into  power,  with  Disraeli  as  Chancellor  of 
the^Exchequer,  and  his  son,  Lord  Stanley,  as  Foreign  Minis- 
ter', and  by  a  turn  of  the  wheel,  not  unfamiliar  in  English 
politics,  the  Tory  Government  which  had  defeated  the 
Liberal  scheme  of  reform  became  itself  the  instrument  of 
reform.  The  cause  could  no  longer  be  resisted.  Derby  had 
no  enthusiasm  for  it,  as  his  own  phrase,  "  a  leap  in  the  dark," 
indicated,  but  Disraeli  was  now  the  intellectual  master  of 
the  party,  and  the  idea  of  "  stealing  the  Liberal  clothes  " 
while  his  opponents  were  bathing  appealed  to  his  ironic 


186;]  RATES  AND  VOTES  171 

humour  as  well  as  to  his  instinct  of  political  opportunism. 
Harcourt,  who  ^Jaad  been  approached  by  Disraeli  with  the 
offer  of  a  saffc  seat  in  Wales  as  the  price  of  his  support,  saw 
that  what  those  who  wanted  reform  could  not  accomplish 
might  be  won  from  those  who  did  not  want  reform.  In 
The  Times  of  May  2,  1867,  he  wrote  : 

No  doubt  the  accession  of  a  Conservative  Government  to  office 
offers  solid  advantages,  of  which  Reformers  are  right  to  make  the  best 
possible  use.  Most  of  the  great  triumphs  of  the  Liberal  cause  have 
been  extorted  from  Tory  Governments.  Catholic  Emancipation 
was  the  unwilling  work  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington.  The  repeal  of 
the  Corn  Laws  was  the  tardy  concession  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  The 
first  Government  of  Lord  Derby  offered  Reform  as  the  price  of  its 
official  tenure.  The  third  Government  of  Lord  Derby  may  possibly 
be  induced  to  improve  upon  its  former  bid  for  the  same  object, 
^uch  a  state  of  things,  no  doubt,  offers  exceptional  facilities  for 
iX'passing  a  Bill.  The  natural  opponents  of  Reform  are  neutralized, 
and  to  a  certain  extent  its  friends  are  disarmed.  .  .  . 

This  time  the  storm  raged  around  the  compound  house- 
holder. The  new  Bill  promised  household  suffrage  for 
boroughs,  provided  that  the  householder  paid  the  rates 
The  condition,  the  personal  payment  of  rates,  made  "  house- 
hold suffrage  "  a  farce  in  the  industrial  districts  of  the  larger 
towns,  where  the  practice  was  for  the  rates  to  be  paid  by 
the  landlord  and  included  in  the  rent,  and  Harcourt 
attacked  the  proposed  condition  vehemently. 

It  is  founded  (he  said  in  The  Times  of  April  n)  upon  a  distrust 
of  the  classes  upon  whom  the  suffrage  is  to  be  conferred.  It  says  in 
fact  to  the  operative  class,  "  While  the  rest  of  the  community  are 
entitled  to  the  franchise  in  their  normal  condition  of  life,  you  shall 
not  enjoy  it  unless  you  prove  it  by  some  special  action,  by  changing 
the  existing  condition  of  your  social  economy." 

The  Bill,  he  pointed  out,  pretended  to  enfranchise  700,000 
householders,  and  incapacitated  500,000  of  them.  He 
showed  from  the  case  of  Leeds  how  fantastically  the  con- 
dition would  work,  all  the  householders  in  the  suburbs  of 
the  borough  being  enfranchised,  while  25,000  householders 
within  the  borough  would  be  left  out.  The  personal  pay- 
ment of  rates,  he  insisted,  was  as  much  a  fancy  qualifica- 
tion as  if  Disraeli  had  chosen  to  say  that  only  persons  with 


172  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1867 

red  or  curly  hair  might  vote.  It  was  true  that  other  persons 
might  have  their  hair  curled  or  dyed  to  meet  the  conditions, 
but  the  number  who  did  so  would  be  small.  It  was  a  device 
for  the  disfranchisement  of  half  a  million  voters. 

But  though  his  pen  was  in  ceaseless  eruption  against  the 
Government  on  the  subject  of  reform,  Harcourt  was  ready 
to  help  the  new  Ministry  on  another  issue.  When  Lord 
Stanley  succeeded  Clarendon  at  the  Foreign  Office  he  pro- 
ceeded to  set  up  a  Commission  to  inquire  into  the  working 
of  the  neutrality  laws  with  the  object  of  making  such  inci- 
dents as  the  Alabama  affair  impossible  in  the  future.  Stanley 
and  Harcourt  had  continued  the  close  friendship  of  their 
Cambridge  days,  and  there  was  no  politician  among  the 
younger  men  for  whom  Harcourt  entertained  a  higher  regard 
than  for  Stanley.  One  of  his  earliest  articles  in  the  Saturday 
Review  had  been  a  eulogy  of  Stanley,  whose  sobriety  of  temper 
and  practical  wisdom  he  greatly  esteemed.  Stanley,  on  his 
side,  had  a  high  regard  for  Harcourt's  powers,  and  on  taking 
office  at  once  asked  him  to  continue  the  unofficial  help  he 
had  given  to  the  previous  Government  in  regard  to  the  still 
outstanding  troubles  with  the  United  States.  He  also  asked 
him  to  take  a  seat  on  the  Neutrality  Commission.  "  Pray 
join  it  if  you  can,"  he  wrote.  "  No  one  will  be  of  more  use." 
Harcourt  accepted  the  invitation.  With  him  sat  Lord  Cran- 
worth,  who  presided,  Lord  Cairns,  R.  J.  Phillimore,  Roundell 
Palmer,  and  W.  E.  Forster.  Their  deliberations  extended 
over  nearly  two  years,  their  report  being  issued  on  June  i, 
1868.  They  suggested  amendment  of  the  Foreign  Enlist- 
ment Act,  making  it  a  misdemeanour  to  take  any  part  in 
building  or  equipping  any  ship  intended  to  be  used  by  any 
foreign  power  waging  war  against  a  country  at  peace  with 
Great  Britain,  and  giving  the  Executive  power  to  interfere 
at  any  point.  They  met  the  American  contention  that 
illegally  equipped  and  commissioned  vessels  of  war  had 
received  hospitality  in  British  ports  in  various  parts  of  the 
world  by  suggesting  strict  examination  of  the  status  of 
vessels  in  regard  to  which  reasonable  suspicions  might  be 
entertained,  and  the  restoration  of  prizes  captured  by  ships 


i867]  DUTIES   OF  A   NEUTRAL  173 

not  properly  accredited  and  brought  into  British  ports. 
Harcourt  signed  the  report,  but  added  a  note  giving  reasons 
for  dissenting  from  the  sections  giving  power  to  the  Executive 
to  interfere  in  the  building  of  ships  apart  from  the  question 
of  arming  and  equipment.  He  thought  the  exercise  of  powers 
of  this  kind  would  be  injurious  to  the  shipbuilding  industry, 
and  constituted  an  unnecessary  interference  with  private 
"enterprise.  The  general  trend  of  the  Report  was  accepted 
by  Mr.  Gladstone's  Government,  and  was  embodied  in 
the  new  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  of  August  9,  1870,  which 
repealed  the  Act  of  i&^/and  made  explicit  and  minute 
provisions  for  preventing  the  construction  and  equipment 
of  future  Alabamas.  The  duties  of  a  neutral  in  this  respect, 
as  embodied  in  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  May  8,  1871,  are 
virtually  in  the  terms  of  this  Act,  but  very  much  less  precise. 
It  will  be  seen  later  that  the  vagueness  of  the  clauses  inserted 
in  the  Treaty  led  to  considerable  trouble  in  the  Geneva 
Arbitration,  and  needed  an  official  gloss.  Only  Great  Britain 
and  America  laid  down  stringent  rules  of  this  kind  at  that 
time. 


CHAPTER  IX 
IN   PARLIAMENT 

Harcourt  on  Himself — Disraeli  as  Premier — The  Irish  Church 
Controversy — The  "  Manchester  Martyrs  " — A  Visit  to  Liver- 
pool— Candidate  for  Oxford — Mr.  E.  W.  Harcourt's  displeasure 
— Returned  for  Oxford — Offer  of  Judge- Ad vocateship  refused. 

SINCE  his  adventure  at  Kirkcaldy,  Harcourt  had  made 
no  move  towards  a  Parliamentary  career.  He  was 
now  in  his  fortieth  year,  and  easily  the  most  accom- 
plished politician  outside  the  House  of  Commons.  The  range 
and  vigour  of  his  activities,  the  tireless  industry  of  his  pen, 
the  prestige  which  his  illuminating  researches  in  the  sphere 
of  international  law  had  given  him  on  both  sides  of  the 
Atlantic,  his  love  of  battle,  and  his  unrivalled  gifts  of 
humour  made  him  a  conspicuous  figure  in  the  public  life 
of  the  time.  He  was  a  man  of  the  future.  He  had  not 
hurried  his  steps ;  but  there  was  no  need  to  hurry  them. 
As  one  who  knew  him  at  this  time,  himself  afterwards  a 
distinguished  statesman,  remarked  to  the  writer,  there  was 
the  feeling  about  Harcourt  that  he  was  destined  for  great 
things  whenever  he  chose  to  assert  himself.  He  strode  the 
stage  with  a  challenging  arrogance  that  neither  asked  nor 
gave  quarter.  He  had  a  genius  for  friendship,  and  his 
friendships  were  lifelong.  They  were  not  confined  to  men 
of  his  own  way  of  thought.  On  the  contrary,  some  of  his 
closest  personal  ties  were  with  those  who  became  his  political 
opponents,  as  in  the  case  of  Chamberlain  and  Henry  James. 
But  in  his  public  controversies  neither  tongue  nor  pen  took 
counsel  of  caution,  and  he  made  enemies  with  a  splendid 

174 


1867]  IN   THE   CONFESSIONAL  175 

disregard  of  consequences,  confident  that  his  combative  gifts 
would  be  equal  to  any  emergency  that  arose.  He  had  no 
illusions  about  himself,  and  a  singularly  clear  appreciation 
both  of  his  powers  and  his  defects.  In  a  letter  which  he 
wrote  at  this  time  to  Mrs.  (afterwards  Lady)  Ponsonby  (the 
Mary  Bulteel  of  other  days)  he  gave  a  very  candid  picture 
of  himself : 

Hat -court  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby. 

I  am  very  glad  to  know  that  I  have  not  been  as  maladroit  as  I 
feared.  You  are  still  too  gay,  too  intelligent,  and  too  unchanged 
from  what  you  were  to  want  either  energy,  spirit,  or  wit.  Like 
most  women  you  are  too  absolute  and  too  impatient  of  the  illogicality 
of  facts  and  the  imperfections  of  men.  I  don't  know  why  a  difference 
of  sex  should  make  such  a  distinction  as  it  does  in  the  appreciation 
of  that  which  is  attainable  and  that  which  is  not.  I  have  come  to 
look  on  human  affairs  as  a  great  series  of  stratifications  built  up  by 
slow  deposits  out  of  the  wrecks  of  succeeding  generations,  just  as 
the  limestone  hills  are  only  conglomerations  of  the  microscopic 
insects  which  have  lived  and  died  and  whose  little  organisms  have 
piled  up  these  masses  to  the  sky.  The  generation  which  is  so  much 
to  us  is  nothing  to  the  race.  And  what  belongs  to  our  lifetime  is 
and  must  be  a  little  thing,  though  it  goes  to  build  up  a  great  whole. 

You  may  call  this  fatalism,  but  it  is  not  nihilism.  You  and  Dizzy 
are  greatly  mistaken.  It  is  not  true  I  have  no  principles,  nor  is  it 
the  principles  which  are  second-rate — though  possibly  the  man  may 
be.  Dizzy  is  by  no  means  my  prophet,  though  I  think  him  a  pro- 
foundly interesting  character,  and  I  should  like,  if  it  were  possible, 
to  penetrate  the  secret  of  his  life.  Mine  is  a  far  more  simple  and 
commonplace  one.  I  don't  pretend  to  originality,  because  I  don't 
possess  it.  I  think  I  have  pretty  fairly  and  honestly  gauged  myself 
and  know  what  I  can  and  what  I  can't  do.  I  have  fair,  not  extra- 
ordinary, intellectual  powers,  rather  above  the  average  logical 
faculty,  a  power  of  illustration  rather  than  of  imagination,  a  faculty 
of  acquiring  knowledge  of  particular  things  rather  than  much  store 
of  knowledge  itself,  a  passion  for  politics  as  a  practical  pursuit, 
which  has  been  cultivated  by  a  good  deal  of  study  (a  thing  nowadays 
rare)  so  that  I  appear  less  ignorant  of  them  than  ordinary  politicians. 
A  tendency  to  believe  in  general  principles  rather  than  in  small 
expedients.  A  natural  disposition  towards  vanity,  wilfulness,  and 
exaggeration,  which  I  have  tried  a  good  deal  to  correct.  An  ambi- 
tion not  of  an  ignoble  order  which  cares  little  for  place  or  pelf  but 
a  good  deal  for  honour.  A  nature  not  ungenerous  in  its  impulses, 
but  strong  in  its  passions  and  its  prejudices. 

With  all  this  a  good  deal  of  courage,  obstinacy  and  determination, 


176  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1867 

not  discouraged  by  mistakes  or  deterred  by  disparagement.  Too 
careless  of  the  feelings  and  too  little  respectful  of  the  power  of  others. 
Positive,  confident,  I  fear  I  must  add  overbearing.  With  a  profound 
belief  in  myself.  A  queer  jumble  of  good  and  bad.  A  good  deal 
that  is  high,  still  more  that  is  weak,  not  much  I  think  that  is  mean. 
That  is  what  nature  has  made  me,  and  which  I  have  done  too  little 
to  alter.  A  character  which  may  end  by  being  a  great  failure  but 
which  will  never  be  a  small  success.  I  was  not  made  to  be  a  philo- 
sopher or  a  discoverer.  I  should  never  have  found  out  steam,  but 
I  can  make  a  steam  engine — and  drive  it.  I  am  a  thoroughgoing 
Englishman,  and  perhaps  may  one  day  govern  Englishmen,  not 
(as  you  suppose)  by  practising  upon  their  weaknesses  but  by  really 
sharing  them.  I  forgot  to  claim  for  myself  a  certain  power  of 
discourse  which  in  a  debating  country  is  valuable,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
principally  because  it  is  rare. 

Why  do  I  tell  you  all  this  ?  Because  I  want  your  good  opinion  ; 
because  I  want  you  to  see  that  I  don't  deceive  myself  and  don't  wish 
to  deceive  others. 

The  long  apprenticeship  which  Harcourt  had  served  to 
politics  while  securing  his  independence  in  other  callings 
was  now  approaching  its  end.  Events  were  paving  the 
way  to  a  new  political  generation  in  which  he  could  not  fail 
to  have  a  leading  part.  The  death  of  Palmerston  and  the 
retirement  of  Russell  and  Derby  had  left  the  stage  clear  for 
the  two  men  who  were  to  dominate  it  for  years  to  come. 
Disraeli's  romantic  career  had  carried  him  to  the  Premier- 
ship, to  the  mingled  wonder,  amusement,  and  disgust  of  the 
/political  world.  "  The  old  Government  was  the  Derby, 
ythis  the  Hoax,"  said  Lord  Chelmsford,  and  the  jest  fairly 
embodies  the  contemporary  opinion  of  the  brief  Disraeli 
Ministry.  "  The  leper,"  as  Lord  Shaftesbury  called  him, 
though  in  office,  was  not  in  power.  The  disappearance  of 
the  great  Whigs  and  the  settlement  of  the  Reform  question 
had  made  way  for  a  homogeneous  Liberal  party  under  the 
commanding  leadership  of  Gladstone,  and  the  only  question 
was  the  time  and  the  occasion  which  the  new  leader  would 
seize  to  defeat  the  Government.  In  a  letter  to  Harcourt 
(February  13,  1867)  Clarendon  had  expressed  the  hope  that 
"  disgraceful "  though  the  conduct  of  the  Government  is, 
"  they  will  not  be  turned  out  just  yet  "  for  the  following 
reasons : 


i868]  THE   IRISH   CHURCH  177 

ist,  a  demand  for  explanation  and  precision  will  break  up  the 
Tory  party — an  adverse  voiwr  will  enable  them  to  conceal  their 
internal  dissensions  and  to  retreat  in  apparent  union. 

2nd,  that  the  Liberal  party  is  not  yet  in  a  position  to  furnish 
a  strong  Government  and  will  not  be  so  until  Gladstone  has  had  the 
time  necessary  for  regaining  the  confidence  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

3rd,  because,  reform  being  the  one  thing  needful  and  urgent,  all 
hope  of  passing  a  good  measure  in  conjunction  with  the  Tories 
should  not  be  abandoned  until  they  themselves  had  shown  it  to  be 
impossible.  .  .  . 

This  policy  of  patience  prevailed.  The  Tory  Reform  Bill, 
of  which,  as  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch  said,  the  only  word  that 
remained  unaltered  was  the  first  word  "  Whereas,"  was 
passed.  Disraeli  succeeded  Derby  as  Prime  Minister  to  the 
discomfiture  of  the  Tory  aristocracy,  and  the  Liberal  party 
was  consolidated  under  its  new  leader.  Then  on  March 
6,  1868,  Gladstone  hurled  his  bolt.  Significantly  enough 
he  formally  opened  his  career  as  the  Liberal  leader  by  com- 
mitting the  party  to  the  cause  of  Irish  reconciliation.  He 
declared  for  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church,  and 
his  resolutions  for  giving  effect  to  the  proposal  went  through 
the  House  of  Commons.  The  issue  of  the  coming  election 
was  dictated,  and  the  result  was  not  in  doubt.  From  the 
first  Harcourt  was  an  active  supporter  of  the  policy  both 
on  the  platform  and  in  the  press.  He  had  inherited  from 
Cornewall  Lewis  a  strong  conviction  on  the  subject  and  in 
his  first  letter  on  the  subject  to  The  Times  he  paid  a  glowing 
tribute  to  his  tutor,  basing  his  argument  on  a  passage  from 
Lewis's  Irish  Disturbances  and  the  Irish  Church  Question, 
published  in  1836,  in  which  the  writer  said  : 

We  confess  that  if  there  were  only  two  alternatives  in  Ireland, 
either  to  maintain  the  Established  Church  on  its  present  exclusive 
system,  or  to  have  all  religious  worship  unprovided  for,  we  should 
without  hesitation  adopt  the  latter,  being  convinced  that  the  Irish 
Roman  Catholics  will  always  remain  disaffected  to  the  State,  as  long 
as  the  Protestant  religion  is  made  the  object  of  its  undivided  favour. 

In  a  later  letter  (March  30)  Harcourt  deals  with  the  ques- 
tion of  tithes  and  endowments,  and  draws  a  very  strong 
distinction  which  he  stoutly  maintained,  both  in  public  and 

N 


178  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1868 

in  private,  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Church 
of  Ireland. 

The  Church  of  England  lives  in  the  hearts  of  the  English  people. 
The  Church  of  Ireland  is  condemned  by  the  verdict  of  mankind,  and 
is  already  dead  in  the  conscience  of  the  nation.  It  is  the  office  of 
great  statesmen  to  stand,  like  Aaron,  between  the  living  and  the 
dead  and  to  stay  the  plague. 

He  insisted  on  the  same  distinction  between  the  two 
institutions  when  speaking  at  Liverpool  at  a  breakfast 
given  to  Bright  on  June  4.  In  the  course  of  this  speech  he 
said  : 

Though  this  is  not  the  place  to  do  it,  I  am  prepared  to  defend  the 
Established  Church  of  England  by  arguments  that  are  satisfactory 
to  myself,  but  on  no  one  of  those  arguments  can  I  defend  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  Ireland.  When  I  am  told  that  to  touch  the  Estab- 
lished Church  of  Ireland  is  to  touch  religion,  I  ask  whether  religion 
had  its  origin  in  establishments,  and  whether  religion  will  cease  to 
exist  when  establishments  are  no  more. 

He  spoke  at  a  crowded  meeting  at  St.  James's  Hall  on 
April  17,  when  he  girded  at  Disraeli  for  the  famous  letter 
dated  "  Maundy  Thursday  "  : 

Samson  (he  said),  when  he  wanted  to  create  a  conflagration,  did  not 
write  a  letter,  but  collected  a  number  of  foxes,  tied  firebrands  to  their 
tails,  and  then  sent  them  out  imong  the  standing  corn.  Mr.  Disraeli 
had  acted  something  like  Samson ;  only  the  straw  was  found  a 
little  damp,  and  the  firebrands  attached  to  the  foxes'  tails  did  not 
succeed  in  setting  it  in  a  blaze. 

These  activities  in  the  Press  and  on  the  platform  doubtless 
led  to  the  request  which  Harcourt  received  from  Gladstone 
that  he  should  write  a  pamphlet  on  the  Irish  Church  question 
for  distribution  at  the  coming  general  election.  The  pamph- 
let, a  clear  and  forcible  presentation  of  the  case,  was  written 
and  published  in  due  course. 

Nor  were  his  activities  on  the  issue  confined  to  his  public 
utterances.  Sir  Roundell  Palmer  (afterwards  Lord  Sel- 
bourne)  had  taken  alarm  at  the^ew  policy,  and  Harcourt 
entered  into  a  fervid  correspondence  with  him  for  the  purpose 
of  dissuading  him  from  separating  himself  from  the  party. 
In  one  of  his  letters,  given  in  Lord  Selborne's  Memorials, 
he  said : 


i868]          ARGUES   WITH   SELBORNE  179 

Harcourt  to  Sir  Roundell  Palmer. 

.  .  .  First,  1  understood  you  not  to  object  to  the  action  of  the 
Liberal  party  in  respect  of  the  Irish  Church  as  a  question  by  itself, 
but  that  you  were  actuated  by  your  view  of  what  might  be  the 
result  of  such  a  policy  (oXrather  of  the  public  sentiment  it  might 
create)  on  the  position  of  the  English  Church.  Now  that  the  Irish 
Establishment  is  doomed  is  a  fact  which  cannot  be  doubted,  and 
which  I  do  not  understand  you  even  to  disapprove. 

But  will  not  the  fact  of  your  treating  the  two  as  so  intimately 
connected  as  to  call  upon  you  to  take  such  a  decided  course  go  a  long 
way  to  contribute  towards  identifying  their  fate  ?  Is  not  far  the 
best  solution  for  the  English  Church  one  in  which  its  defenders  shall 
say,  our  position  rests  on  wholly  different  principles  and  relies  on 
wholly  distinct  arguments  from  that  of  the  Irish  Establishment  ? 
Yet  if  that  be  so,  why  should  your  apprehensions  for  the  one  be 
founded  on  the  abolition  of  the  other  ?  Surely  the  course  you 
contemplate  will  go  a  long  way  in  the  eyes  of  the  defenders  of  the 
Church,  who  will  look  to  you  as  their  champion,  and  in  the  eyes  of 
its  enemies,  who  will  regard  you  as  its  representative,  to  establish 
the  solidarity  of  the  two  Churches.  But  if  their  fortunes  are  insepar- 
able, who  can  doubt  what  the  issue  will  be  ? 

Surely  this  is  the  amputation  of  a  diseased  limb  at  which  the  most 
attached  friend  of  the  patient  may  attend  as  a  salutary  remedy. 
If  I  may  be  allowed  to  repeat  myself,  ought  you  not  to  "  stand 
between  the  living  and  the  dead  that  the  plague  may  be  stayed  "  ? 

Secondly — which  seems  to  me  a  matter  most  deserving  your 
consideration — you  cannot  doubt  Gladstone's  real  attachment  to  the 
English  Church,  both  in  sentiment' and  conviction.  If  anyone  can 
dominate  the  spirit  of  the  nejsC  Parliament,  can  "  ride  the  whirl- 
wind and  direct  the  storm  "  on  Church  questions,  it  is  he.  For 
that  object  it  is  essential  that  he  should  have  all  the  support 
both  within  his  Cabinet  and  without  it  from  those  who  are  the 
friends  of  the  Church.  If  you  separate  from  him  (and  with  your 
secession  must  necessarily  ensue  that  of  those  who  think  with  you 
and  look  to  you  for  guidance)  you  will  weaken  the  right  and  propor- 
tionately strengthen  the  left  of  the  Liberal  party ;  you  will  drive 
Gladstone  by  the  force  of  circumstances  into  the  hands  of  the 
Liberationists.  Are  you  not  bound  to  protect  him  and  the  Church 
from  this  pressure  ?  Are  you  not  called  upon  at  least  to  make  the 
experiment  whether  by  the  aid  of  the  moderate  section  of  the  party 
matters  cannot  be  satisfactorily  concluded  ?  If  you  should  find 
that  upon  trial  you  and  your  friends  were  not  able  to  moderate  the 
course  of  events,  and  that  you  were  being  dragged  by  the  tide  in  a 
direction  which  you  disapproved,  then  I,  for  one,  should  not  utter 
one  word  in  deprecation  of  your  secession.  .  .  . 

Is  it  not  a  stronger  position  to  take  up — I  don't  say  for  yourself, 
but  for  the  Church  to  say,  "  When  the  Irish  Church  has  been  dealt 


i8o  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1868 

with,  if  the  English  Church  is  attacked  I  will  withdraw,"  than  to 
say,  "  If  the  Irish  Church  falls,  the  English  Church  must  follow  it,  and 
I  will  take  no  part  in  the  one  because  I  feel  confident  that  their 
fate  is  inseparable.  .  .  ." 

I  am  going  to-morrow  to  Nuneham  to  join  my  dear  little  boy. 
I  wish  you  and  Lady  Laura  would  give  us  a  few  days  there.  Your 
visit  gave  my  dear  father  so  much  pleasure,  and  you  could  do  him 
no  greater  kindness  than  to  repeat  it. 


II 

The  enthusiasm  with  which  Harcourt  flung  himself  into 
the  cause  of  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church  was 
not  the  only  indication  of  his  concern  about  Irish  affairs. 
It  was  the  time  of  the  Fenian  movement,  and  Burke  and 
Doran  were  sentenced  to  death  in  Dublin  in  1867  for  treason, 
Doran  being  recommended  to  mercy  and  reprieved.  The 
case  of  Burke  aroused  intense  feeling,  and  John  Stuart  Mill 
headed  a  deputation  to  the  Prime  Minister  on  his  behalf. 
Harcourt,  according  to  his  habit,  wrote  to  The  Times. 
Read  to-day,  in  the  light  of  the  ruthless  policy  of  1920-21, 
and  the  indifference  with  which  the  policy  was  regarded 
in  England,  the  letter  seems  to  belong  to  the  moral  standards 
of  another  civilization.  Harcourt,  recalling  his  plea  two 
years  before  to  the  United  States  for  mercy  to  Jefferson 
Davis,  argued  with  extraordinary  passion  against  the  death 
penalty  for  political  offences.  He  appealed  from  the  sanc- 
tions of  the  law  to  the  sanctions  of  conscience,  quoted  the 
language  of  "  the  great  and  humane  statesman,  Lord  Corn- 
wallis,  at  the  atrocities  of  the  Government  of  Ireland  over 
which  it  was  his  misfortune  to  preside  "  in  1798,  contrasted 
the  contemplated  severity  with  the  attitude  of  France 
towards  political  offenders,  and  our  own  moderation  in 
Canada,  and  asked,  "  Dare  we  expose  ourselves  to  the  belief 
that  we  were  merciful  in  Canada  because  we  feared  America, 
and  that  we  are  ruthless  in  Ireland  because  there  we  believe 
cruelty  to  be  safe  ?  " 

England  (he  continued)  has  already  enough  and  too  much  of  the 
blood  of  Ireland  on  its  hands.     For  three  centuries,  till  the  Is 
fifty  years,  we  have  been  doing  little  else  but  shooting  and  hanging 


JUSTICE  FOR  MR.   BRIGHT  181 

Irishmen,  with  what  success  let  the  history  of  '98  testify.  For  half 
a  century  we  may  happily  say  that,  since  the  fortunate  extinction  of 
the  "  Protestant  Ascendancy,"  we  have  adopted  a  more  humane  and 
generous  policy.  ...  It  is  true  that  we  cannot  boast  that  we  have 
secured  affection  or  even  restored  political  tranquillity.  But,  after 
the  treatment  which  Ireland  has  received  during  centuries  of  misrule, 
that  can  only  be  the  work  of  patient  kindness  and  persistent  justice. 

In  the  end  Burke,  too,  was  reprieved.  Unfortunately,  the 
same  mercy  was  not  shown  to  the  three  men,  Allen,  Larkin, 
and  Gill,  committed  for  murder  in  connection  with  the  Fenian 
riots  in  Manchester.  They  were  hanged  in  the  city  on 
November  23, 1867,  and  became  immortalized  as  the  "  Man- 
chester martyrs. '.X' 

With  the  approach  of  the  General  Election,  Harcourt  had 
to  look  round  for  a  suitable  constituency.  The  first  approach 
made  to  him  came  from  Liverpool.  One  Liberal  candidate, 
William  Rathbone,  was  already  in  the  field  for  that  constitu- 
ency and  the  Liberal  Association  were  seeking  a  colleague  for 
him.  The  name  of  Robert  Lowe,  the  chief  of  the  Adul- 
lamites,  was  mentioned,  but  his  opposition  to  the  Reform 
Bill  was  not  forgotten,  and  attention  was  then  directed  to 
Harcourt.  He  was  asked  by  S.  G.  Rathbone  to  go  down  to 
Liverpool  and  speak  at  a  public  breakfast  to  John  Bright 
at  the  Philharmonic  Hall  on  June  5,  1868.  The  speech  he 
delivered  on  this  occasion  was  remarkable  for  two  things. 
The  first  was  his  tribute  to  John  Bright,  whom  years  before 
he  had  handled  so  roughly  in  the  Saturday  Review,  but  whose 
views  on  many  subjects  and  especially  the  subject  of  reform 
he  had  now  come  largely  to  share. 

They  (the  Tories)  may  say  what  they  like  (he  said),  but  everybody 
knows  who  the  real  author  of  the  Reform  Bill  of  1867  was.  The 
real  author  of  the  Reform  Bill  was  the  author  of  the  Reform  Bill 
of  1858,  and  he  is  sitting  at  this  table, (great  applause).  There  is  a 
passage  in  one  of  those  admirabl^>e6medies  of  Sheridan  in  which 
he  says  that  certain  people  are  like  the  gipsies  who  steal  children 
and  disfigure  them  to  make  people  think  they  are  their  own  (much 
laughter  and  loud  cheering).  Well,  gentlemen,  the  Conservative 
Government  have  introduced  Mr.  Bright's  Reform  Bill  of  1858, 
but  you  know  those  political  gipsies  have  thought  that  nobody 
would  take  it  for  their  bill  unless  they  did  something  to  it.  So  they 
put  into  it  what  we  call  rubbish,  but  which  they  call  vital  principle. 


182  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1868 

But  the  weightiest  passage  in  the  speech  was  that  in  which 
he  assailed  the  attempt  of  Disraeli  to  involve  the  Crown  in 
the  Irish  Church  issue.  Here  Harcourt  spoke  with  the 
authority  of  a  great  constitutional  lawyer.  The  passage  is 
worth  quoting  for  permanent  reference  : 

What  are  they  doing  for  the  Monarch  whom  they  profess  to  respect  ? 
Are  they  not  exposing  her  to  that  very  danger  from  which  it  is  the 
object  of  the  British  Constitution  to  protect  her  ?  The  theory  of 
the  English  Constitution  is  this,  that  the  Crown  must  always  be  in 
accord  with  the  House  of  Commons.  And  how  is  that  worked  out 
in  the  English  constitution  ?  The  Crown  speaks  by  its  Ministers 
and  by  its  Ministers  alone.  The  moment  the  Ministers  are  out  of 
accord  with  the  House  of  Commons  they  cease  to  be  the  Ministers  of 
the  Crown,  and  the  people  who  represent  the  opinion  of  the  House  of 
Commons  become  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Crown  ;  and,  therefore, 
by  the  spirit  of  the  British  constitution  the  opinions  of  the  Crown 
are  the  opinions  of  the  House  of  Commons  and  of  the  people.  That 
is  the  fundamental  and  the  indestructible  foundation  of  the  English 
Monarchy,  as  established  by  the  English  constitution,  and  it  is  that 
which  these  constitutional  ministers  at  this  day  are  violating.  As 
Lord  Derby  has  endeavoured  to  set  the  House  of  Lords  against  the 
House  of  Commons,  so  Mr.  Disraeli  is  struggling  to  set  the  Queen 
against  the  people.  (Great  applause,  the  audience  rising  en  masse.) 
Gentlemen,  I  say  that  is  the  most  wicked,  the  most  dangerous  and 
the  most  unconstitutional  course  which  was  ever  pursued  by  a  great 
party  or  by  a  public  Minister  in  this  country.  (Renewed  cheering.) 

The  speech  was  decisive.  Next  day  S.  G.  Rathbone 
wrote  to  Harcourt  at  Nuneham  saying  that  the  Committee 
appointed  to  recommend  candidates  had  met,  and  unani- 
mously decided  to  recommend  him  as  one  of  the  two  candi- 
dates and  had  called  a  meeting  of  the  Council  to  confirm 
the  decision  next  day.  The  ratification  was  unanimous, 
and  Harcourt  was  asked  to  receive  a  deputation  to  convey 
the  invitation  to  him.  Immediately  his  name  was  discussed 
as  a  candidate  the  slander  put  about  at  the  time  of  the  Kirk- 
caldy  election  was  revived.  The  Liverpool  Daily  Post,  after 
referring  to  the  fame  of  "  Historicus,"  said  : 

A  little  incident  in  his  history  which  jars  strongly  with  his  severe 
criticisms  of  Mr.  Disraeli's  changes  of  opinion  tells  unpleasantly 
against  him.  In  1857  a  Mr.  Vernon  Harcourt  was  a  candidate,  and 
an  unsuccessful  candidate  for  the  Kirkcaldy  Burghs,  against  Mr. 


i868]      EDWARD   HARCOURT   OBJECTS      183 

Ferguson,  who  had  represented  the  constituency  for  a  number 
of  years.  That  Mr.  Vernon  Harcourt  was  a  Conservative  sent  down 
by  the  Carlton  Club  to  defeat  the  Liberal  representative.  People 
are  curious  to  know  if  the  Conservative  Vernon  Harcourt  of  1857 
is  the  Historicus  of  The  Times  and  the  possible  Liberal  nominee  for 
Liverpool. 

Before  leaving  Liverpool  Harcourt  promptly  replied  to 
the  accusation  in  a  letter  to  the  Daily  Post,  pointing  out  that 
the  calumny  had  been  refuted  at  the  time  of  the  Kirkcaldy 
election,  which  took  place  in  1859,  n°t>  as  the  Post  stated, 
in  1857. 

But  in  the  meantime  another  wooer  had  made  serious 
proposals  to  Harcourt.  Speaking  long  afterwards  at  Oxford, 
Harcourt  said  that  when  several  constituencies  were  open 
to  him  in  1868  he  chose  Oxford  on  the  advice  of  John 
Bright.  It  is  probable  therefore  that  the  matter  was 
discussed  at  the  breakfast,  and  that  an  event  arranged  partly 
to  introduce  Harcourt  to  Liverpool  resulted  in  his  going  to 
Oxford.  The  possibility  of  his  standing  for  Oxford  had 
been  under  consideration  for  some  days,  as  a  letter  to  him 
from  his  brother  Edward  (May  28)  shows.  He  was  already 
acquainted  with  the  senior  member  for  the  City,  Card  well, 
and  had  $pent  some  portion  of  the  previous  autumn  vaca- 
tion with  him  at  Eashing  Park,  Godalming.  The  prospect 
of  a  Harcourt  standing  as  Liberal  candidate  for  Oxford 
was  very  distasteful  to  Edward  Harcourt.  He  was  the 
heir  to  Nuneham,  from  whence  the  towers  of  Oxford  are 
visible,  and  in  politics  was  an  old-fashioned  Tory  with  very 
correct  views  in  regard  to  the  land  and  the  rights  of  property. 
When  he  heard  the  distressing  idea  of  his  brother's  candida- 
ture mooted  he  wrote  to  him  as  follows  : 

HASTINGS,  May  8. — I  cannot  imagine  anything  that  would  give 
me  more  annoyance  and  pain  than  your  standing  for  Oxford  as  a 
Liberal.  Whatever  unfriendly  feeling  you  may  entertain  towards 
landowners,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  inhabitants  of  Oxford  are 
very  much  indebted  to  the  owners  of  Nuneham  for  allowing  them 
so  free  a  use  of  their  property.  Nuneham  and  Oxford  are  intimately 
connected  with  each  other.  .  .  . 

I  don't  see  at  all  why  all  the  towns  in  Oxfordshire  should  be 
"  tabooed  "  to  you  as  you  say — but  no  one  could  fail  to  see  that 


184  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1868 

Oxford  being,  as  I  have  said  before,  specially  connected  with  Nune- 
ham,  presents  special  reasons  why  your  corning  forward  there  as  a 
Liberal  would  be  especially  annoying  to  me.  You  say  I  am  at 
liberty  to  oppose  you.  Why  create  a  painful  necessity  which  would 
not  exist  anywhere  else  ? 

Harcourt's  reply  was  evidently  uncompromising,  for  a 
few  days  later  (June  2)  Edward  wrote  a  letter  in  which  he 
said  : 

I  deeply  regret  the  determination  you  have  come  to.  It  is  quite 
on  the  cards  that  I  may  be  standing  for  the  County  at  the  next 
election,  and  I  cannot  imagine  anything  much  more  unfortunate, 
and  to  me  more  painful,  than  that  our  two  agents  should  be  fighting 
against  each  other  for  voters  in  Oxford.  It  is  all  very  well  to  say  no 
ill  feeling  need  be  excited,  but  the  action  of  agents  in  such  matters 
often  involves  their  principals  as  experience  shows  every  day — 
and  no  reasoning  of  Lord  Clarendon's  will  convince  me  to  the  con- 
trary. Such  a  catastrophe  would  hardly  be  compensated  for  by 
the  success  of  either  of  us. 

Less  than  a  week  later,  however,  the  Liverpool  invitation 
had  arrived  and  Edward  breathed  again.  Perhaps  his 
erring  brother  would,  after  all,  carry  his  wickedness  else- 
where. He  would  have  rejoiced  to  know  how  ardently  the 
Liverpool  people  were  pursuing  their  quarry.  They  knew 
that  Oxford  was  in  the  field,  and  despatched  S.  G.  Rathbone 
to  London  to  press  their  claim.  He  wrote  to  George  Glyn, 
the  Liberal  Whip,  a  letter  imploring  help  : 

I  must  entreat  you  to  use  your  influence  to  secure  Mr.  Harcourt  as 
a  candidate  for  Liyetgool ;  he  made  such  an  impression  there  by 
his  two  speeches  that  there  is  the  greatest  amount  of  enthusiasm 
for  him,  and  I  believe  it  may  make  the  difference  as  to  whether 
we  carry  two  or  only  one  Liberal  candidate  whether  Mr.  Harcourt 
stands  for  Liverpool  or  not.  I  need  not  point  out  the  great  import- 
ance of  enabling  us  to  return  two  Liberals  under  the  new  Reform 
Act  for  a  Borough,  and  the  only  large  Borough  represented  up  to  the 
present  time  by  Conservatives  ;  the  moral  influence  of  such  a  success 
would  be  great  throughout  the  country,  and  if  we  are  to  succeed  you 
must  please  get  us  Mr.  Harcourt  as  the  candidate. 

While  Rathbone  was  dunning  the  Chief  Whip,  the  Liberal 
agent  at  Liverpool  was  throwing  out  bait  to  the  candidate 
with  a  profuse  hand,  promising  him  that  he  would  head 
the  poll  and  that  the  party  had  not  been  so  united  for 


i868]  CHOICE  OF   OXFORD  185 

many  years.  But  all  their  efforts  were  in  vain.  Whether 
it  was  John  Bright 's  advice  or  his  brother's  opposition  that 
turned  the  scale  we  can  only  guess  ;  but  Harcourt's  decision 
went  in  favour  of  Oxford,  and  we  find  Edward  writing  to 
him  in  the  following  minatory  terms  : 

HASTINGS,  June  10. — I  am  very  sorry  to  find  on  my  return  here 
that  my  hopes  about  Liverpool  are  vain.  I  find  a  letter  here  saying 
"  your  brother  is  hard  at  work  canvassing  in  Oxford,  and  his  sup- 
porters are  making  all  the  use  they  can  of  your  family  and  name. 
..."  You  have  preferred  political  partisans  and  their  very  pre- 
judiced advice  to  the  maintenance  of  family  affections,  which  once 
severely  lacerated  are  not  easily  healed.  Every  one  is  free,  and  it 
is  most  right  they  should  hold  and  enunciate  their  conscientious 
thoughts  and  opinions.  There  is  scope  enough  in  England  for  all. 
In  your  case  it  might  have  been  done  without  administering  a  heavy 
blow  to  one  who  does  not  deserve  it. 

Edward  had  many  excellent  qualities,  but  a  sense  of 
humour  was  not  among  them.  Harcourt,  in  announcing  his 
decision  to  the  Liverpool  Association,  said  he  had  yielded 
to  what  seemed  the  superior  claim,  and  Rathbone,  in  return, 
expressed  regret  that  "  we  had  not  thought  of  you  before 
you  were  committed  to  Oxford."  Harcourt  and  his  fellow- 
candidate,  Card  well,  who  were  opposed  by  Dr.  Deane,  held 
their  first  important  meeting  in  the  Town  Hall  of  Oxford 
on  June  12,  Goldwin  Smith  supporting  his  old  colleague  of 
the  Saturday  Review  in  a  cordial  speech.  Harcourt  began 
by  reciting  the  history  of  the  Reform  Bills  of  1866  and  1867, 
and  by  telling  how  the  Reform  Bill  of  the  Tory  Government 
had  been  remodelled  in  Parliament  so  that  it  came  very  near 
to  the  model  of  Bright.  He  discussed  the  Disraeli  remedy  for 
the  "  evils  of  afflicted  centuries  "  in  Ireland,  a  Catholic 
University,  and  made  an  earnest  plea  for  Gladstone's  policy 
of  Irish  Disestablishment.  Speaking  of  the  Church  of 
England,  he  declared  himself  once  more  her  devoted  son, 
and  paid  an  eloquent  tribute  to  his  father  and  grandfather, 
both  of  them  well  known  in  Oxford.  He  said : 

All  that  I  know  of  good,  all  that  I  have  learnt  of  what  is  wise,  has 
come  to  me  from  a  father  who  was  a  minister  of  the  Established 
Church,  and  who,  by  the  faithfulness  of  his  service,  the  purity  of 


186  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1868 

his  life,  and  the  beauty  of  his  character,  commands  not  only  the 
affections  of  a  son,  but  the  devoted  admiration  of  a  man. 

He  went  on  to  say  that  he  did  not  regard  the  establish- 
ment and  endowments  of  the  Church  of  England  as  the 
foundations  of  her  power,  though  he  thought  they  were  not 
unfavourably  regarded  by  the  majority  of  the  people,  but 
as  a  political  arrangement,  and  ended  by  putting  before  the 
meeting  the  essential  difference  between  Gladstone  and 
Disraeli  as  the  directing  power  in  the  State : 

I  said  to  a  Tory  friend  the  other  day,  "  You  support  Mr.  Disraeli, 

but  he  does  not  believe  in  your  principles  "  ;  and  my  friend  replied, 

"  Oh  yes,  we  know  he  does  not  belong  to  our  eleven,  but  we  have 

him  down  as  a  professional  bowler."     This  is  Dr.  Deane's  side  and 

the  side  of  his  friends  the  Constitutionalists.     But  the  Liberals 

1  have  also  a  side,  and  we  contend  for  the  principles  of  liberty,  justice 

I  and  equality.     And  we  have  a  leader  too,  a  leader  who  is  not  a  pro- 

'  fessional  bowler,  but  one  of  our  own  eleven,  a  man  who  believes  in  his 

principles,  and  who  is  condemned  because  he  is  so  much  in  earnest. 

Harcourt  never  did  things  by  halves,  and  he  was  as 
industrious  in  canvassing  the  electors  as  he  had  been  in 
ferreting  out  precedents  in  the  Civil  War.  In  a  speech  on 
August  31, 'he  said  he  had  visited  5,000  Oxford  homes  in 
pursuit  of  voters.  He  mentioned  that  his  opponents  made 
two  serious  objections  to  him  : 

In  the  first  place,  they  make  merry  about  my  large  size  which  I 
can't  help,  and  in  the  second  place  they  say  I  am  exceedingly  bad 
tempered,  which  is  my  fault,  and  I  must  try  to  mend  it.  (Laughter. ) 
They  say  the  same  thing  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  the  disciple  cannot 
expect  to  fare  better  than  the  master. 

The  pursuit  of  his  own  candidature  did  not  monopolize 
his  political  energies  during  the  autumn.  He  spoke  in 
London  in  support  of  the  Liberal  candidates  for  the  City, 
and  on  October  4  addressed  a  Working  Men's  meeting  at 
the  Social  Science  Congress  at  Birmingham.  In  the  latter 
speech,  dealing  with  the  danger  of  unnecessary  and  super- 
fluous armaments  for  "self-defence,"  he  said  : 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  question  of  war,  this  question  of  arma- 
ments, this  question  of  preparation  for  war,  is  eminently  a  working 
man's  question.  I  cannot  forget,  and  the  world  will  not  soon  forget, 


i868]  CANNON   FODDER  187 

the  part  the  working  man  of  England  played  not  many  years  ago 
when  we  were  trembling  upon  the  brink  of  a  war  with  the  United 
States  of  America.  It  is  my  firm  belief  that  had  it  not  been  for  the 
distinctly  pronounced  opinion  of  the  working  classes,  we  should 
have  been  much  nearer  the  great  catastrophe  of  a  war  with  the 
United  States  than  we  were. 

This  speech  was  construed  into  an  attack  on  education,  and 
Harcourt  wrote  to  The  Times  to  repudiate  the  construction, 
while  insisting  that  "  there  have  been  far  more  wars  of  state 
policy  than  of  popular  passion.  Governments  have  made 
war,  not  from  ignorance,  but  from  false  ideas  of  policy,  the 
result  of  a  perverse  education." 

The  hundreds  of  thousands  of  lives  (he  said)  which  were  lavished 
in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  in  order  to  sustain 
"  the  balance  of  power  "  were  expended  in  the  pursuit  of  a  complex 
idea,  which  belonged  essentially  to  educated  minds.  I  did  not 
want  to  flatter  the  uneducated  who  had  not  made  war,  but  to 
condemn  the  educated  who  had  made  them.  .  .  .  Louis  XIV  and 
Napoleon  looked  at  war  from  a  different  point  of  view  from  that 
in  which  it  was  regarded  by  the  peasants  of  France  and  the  natives 
of  the  Palatinate.  .  .  .  There  is  a  song  which  says  : 

"  We  should  have  peace  at  home, 
And  all  things  would  go  right, 
If  those  who  made  the  quarrels 
Were  the  only  ones  to  fight." 

.  .  .  The  whole  theory  of  popular  government  rests,  I  imagine, 
on  the  belief  that  large  bodies  of  men  (of  whom,  of  course,  the  mass 
are  imperfectly  educated)  do,  from  a  personal  apprehension  of  what 
is  for  the  individual  interest  of  eacjfc  come  to  a  wiser  and  safer 
conclusion  as  to  what  is  for  the  benefit  of  all  than  is  likely  to  be 
reached  by  the  most  highly  educated  and  enlightened  rulers  on  their 
behalf.  The  subjects  of  conscription  are  necessarily  far  more  sensi- 
ble of  the  mischief  of  war  than  those  who  conscribe  them.  .  .  • 
Government  by  the  people  is,  on  the  whole,  wiser  than  govern- 
ment for  the  people.  These  are  the  reasons  why  I  venture  to  enter- 
tain a  confident  hope  that  the  more  popular  the  basis  of  government 
is  made  the  greater  will  be  the  disposition  to  pursue  a  policy  of  peace 
— not  because  the  governing  power  will  better  understand  the  evils 
of  war,  but  because  it  will  feel  them  more.  .  .  .  This  doctrine  may 
be  right  or  wrong,  but  I  hope  that  it  is,  at  all  events,  not  inconsistent 
with  the  creed  of  "an  gd'tK'TVCgri  liberal." 

The  election  took  place  in  November.  It  was  destined  to 
be  the  last  election  at  the  hustings,  and  on  the  day  of  nomina- 


i88  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1868 

tion  at  Oxford  there  was  a  lively  debate  between  the  candi- 
dates before  the  electors  in  the  Town  Hall  yard.  Harcourt 
had  the  good  fortune  to  follow  Dr.  Deane,  and  he  made  great 
havoc  of  his  speech.  When  at  the  close  of  the  speeches  the 
Mayor  called  for  a  show  of  hands,  it  was  clear  that  Cardwell 
and  Harcourt  were  in  an  overwhelming  majority.  A  poll 
was  demanded,  and  took  place  the  following  day,  the  result 
being : 

Cardwell      .         .         .         .          .  -       .         .     2,765 

Harcourt     .          ......     2,636 

Deane          .......     1,225 

The  costs  of  the  election  were  returned  as  follows  : 

Cardwell £1,220 

Harcourt   .......     £1,017 

Deane         .......     £1,341 

In  the  country  at  large  Gladstone  had  a  sweeping 
triumph,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  himself  was  defeated  in 
South  West  Lancashire,  being  returned,  however,  for  Green- 
wich. It  was  the  first  Parliament  elected  after  the  Reform 
Bill,  and  it  exhibited  a  profound  change  in  the  social  tone 
of  the  House.  The  supremacy  of  the  governing  families  had 
gone,  and  there  appeared  a  group  of  new  men,  mostly  Liberals, 
who  were  marked  out  for  future  distinction,  among  them, 
in  addition  to  Harcourt,  being  Henry  Campbell  (Bannerman), 
Wilfrid  Lawson,  A.  J.jyfnndgHa.  Charles  Dilke  and  Henry 
James.  Among  these  men  Harcourt  had,  of  course,  the 
most  established  reputation,  and  it  was  assumed  that,  though 
he  was  new  to  Parliament,  he  would  have  office.  Writing 
to  him  on  the  eve  of  the  election  Spencer  Butler  said : 

I  tell,  and  have  told  every  one  for  some  time  past,  that  you  will 
be  Solicitor- General,  and  all  agree  it  will  be  a  good  appointment. 
So  I  shall  see  your  Cambridge  dream  of  sitting  as  Lord  Chief  Justic 
come  true. 

Replying  to  Butler  after  the  election  Harcourt  wrote  : 

BOURNEMOUTH,  1868. — Many  thanks  for  your  kind  letter  of 
congratulation.  I  never  forget  how  you  stood  by  me  at  the  Kirk- 
caldy  hustings.  On  the  whole  I  dare  say  it  is  better  that  the  event 
was  postponed  for  ten  years,  as  the  pear  is  riper. 


i868]  THE   CANDID   FRIEND  189 

The  majority  is  a  slashing  one.  It  is  provoking  that  the  Lancashire 
places  should  have  gone  so  wrong.  I  take  it  to  mean  nothing 
else  but  hatred  of  the  Irish,  who  like  the  niggers  are  most  hated 
where  they  are  best  known.  You  will  probably  see  this  idea  ex- 
pounded in  a  letter  to  The  Times  by  "  one  who  knows  Lancashire." 
Gladstone  has  four  by  honours  and  all  the  cards,  and  if  he  does  not 
win  a  treble  off  his  hand,  it  is  no  one's  fault  but  his  own. 

As  to  S.-G.  (Solicitor-General),  I  don't  see  how  Collier  is  to  be 
disposed  of.  If  he  were  out  of  the  way,  I  suppose  I  should  stand 
next.  However,  I  should  not  regret  having  a  little  heedless  rhetoric 
below  the  gangway  before  I  go  into  the  dull  harness  of  office.  To 
go  there  at  once  would  be  like  marrying  at  sixteen. 

I  think  the  Parliament,  on  the  whole,  satisfactory.  I  fear  its 
Liberalisms  will  be  somewhat  too  Conservative  for  the  desires  of  the 
country — and  I  see  too  few  active  and  go-ahead  names  amongst 
the  new  members  and  God  knows  they  were  scant  enough  amongst 
the  old.  If  the  Liberal  Party  stick  in  the  mud  as  in  Pam's  time 
they  will  go  to  smash,  and  the  Tories  will  come  back. 

Harcourt's  expectation  that  Collier  could  not  be  set  aside 
was  justified,  but  Gladstone  offered  him  the  position  of 
Judge-Advocate-General.  This  he  declined  on  the  "  sole 
ground  that  I  could  not  with  the  necessary  regard  for  that 
private  independence  which  is  the  first  essential  for  a  politi- 
cian detach  myself  from  my  profession  in  an  office  which 
would  not  only  deprive  me  of  all  present  practice  but  also 
shut  me  out  from  all  those  future  prospects  of  promotion  in 
the  law  to  which  you  were  good  enough  to  allude."  But  it 
is  probable  that  his  refusal  was  also  partly  due  to  the  desire 
he  had  expressed  to  Butler  to  have  his  fling  before  he  went 
into  harness.  He  wanted  to  play  the  part  of  the  candid 
friend  to  the  new  Government,  and  he  communicated  his 
intention  to  Lord  Clarendon,  who  had  accepted  his  old  post 
of  Foreign  Minister  in  the  Administration.  Clarendon  was 
alarmed  at  the  prospect  of  this^formidable  colt  taking  the  bit 
in  his  teeth  and  causing  trouble.  Early  in  December,  while 
the  Government  was  still  barely  formed,  we  find  him  writing 
to  his  kinsman : 

THE  GROVE,  Tuesday  night. — I  don't  think  that  I  in  any  way 
misapprehended  what  you  said  to  me  on  Monday,  and  your  letter 
of  to-day  proves  to  me  thaj^fdid  not. 

I  agree  with  you  that  Gladstone's  policy  should  be  bold  and 
vigorous,  but  I  don't  agree  with  you  in  assuming  that  it  will  not  be 


190  SIR   WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1868 

so  ;  yet  such  must  be  your  opinion  if  you  have  already  prepared 
a  programme  of  measures  some  of  which  you  know  he  could  not 
now  assent  to  because  the  country  is  not  yet  ripe  for  them. 

You  say  that  no  more  efficient  aid  can  be  given  to  the  Government 
than  by  compelling  them  to  pronounce  upon  these  measures.  In 
my  humble  opinion  no  course  could  be  adopted  more  palpably 
hostile  and  embarrassing  to  the  Government.  On  the  other  hand 
I  think  the  plan  well  devised  if  your  object  is  to  take  the  place  that 
Bright  has  hitherto  occupied,  but  then  you  cannot,  any  more  than 
he  has  ever  done,  call  yourself  a  "  true  and  loyal  supporter  of  the 
Government."  In  all  sincerity  I  hope  that  the  line  of  conduct  you 
may  pursue  will  redound  to  your  honour  and  be  satisfactory  to 
yourself. 

It  would  seem  that  one  of  Harcourt's  criticisms  was  that 
the  advanced  men  were  not  getting  sufficient  representation 
in  the  Cabinet,  for  Clarendon  writes  : 

G.  C.,  December  g,  1868. — I  had  read  the  Art.  in  the  Telegraph 
before  you  directed  my  attention  to  it,  and  should  have  had  no 
difficulty  in  designating  the  author  even  if  it  had  not  been  a  transcript 
of  your  letter  to  me  yesterday. 

It  is  a  war-cry  against  Gladstone,  but  as  yet  not  a  faithful  expres- 
sion of  public  opinion.  .  .  . 

But  the  article  in  the  Telegraph  was  not  Harcourt's,  as 
appears  from  the  following  letter  from  Clarendon  the  next 
day,  still  expostulating  with  his  intransigeant  relative  : 

G.  C.,  December  10,  1868. — Pray  believe  that  I  did  not  mean  to 
do  you  an  injustice  by  assuming  that  the  Art.  in  the  Telegraph 
was  written  or  inspired  by  you.  I  thought  it  was  because  it  con- 
tained not  only  opinions  but  expressions  identical  with  those  of 
your  letter  to  me  the  previous  day.  You  tell  me  I  am  mistaken 
however,  and  I  have  only  to  ask  your  pardon  for  my  erroneous 
assumption. 

But  now  I  must  correct  an  error  of  yours  which  is  that  I  am 
offended  at  your  plain  speaking,  whereas  it  has  through  life  been 
my  object  to  get  at  opinions  which  differed  from  my  own.  My 
friendship  and  regard  for  you  have  led  me  to  discuss  the  course  of 
conduct  you  intended  to  pursue,  which  seemed  to  me  unfair  towards 
Gladstone  and  that  if  I  chanced  to  be  right  you  would  be  sorry 
hereafter.  I  had  no  other  wish  than  that  you  should  be  cautious 
on  first  crossing  the  threshold  of  parliamentary  life. 

In  the  meantime  Gladstone  had  been  immersed  in  the 
difficulties  of  Cabinet-making  and  with  no  one  had  those 


i868]        PROTESTS   FROM   NUNEHAM          191 

difficulties  been  more  severe  than  with  Bright,  who  Har- 
court  apparently  assumed  was  being  left  out.  When  at 
last  Bright's  indisposition  to  take  office  was  overcome,  Har- 
court  wrote  congratulating  him  on  having  joined  the  Ministry. 
In  his  reply  Bright  said  : 

ROCHDALE,  December  17,  1868. — It  was  a  hard  struggle  for  me, 
for  I  had  all  along  determined  not  to  take  office,  but  I  have  surren- 
dered to  the  pressure  put  upon  me,  and  I  hope  what  I  have  done  is 
/ight.  I  am  glad  to  have  your  kind  expression  of  opinion  upon  what 
/  I  have  done.  ...  It  was  well  you  went  to  Oxford  and  not  to  Liver- 
pool. 

The  anxiety  to  see  Bright  in  the  Ministry  was  evidence  of 
the  movement  of  Harcourt's  mind  to  the  Left,  but  the  general 
attitude  of  which  Clarendon  complained  was  probably 
nothing  more  than  the  natural  disposition  of  a  combative 
spirit  to  be  "  agin  the  Government  "  and  to  explore  the 
parliamentary  field  by  adopting  guerilla  warfare.  Claren- 
don was  not  the  only  person  at  this  time  who  was  disturbed 
about  Harcourt.  His  brother  at  Nuneham,  referring  no 
doubt  to  the  offer  of  the  Judge-Advocate-Generalship, 
wrote  : 

December  12. — I  am  very  glad  to  see  by  the  papers  that  you  are 
on  the  road  to  advancement. 

I  have  never  disguised  the  extreme  annoyance  which  your  position 
as  Radical  member  for  Oxford  causes  me,  and  as  long  as  such  a 
position  continues  I  cannot  look  upon  your  connection  with  Nune- 
ham as  anything  but  a  misfortune. 

This  does  not,  however,  diminish  in  the  least  the  pleasure  I  feel 
in  your  well  doing.  This  must  always  increase  as  I  hope  your  success 
will  increase,  and  you  may  believe  from  past  experience  that  no 
one  will  be  so  heartily  or  affectionately  glad  as  I  shall  be  at  everything 
which  conduces  to  your  happiness.  A  relationship  like  ours  is  not 
lightly  forgotten,  though  clouds  may  sometimes  intervene  for  a 
time. 

The  wound  continued  to  rankle,  and  writing  on  the 
following  February  25,  from  Hastings,  he,  much  in  the 
spirit  of  Sir  Anthony  Absolute  ,  warned  him  that  he  must 
get  a  hemisphere  of  his  own  : 

Your  successful  and  good  speech  gave  me  sincere  pleasure,  and 
only  made  me  the  more  regret  that  the  stool  you  stand  upon  is 


192  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1868 

such  a  thorn  in  my  side  as  to  introduce  very  mixed  feelings  on  the 
subject  of  your  parliamentary  career. 

My  personal  feelings  towards  yourself  and  your  dear  boy  are  of 
course  unchanged  ;  but  I  think  you  hardly  realize  the  extent  of 
my  dislike  to  your  present  connection  with  Oxford  sufficiently  to 
understand  why,  as  long  as  it  continues,  I  can  have  no  sort  of  pleasure 
in  meeting  you  in  Oxfordshire  or  in  thinking  of  you  in  connection 
with  the  Nuneham  property.  Here,  or  on  any  other  neutral  ground, 
it  will  always  give  me  the  greatest  pleasure  to  see  you  and  yours.  . . . 


CHAPTER  X 
BACK  TO  THE  ALABAMA 

Whewell  Professor  of  International  Law — Se ward's  conditions  for 
the  Alabama  Arbitration — His  theory  of  a  local  insurrection 
— Harcourt  defines  his  position  on  the  Alabama  Claims — War 
and  Trade — The  Fish  Despatch — Expatriation  and  Naturaliza- 
tion— The  Civis  Romanus  doctrine — Royal  Commission  on 
Naturalization. 

IT  is  possible  that  Harcourt  had  another  motive  for  not 
putting  himself  into  official  harness  too  hurriedly.  He 
had  won  a  unique  position  in  the  country  as  an  inter- 
national lawyer,  and  although  international  law,  as  he  had 
told  Lord  Russell  in  accepting  payment  for  his  work,  was  his 
"  passion  not  his  profession,"  it  was  a  subject  which  seriously 
challenged  his  interest  in  politics.  And  at  this  time  a  crown- 
ing distinction  and  an  attractive  opportunity  in  this  field  were 
within  his  grasp.  He  was  still  perhaps  undecided  between 
the  claims  of  the  law  and  the  claims  of  politics.  The  highest 
achievements  in  either  sphere  were  open  to  him,  and  though 
his  love  of  combat  drew  him  to  one,  his  intellectual  interest 
was  powerfully  engaged  by  the  other.  He  had  taken  silk  in 
1866,  and,  as  Spencer  Butler's  letter  of  congratulation  after 
the  Oxford  election  shows,  had  had  dreams  of  the  Lord  Chief 
Justiceship.  A  parliamentary  career,  so  far  from  being  an 
obstacle  to  such  ambitions,  was,  in  his  case,  the  true  path 
to  their  attainment.  But  before  pursuing  that  path  he 
explored  another  which  left  him  more  freedom  and  inde- 
pendence than  a  law  office  under  the  Crown  would  have  given 
him.  Dr.  Whewell,  the  Master  of  Trinity,  died  in  1866, 
leaving  in  his  will  provision  for  the  foundation  of  a  Chair  of 

193  o 


194  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1869 

International  Law  at  Cambridge.  The  Whewell  Professor 
had  to  deliver  at  least  twelve  lectures  annually,  and  it  was 
required  by  the  founder  that  he  should  "  make  it  his  aim  in 
all  parts  of  his  treatment  of  the  subject  to  lay  down  such 
rules  and  to  suggest  such  measures  as  may  tend  to  diminish 
the  causes  of  war  and  finally  to  extinguish  war  between 
nations." 

By  a  singular  coincidence  it  seems  that  the  idea  of  the 
professorship  was  first  discussed  by  Whewell  when  he  was 
on  a  visit  to  Canon  Harcourt,  whose  son  was  destined  to  be 
the  first  holder  of  the  Chair.  There  were  several  distinguished 
men  who  had  claims  upon  so  desirable  a  position.  H.  S. 
Maine  was  among'  them.  He  had  gone  to  Calcutta,  but 
contemplated  returning  to  England,  and  he  wrote  to  Har- 
court on  November  29,  1868,  expressing  his  preference  for 
the  contemplated  Professorship  of  Jurisprudence  at  Oxford, 
but  indicating  that  if  that  fell  through  he  "  did  not  consider 
himself  debarred  by  anything  which  passed  between  us  from 
standing  for  the  Whewell  Professorship."  He  added  : 

I  dare  say  you  will  deem  it  profoundly  immaterial  whether  I 
stand  or  not.     But  it  would  give  me  great  pain  to  find  myself  a 
candidate  and  then  to  discover  that  you  thought  the  step  a  breach    ; 
of  an  understanding  with  yourself.     I  shall  be  greatly  obliged  to    i 
you  if  you  will  let  me  know  your  view  of  the  situation. 

In  the  end  Maine 1  did  not  stand,  but  among  the  eight  ; 
candidates  the  most  formidable  rival  of  Harcourt  was  another 
friend  of  the  Apostolic  days,  Fitzjames  Stephen.  The 
prestige  attaching  to  "  Historicus  "  carried  the  day,  and 
Harcourt  was  appointed  to  the  Chair  on  March  2,  1869. 
The  first  letter  of  congratulation  he  received  was  from  W.  H. 
Thompson,  for  whose  appointment  as  Master  of  Trinity  in 
succession  to  Whewell  Harcourt  had  laboured  industriously 
in  the  teeth  of  much  opposition.  Another  letter  no  doubt 
gave  him  even  more  satisfaction.  It  was  from  his  father  at 
Nuneham.  Canon  Harcourt  had  the  scholar's  love  of  the 
collegiate  life  and  the  scholar's  dislike  of  the  political  world, 
and  he  had  wanted  his  brilliant  son  to  remain  at  Cambridge. 
1  Maine  succeeded  to  the  Chair  on  Harcourt's  resignation  in  1887. 


1869]  ROOMS  AT  TRINITY  195 

In  standing  for  the  Whewell  Professorship,  Harcourt,  whose 
affection  for  his  father  was  always  an  active  influence  on  his 
conduct,  knew  that  success  in  this  matter  would  give  keen 
pleasure  to  the  Canon,  who  had  shared  the  family  disquiet 
at  his  political  development.  He  was  not  disappointed, 
though  the  Canon's  letter  was  double-edged.  He  wrote 
(March  4)  : 

MY  DEAREST  WILLIE, — I  am  rejoiced  to  hear  of  your  appoint- 
ment to  the  Professorship,  and  shall  hope  soon  to  hear  that  your 
first  Lecture  deserves  comparison  with  that  fine  one  on  International 
Law  by  Sir  J.  Macintosh,  and  that  you  will  not,  like  him,  stop  short 
with  the  past  history  of  that  grand  and  imperfectly  studied  subject, 
but  pursue  it  with  the  principles  on  which  it  does  or  ought  to  rest. 
This  would  afford  me  sincere  satisfaction,  whilst  on  the  contrary 
it  would  be  nothing  but  pain  and  grief  to  me  to  hear  of  your  being 
implicated  in  a  conspiracy  to  rob  the  Almighty,  to  give  to  Caesar  the 
things  which  belong  to  God,  which  have  been  devoted  to  His  service 
by  immemorial  usage,  and  are  applied  to  it  at  this  moment  more 
perfectly  and  efficiently  than  in  any  former  age — such  a  policy 
violates  the  highest  and  most  sacred  of  principles,  and  therefore 
can  never  prosper.  Entertaining  this  opinion,  as  I  do  with  the 
deepest  conviction,  it  would  be,  my  dear  William,  with  no  common 
regret  that  I  should  see  a  son  of  mine  involved  in  so  heavy  a  respon- 
sibility. 

As  he  had  admitted  in  his  letter  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby,  Har- 
court was  often  too  careless  of  the  feelings  of  others,  but 
he  was  never  forgetful  of  the  feelings  of  his  father.  The 
letter  which  I  have  quoted  indicates  the  Canon's  atttiudeon 
the  Irish  Church  question,  and  it  is  not  without  significance 
that  Harcourt  did  not  take  office  until  after  his  father's 
death. 

The  appointment  to  the  Professorship  did  not  involve 
residence  at  Cambridge,  but  under  the  terms  of  Whewell's 
will  Harcourt  was  entitled  to  a  handsome  suite  of  rooms  in 
the  New  Court — "  I  fear  they  are  not  rent  free,"  wrote 
Thompson  to  him — and  these  he  took  and  long  continued  to 
use.  King  Edward,  when  Prince  of  Wales,  stayed  in  them  on 
his  visits  to  his  son  at  Cambridge.  The  distinction  conferred 
on  "  Historicus  "  came  at  a  time  when  the  prolonged  con- 
troversy which  had  made  his  reputation  was  once  more  acute. 
The  Alabama  question  still  clouded  the  sky  and  seemed 


196  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1868 

wellnigh  insoluble.  The  grievance  of  America  was  indisput- 
able ;  but  since  the  war  the  attitude  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment had  made  the  question  of  reparation  by  England 
extremely  difficult.  In  1867,  Lord  Stanley,  then  Foreign 
Minister,  had  suggested  arbitration,  but  Seward  had  for- 
mally declined  the  proposal.  The  United  States  would  only 
accept  arbitration  on  condition  that  England's  concession 
of  belligerent  rights  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  formed 
part  of  the  case  for  the  arbitrators'  decision.  The  British 
Government,  on  the  contrary,  insisted  that  an  actual  state 
of  war  should  be  assumed  to  have  existed,  and  that  upon 
this  assumption  the  arbitrator  should  proceed  to  consider 
the  claims  of  the  United  States  to  compensation.  Seward's 
argument  was  that  but  for  the  English  proclamation  of 
neutrality  there  would  never  have  been  civil  war  in 'America  ; 
that  it  was  England  who  gave  it  the  name  of  war  ;  and  that 
but  for  our  "  intervention  "  it  would  have  been  a  mere 
domestic  insurrection  with  which  the  world  would  have  had 
nothing  to  do.  If  this  argument  was  sound,  it  followed,  as 
"  Historicus  "  showed  in  a  succession  of  powerful  letters 
during  January  1868,  that  England  was  not  only  responsible 
for  all  the  damage  done  by  the  Alabama  but  for  all  the 
damage  done  throughout  the  war.  She  was,  in  a  word,  the 
sole  cause  of  the  war.  But  this  wild  theory  was  destroyed 
by  Seward's  own  despatches,  which  Harcourt  produced  with 
smashing  effect.  He  pointed  out,  for  example,  that  on 
May  4,  1861,  nine  days  before  the  English  proclamation 
of  neutrality,  Seward  wrote  to  the  American  Minister  in 
Paris : 

The  insurgents  have  instituted  revolution  with  open,  flagrant, 
deadly  war  to  compel  the  United  States  to  acquiesce  in  the  dismem- 
berment of  the  Union.  The  United  States  has  accepted  this  Civil 
War  as  an  inevitable  necessity. 

This  paper  (commented  Harcourt,  January  20,  1868)  is  a  record 
laid  on  the  table  of  Congress,  circulated  through  the  world,  and  yet 
the  man  who  wrote  it  now  says  that  on  May  13,  1861,  "  the  disturb- 
ance in  the  United  States  was  merely  a  local  insurrection,"  that 
"  it  wanted  the  name  of  war  to  be  a  civil  war  and  to  live  "... 
and  that  "  the  President  declined  to  confer  upon  the  insurrection  the 
pregnant  baptismal  name  of  Civil  War  to  the  prejudice  of  the  nation 


i868]     GOLD  WIN  SMITH'S  COMMENTS       197 

whose  destiny  was  in  his  hands,"  but  that  this  was  done  "  by  the 
Queen  of  England,  who  baptized  the  slave  insurrection  within  the 
United  States  a  civil  war.  ..."  On  May  4,  Mr.  Seward  writes 
officially,  "  The  United  States  has  accepted  this  civil  war  as  an 
inevitable  necessity."  But  for  the  Queen  of  England  to  affirm 
on  May  13  that  a  civil  war  had  been  accepted  by  the  United  States 
is  a  wrong,  forsooth,  for  which  England  is  to  pay  an  indemnity. 

On  another  point  Harcourt  showed  how  ill  Seward's 
record  of  facts  in  1868  accorded  with  the  record  of  the  same 
facts  in  1861.  He  now  denied  that  the  blockade  was  a 
blockade  until  England  converted  the  "  local  insurrection  " 
into  a  civil  war.  It  was  only  a  closing  of  the  ports  by 
municipal  law.  But,  says  Harcourt,  on  May  2,  1861 — 
eleven  days  before  the  Queen's  proclamation  of  neutrality — 
Seward,  replying  to  the  Spanish  Minister,  described  the 
conditions  of  the  blockade  as  follows  : 

1.  That  the  blockade  will  be  strictly  enforced  upon  the  principles 
recognized  by  the  law  of  nations. 

2.  That  armed  vessels  of  neutral  states  will  have  the  right  to  enter 
and  depart  from  the  inderdicted  ports. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  the  endless  controversy  in 
detail.  We  may  wonder  to-day  that  so  unreal  a  point 
could  for  years  have  menaced  the  peace  of  the  two  countries. 
There  was  ground  for  arguing  that  England  was  over-hasty 
in  recognizing  belligerency.  Goldwin  Smith  held  that  view. 
When  in  November  1868  Harcourt  issued  a  pamphlet  on 
the  subject,  he  sent  the  proofs  to  Goldwin  Smith,  who  in  his 
comment  on  them  said  : 

I  wish  Bemis  (the  American  "  Historicus  ")  was  away,  or  that  there 
was  less  of  him.  He  is  an  opponent  scarcely  worthy  of  you,  and  the 
operation  of  kicking  him  rather  spoils  the  judicial  dignity  of  the 
work.  .  .  .  You  do  not  convince  me  that  more  pains  should  not 
have  been  taken  to  soften  the  recognition  of  belligerency.  If 
not  strictly  necessary  it  would  have  been  wise.  As  to  the  recognition 
itself,  you  are  overwhelming. 

But,  in  any  case,  the  grievance  on  this  point  had  no  rele- 
vance to  the  case  of  the  Alabama,  and  to  make  its  considera- 
tion a  condition  of  assenting  to  arbitration  in  regard  to  the 
depredations  of  the  Alabama  was  to  make  an  agreement 


198  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1868 

impossible.  On  the  question  of  the  Alabama.  Harcourt 
continued  impenitent.  It  was  an  offence  against  our 
municipal  law,  and  the  vessel  ought  not  to  have  been  per- 
mitted to  enter  our  ports  abroad.  But — again  in  opposition 
to  Goldwin  Smith — he  took  a  too  narrow  legal  view  as  to 
our  responsibility  for  damage  done  by  the  vessel  on  the 
high  seas.  He  held  that  as  the  launching  and  equipment  of 
the  Alabama  was  not  a  breach  of  international  law  that 
responsibility  did  not  exist.  But  he  was  in  favour  of  arbi- 
tration if  it  could  be  confined  to  two  points — (i)  whether  the 
English  Government  took  proper  precautions  and  exhibited 
adequate  vigilance ;  and  (2)  whether,  if  they  did  not, 
indemnity  was  due.  In  a  letter  to  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette 
(January  1868) ,  replying  to  an  attack  on  him,  "  Historicus  " 
defended  his  record  in  the  great  controversy  that  he  had 
waged  for  seven  years  : 

You  sneer  (he  said)  at  my  pretensions  to  "  have  done  all  I  can 
to  be  polite  and  agreeable  to  the  Americans."  You  are  unjust  in 
this.  I  never  said  I  had  been  "  polite  and  agreeable  "  to  the  Ameri- 
cans. I  said  I  had  done  what  I  could  to  "  maintain  the  friendship 
of  England  and  America."  That,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  to  be 
attained  by  an  attempt  to  be  "  polite  and  agreeable  "  to  either 
country,  but  by  trying  to  be  just  to  both.  It  has  been  my  fortune 
to  have  to  argue  questions  of  public  law  both  for  and  against  America. 
I  argued  for  America  when  it  was  proposed,  contrary  to  the  pre- 
cedents and  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  to  recognize  the 
independence  of  the  Southern  States.  I  argued  for  America  when 
it  was  sought  to  violate  or  restrict  the  belligerent  right  of  blockade. 
I  argued  for  America  when  the  English  Government  were  attacked 
for  stopping  the  Confederate  Rams.  I  argued  for  America  and 
against  the  English  Government  in  favour  of  excluding  the  Alabama 
from  the  ports  of  the  realm.  I  argued  for  America  in  these  cases 
because  I  thought  she  had  the  right  on  her  side,  though  the  public 
voice  of  a  large  and  influential  class  in  England  was  against  her. 
I  argued  for  England  and  against  America  in  the  case  of  the  Trent, 
in  the  case  of  the  Alabama  claims  and  above  all  on  the  question  of 
the  recognition  of  belligerency,  because  I  knew  her  to  be  in  the 
wrong.  I  have  defended  the  cause  of  America  when  she  was  weak 
because  I  believed  her  to  be  right,  and  I  claim  the  title  to  resist 
her  when  I  know  she  is  wrong,  and  to  refute  the  arguments  of  those 
who  counsel  submission  to  her  chiefly  because  they  believe  her  to  be 
powerful.  That  I  have  been  unfair  to  America  is  a  charge  which  I 
know  the  opinion  of  America  will  not  sustain.  I  may  have  been 


i868J  THE   ALABAMA    AGAIN  199 

mistaken.  God  knows  it  is  likely  enough.  But  in  endeavouring 
to  elucidate  questions  which  concern  the  peace  of  two  kindred  nations 
which  I  equally  admire — which  I  could  almost  say  I  equally  love 
— I  have  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  and  with  some  labour  and  industry, 
declared  what  I  believed  to  be  right.  I  have  been  the  partisan  of 
no  Government  and  the  advocate  of  neither  nation.  I  have  sought 
peace  where  alone  it  can  be  found — in  the  paths  of  law,  of  justice 
and  of  truth.  Pray  excuse  this  egotism,  but  it  is  the  nature  of  any 
man  to  protest  against  injustice. 

With  the  failure  of  Stanley's  proposal,  the  controversy 
between  the  two  countries  continued  inflamed  and  irritating, 
and  it  was  one  of  the  gravest  questions  which  the  new  Min- 
istry had  to  face.  Writing  to  Harcourt,  Clarendon  expressed 
his  disappointment  that  he  had  not  come  down  to  visit  him  : 

THE  GROVE,  December  6,  1868. — I  am  on  every  account  sorry, 
as  among  other  things  I  wished  to  have  a  talk  with  you  on  our  report, 
about  which  I  am  painfully  anxious,  as  it  appears  that  things  are 
going  to  the  devil  at  Washington,  mainly  owing,  I  apprehend,  to  the 
indiscretions  of  Reverdy  Johnson  which  have  intensified  the  anti- 
English  feeling,  and  I  fear  that  Seward  now  thinks  there  is  more 
capital  to  be  made  by  throwing  over  than  by  supporting  his  Minister 
here.  Don't  mention  this,  but  an  article  in  The  Times  yesterday 
shows  that  Delane  is  aware  of  the  rocks  ahead.  It  appears  that 
immense  importance  is  attached  to  the  naturalization  question  and 
that  the  settlement  of  it  or  at  all  events  the  introduction  of  a  Bill 
into  Parliament  would  go  far  to  smooth  matters  on  the  five  ugly 
questions  on  which  negotiations  are  pending.  Sorely  against  my 
will  and  notwithstanding  the  arguments  against  myself  that  I 
honestly  urged  I  have  been  talked  into  the  F.O.  (Foreign  Office) 
again.  .  .  .  The  moral  of  this  long  story  is  that  I  want  very  much 
your  aid  in  understanding  the  report. 

Reverdy  Johnson,  who  was  the  United  States  Minister  in 
London,  in  a  speech  at  Manchester  criticized  Harcourt's 
address  on  War  and  the  Working  Man  at  the  Social  Science 
Conference  at  Birmingham,  and  asserted  the  doctrine  of  the 
immunity  of  the  private  property  of  belligerents  at  sea  in 
war  time.  Johnson  had  justified  the  course  taken  by  his 
Government  in  declining  to  accede  unconditionally  to  the 
Declaration  of  Paris  with  regard  to  the  abolition  of  priva- 
teering, on  the  ground  of  the  particular  interests  of  the 
United  States.  Harcourt  declined  to  argue  the  question  on 
"  the  ground  of  the  special  advantages  that  may  accrue  to 


200  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1869 

individual  nations."  To  Johnson's  proposal  that  men  might 
be  killed  in  battle,  but  that  the  merchant  should  go  his  way 
unharmed,  he  retorted  (The  Times,  March  i,  1869)  : 

Now,  I  confess  that  I  am  not  completely  satisfied  that  this  plan  of 
unrestricted  personal  slaughter,  by  which  people  are  to  be  killed 
first,  and  the  survivors  afterwards  to  be  consoled  by  the  profits 
of  trade,  would,  on  the  whole,  conduce  to  the  happiness  of  mankind. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Johnson  says  that  the  horrors  of  war  are  already  sufficiently 
great ;  and  it  is  unhappily  true.  But  shocking  as  it  may  be,  it  is 
unfortunately  true  likewise  that  men  are  far  less  afflicted  by  the 
sufferings,  however  terrible,  of  others,  than  by  a  loss  much  less 
considerable  that  befalls  themselves.  Men  read  with  equanimity 
and  even  pride  the  story  of  the  storming  of  Badajos  or  the  field  of 
Gettysburg  who  would  shrink  from  the  ruin  of  their  own  fortunes. 
I,  for  one,  am  not  disposed  to  part  with  the  suretyship  of  the  com- 
mercial class  as  a  guarantee  against  war.  Mr.  Johnson  says,  "  Why 
should  the  innocent  merchant  who  has  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
war,  or  the  causes  of  the  war,  specially  suffer  for  it  ?  "  I  cannot 
agree  that  the  merchant  has  any  special  claim  to  the  epithet  of 
"  innocent."  On  the  whole,  inasmuch  as  his  class  is  much  more 
powerful,  he  is  far  more  responsible  for  the  war  than  the  innocent 
soldier  or  sailor — in  most  countries  the  victim  of  conscription — but 
who  according  to  the  modern  theory  are  exclusively  to  suffer  for  it. 
I  venture  to  affirm  that,  in  this  country  at  least,  no  war  could  be 
made  against  the  united  resistance  of  the  commercial  classes.  Is 
is  desirable  to  dimmish  the  inducement  to  that  resistance  ?  During 
the  last  hundred  years,  while  trade  was  comparatively  safe  under 
the  overwhelming  maritime  superiority  of  Great  Britain,  the  com- 
mercial class  had  not  as  a  rule  been  hostile  to  wars  which  more 
often  than  not  served  their  interests.  The  City  of  London  which 
flouted  the  pacific  Walpole,  idolized  the  warlike  genius  of  Chatham. 
Burke  at  Bristol,  and  Brougham  at  Liverpool  idly  preached  the 
gospel  of  peace  ;  if  the  carrying  trade  had  been  at  stake  they  might 
possibly  have  been  better  listened  to.  ...  So  great  a  transaction 
as  war,  involving  such  horrible  evils  and  such  tremendous  responsi- 
bility, ought  not  to  be  conducted  on  the  principle  of  limited  liability. 
.  .  .  The  proposal  to  exempt  commerce  from  the  operation  of 
hostilities  seems  to  me  a  direct  encouragement  to  reckless  trading 
in  war.  It  resembles  the  conduct  of  a  spendthrift  who,  in  contempla- 
tion of  bankruptcy,  makes  a  settlement  on  his  family,  and  then 
proceeds  to  ruin  the  rest  of  the  world  at  his  ease. 

Replying  in  a  later  letter  (March  15)  to  the  Economist, 
which  had  charged  him  with  confounding  the  general  foreign 
trade  with  the  carrying  trade  of  the  belligerents,  Harcourt 
showed  that  the  general  foreign  trade  of  the  belligerent 


i869]  A  DESPATCH   FROM   FISH  201 

already  enjoyed  the  desired  immunity,  by  virtue  of  the 
Declaration  of  Paris,  when  placed  under  a  neutral  flag. 
That  rule  was  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  belligerent  but  of 
the  neutral. 

What  I  argued  was  that  because  you  had  by  a  rule  intended  to 
benefit  the  neutral  indirectly  favoured  the  belligerent,  that  circum- 
stance affords  no  ground  for  establishing  another  rule  directly  in 
favour  of  the  belligerent,  but  offering  no  advantage  to  the  neutral. 

Summing  up  his  general  attitude  he  said,  in  words  which 
gain  a  new  force  from  the  experience  of  the  World  War : 

I  believe  the  idea  of  reducing  war  to  a  military  and  naval  duel 
between  armies  and  fleets  is  as  chimerical  and  less  humane  than  the 
romantic  project  of  chivalry  to  settle  the  fate  of  the  Moslem  and  the 
Christian  by  a  single  combat  between  Saladin  and  Richard.  These 
two  nations  are  locked  in  the  deadly  embrace  of  war,  whether  they 
be  fighting  for  empire  or  struggling  for  independence.  They  will 
deal  the  fatal  blow  with  every  weapon  which  fortune  places  within 
their  grasp.  Passion  is  deaf,  patriotism  is  unscrupulous,  fear  is 
cruel.  To  attempt  to  disarm  war  of  its  horrors  is  an  idle  dream  and 
a  dangerous  delusion  ;  let  us  labour  at  the  more  practical  task  of 
making  it  impossible. 

II 

But  this  argument  with  Reverdy  Johnson  was  only  a 
digression  from  the  main  theme  that  continued  to  disturb 
the  diplomatic  atmosphere.  General  Grant  had  now  become 
President  of  the  United  States  and  Seward  had  been  suc- 
ceeded by  Fish  as  Secretary  of  State.  But  the  change  so 
far  from  producing  a  more  accommodating  spirit  at  Wash- 
ington made  the  situation  much  worse.  Clarendon  at  the 
Foreign  Office  was  reduced  to  an  indignant  despair  by  the 
attitude  of  Fish.  His  state  of  mind  is  recorded  in  his  letters 
to  Harcourt  in  the  autumn  : 

THE  GROVE,  October  17,  1869. — I  have  been  operated  upon  by 
Motley  (the  new  United  States  Minister)  and  as  I  had  no  chloroform 
it  was  not  pleasant.  He  read  me  the  Fish  despatch  which,  as  nearly 
as  I  could  count,  was  twelve  sheets  long.  Its  tone  is  that  of  studied 
courtesy  and  injured  friendship,  but  it  reopens  the  whole  question 
in  all  its  details  and  insists  on  all  the  old  facts  and  arguments  just 
as  if  it  was  brand  new  matter  and  was  to  be  discussed  for  the  first 


202  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1869 

time.     They  ask  for  nothing,  but  leave  it  to  me  to  propose  reparation 
for  our  irreparable  misdeeds.  .  .  . 

THE  GROVE,  October  25,  1869. — I  was  glad  to  find  that  your  opinion 
corresponded  so  exactly  with  my  own  on  the  Fish  Despatch.  .  .  . 
To-morrow  the  Cabinet  meets  and  I  shall  learn  the  opinion  of 
Colleagues.  Hitherto  I  only  know  Gladstone's,  which  does  not 
much  differ  from  yours  or  mine,  but  there  is  a  passage  in  his  letter 
of  yesterday  upon  which  I  want  your  advice  and  opinion.  After 
saying  that  they  ask  for  a  proposal  which  we  cannot  with  honour 
make,  he  'adds  :  jj,"  Might  you  not  glance  at  a  mode  of  proceeding 
such  as  this — that  the  two  countries  should  set  about  the  considera- 
tion of  a  good  prospective  system  and  should  thereafter,  in  the 
light  of  principles  thus  elucidated,  reconsider  the  manner  of  arbitra- 
tion or  any  other  mode  of  proceeding  in  the  Alabama  case.  Might 
not  something  be  hammered  out  of  this  ?  " 

Clarendon  wrote  to  Harcourt  (November  4)  asking  him 
to  come  to  the  Grove  to  meet  the  Gladstones  and  perhaps 
Bright,  and  proposing  to  send  him  the  draft  of  the  British 
Government's  reply  to  the  document  Harcourt  called 
the  "  piscine  despatch."  Harcourt's  observations  did  not 
reach  him,  however,  until  after  the  draft  had  been  con- 
sidered and  approved  by  the  Cabinet.  In  the  meantime 
Fish,  who  had  up  till  that  moment  kept  his  own  despatch 
secret  "  in  a  manner  quite  unprecedented,"  had  suddenly 
sent  to  the  newspapers  the  whole  correspondence  with 
the  exception  of  the  second  British  despatch,  which  he 
had  suppressed.  Clarendon,  who  had  no  desire  at  a 
critical  moment  to  appear  hostile  to  Fish,  preferred  to 
leave  the  American  people  to  discover  Fish's  manoeuvre. 
"  This  feeling,"  he  wrote  to  Harcourt  on  December  30, 
"  prevented  my  alluding  to  their  assumption  that  the  war 
had  for  its  object  the  abolition  of  slavery,  but  as  I  have 
long  desired  that  this  should  be  done  I  need  not  say  with 
what  satisfaction  I  read  your  smasher  of  yesterday." 

The  "  smasher  "  to  which  Clarendon  refers  was  one  of  a 
series  of  letters  which  Harcourt  in  his  old  role  of  "  Histori- 
cus  "  was  addressing  to  The  Times  at  this  period  in  reply 
to  Fish.  The  attitude  of  this  diplomatist  was  certainly 
disquieting.  Not  content  with  the  original  claim  of  Seward 
that  the  recognition  of  belligerency  should  be  part  and 


1869]  THE  SLAVERY   ISSUE  203 

parcel  of  any  reference  to  the  case  of  the  Alabama  to  arbitra- 
tion, he  now  embittered  the  situation  by  insisting  that,  as 
the  North  fought  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  England  ought 
not  to  have  been  neutral  at  all.  "  Since  the  famous  bulletins 
of  the  first  Napoleon,"  wrote  Harcourt,  "  such  liberties 
have  probably  never  been  taken  with  facts  for  political 
purposes  as  those  ventured  upon  in  the  despatch  of  Mr. 
Fish."  He  disposed  of  the  assertion  that  the  North  began 
the  war  to  abolish  slavery  by  pointing  out  that  Lincoln  not 
only  disclaimed  any  such  purpose  in  his  first  inaugural 
message,  but  still  more  clearly  disavowed  it  in  a  famous 
letter  in  the  second  year  of  the  war  in  which  he  said  : 

My  paramount  object  in  this  struggle  is  to  save  the  Union,  and 
is  not  either  to  save  or  destroy  slavery.  If  I  could  save  the  Union 
without  freeing  any  slave  I  would  do  it,  and  if  I  could  save  it  by 
freeing  all  the  slaves  I  would  do  it ;  and  if  I  could  save  it  by  freeing 
some  and  leaving  others  alone  I  would  also  do  that.  What  I  do 
about  slavery  and  the  coloured  race  I  do  because  I  believe  it  helps 
to  save  this  Union  ;  and  what  I  forbear  I  forbear  because  I  do  not 
believe  it  would  help  to  save  the  Union. 

It  followed,  said  Harcourt  unanswerably,  that  "  if  the 
rebellion  had  been  successfully  crushed  in  its  commencement, 
the  Union  would  have  been  restored  and  slavery  with  it." 
Fish's  claim,  therefore,  was  an  afterthought  that  had  no 
basis  in  historical  fact.  As  to  the  suggestion  of  "  warm 
neutrality  "  it  was  a  contradiction  in  terms,  for  which, 
according  to  his  practice,  he  put  the  American  jurists  in 
evidence.  "  A  neutral,"  he  said,  "  has  no  business  to  be 
warm  ;  it  is  essentially  his  duty  to  be  not  only  lukewarm, 
but  cold.  A  warm  neutrality  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
a  fraudulent  neutrality.  You  might  as  well  talk  of  hot  ice 
or  cold  steam."  Fish's  claim  that  the  Confederates  had 
no  rights  at  sea — a  theory,  as  Harcourt  said,  of  "  divisible 
belligerency  " — was  met  by  a  torrent  of  precedents  from  the 
records  of  the  United  States  during  the  War  of  Independence 
and  the  South  American  Wars. 

But  the  storm  that  raged  around  the  Alabama  was  not 
the  only  menace  to  Anglo-American  relations  at  this  time. 
Another  cause  of  irritation  arose  in  connection  with  the 


204  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1868 

Fenian  agitation  and  the  status  of  Irishmen  in  the  United 
States.  Fenians  could  not,  of  course,  be  tried  in  Ireland  for 
acts  done  in  the  United  States,  but  once  they  had  committed 
some  offence  on  British  soil  which  enabled  them  to  be  brought 
to  trial,  could  evidence  of  preparation  in  the  United  States 
be  admitted  ?  All  international  questions  affecting  persons 
were,  and  are,  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  English- 
speaking  peoples  base  nationality  on  the  place  of  birth, 
Great  Britain  claiming  allegiance  from  all  persons,  of  what- 
ever parentage,  born  within  the  dominions  of  the  Crown, 
while  the  Latin  nations  base  citizenship  on  the  nationality 
of  the  father.  English  law,  moreover,  regarded  British 
citizenship  as  indelible,  and  as  being  handed  down  from 
father  to  son,  wherever  the  son  might  be  born.  Many  nice 
diplomatic  questions  had  arisen  out  of  this  confusion  during 
the  American  Civil  War,  when  natural-born  Englishmen 
resident  in  the  States  had  asked  to  be  protected  by  the 
British  Minister  against  conscription,  and  the  case  of  Don 
Pacifico  was  still  fresh  in  the  public  mind.  In  France  the 
military  authorities  were  questioning  the  right  to  exemption 
from  military  service  of  the  children  of  foreigners  born  in 
France. 

In  January  and  February  1868  "  Historicus  "  contributed 
to  The  Times  a  series  of  letters  on  the  various  international 
questions  arising  out  of  the  treatment  of  aliens  and  conflict- 
ing national  laws  on  nationality.  He  began  by  exposing 
the  inconsistencies  of  American  statesmen  on  the  question 
of  expatriation,  and  the  unreasonableness  of  claiming  that 
persons  seeking  naturalization  in  America  should  divest 
themselves  of  their  nationality  while  the  Americans  them- 
selves insisted  on  the  indelibility  of  American  citizenship, 
and  he  suggested  that  the  first  step  necessary  was  a  defini- 
tion of  that  citizenship.  Harcourt  desired  to  see  general 
international  agreement  on  these  questions,  but  failing  that, 
thought  certain  simple  steps  would  serve  to  mitigate  existing 
difficulties  : 

First  (he  said),  the  right  of  expatriation  should  be  generally 
admitted  ;  secondly,  that  right  should  be  limited  by  certain  condi- 


i868]  CIVIS  ROMANUS  SUM  205 

tions  ;  thirdly,  it  belongs  as  much  to  the  native  state  to  prescribe 
the  conditions  of  severance  as  it  does  to  the  state  of  adoption  to 
prescribe  the  conditions  of  naturalization  ;  fourthly,  it  would  be 
highly  desirable  that  the  conditions  on  which  one  state  confers  and 
the  other  severs  the  tie  of  citizenship  should  be  regulated  by  special 
convention,  as  in  the  case  of  extradition.  This  would  be  best 
accomplished  by  a  general  agreement ;  but  if  this  be  impracticable, 
then  it  should  be  made  the  subject  of  separate  treaties. 

He  takes  the  opportunity  of  pressing  on  a  not  too  willing 
public  the  principle  that  the  Law  of  Nations  is  as  real  a  thing 
as  the  municipal  law  of  any  state,  and  in  a  characteristic 
passage  (The  Times,  February  6, 1868)  disposes  of  the  Palmer- 
stonian  doctrine  of  Civis  Romanus  sum.  Quoting  a  famous 
passage  from  Gladstone's  denunciation  of  the  doctrine  in 
the  Don  Pacifico  debate,  he  proceeds : 

Well,  justice  and  common -sense  were  in  the  minority  then,  as  they 
very  often  are  when  popular  prejudice  and  popular  passion  run 
high.  But  time  and  experience  ultimately  vindicate  the  truth, 
and  now  that  we  have  our  own  Don  Pacificos  on  hand  who  claim  to 
be  Gives  Americani,  we  are  beginning  to  be  a  little  more  disposed  to 
listen  to  reason  on  the  subject.  The  ordinary  Englishman's  idea 
of  his  rights  as  a  Civis  Romanus  are  simple  enough.  He  thinks 
himself  entitled  whenever  he  goes  to  trial  by  jury,  to  habeas  corpus, 
to  a  Protestant  Chapel  and  the  Bill  of  Rights — in  short,  to  do  and 
say  what  he  likes  and  make  himself  as  disagreeable  as  he  pleases, 
with  the  comfortable  confidence  that  there  are  any  number  of 
ironclads  in  the  background  to  protect  him  from  being  called  to 
account  for  it.  This  was  all  very  well  for  a  real  Civis  Romanus, 
who  was  the  citizen  of  an  universal  empire  which  recognized  no 
independence  of  States  and  tolerated  no  equality  of  nations.  It 
becomes  a  very  inconvenient  and  perilous  doctrine  where  it  is  applied 
to  times  where  there  are  more  nations  than  one  who  may  be  disposed 
to  play  at  the  same  game.  .  .  .  Let  us,  then,  disabuse  our  minds 
of  the  Civis  Romanus  idea.  It  is  historically  an  anachronism  and  a 
blunder  ;  legally  it  is  an  injustice  and  a  wrong  ;  politically  it  is  a 
folly  and  a  crime.  The  phrase  belongs  to  the  vocabulary  of  the 
bully  and  the  doctrine  is  the  policy  of  the  oppressor.  Let  us  hope 
we  shall  hear  no  more  of  it  here.  I  fear  we  are  destined  to  listen  to 
a  good  deal  of  its  echo  elsewhere. 

He  goes  on  in  a  succession  of  letters  to  explain  the  right 

of  each  nation  to  the  administration  of  the  law  within  its 

!   own  territory,  and  examines  the  difference  between  the 

English,  French  and  American  law  in  bringing  to  justice 


206  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1868 

criminals  whose  crimes  were  committed  without  its  boun- 
daries. He  suggests  the  summoning  of  a  congress  of  the 
principal  nations  for  the  settlement  of  the  questions  of 
naturalization,  expatriation,  criminal  jurisdiction  over  aliens, 
and  extradition.  Let  England  take  the  lead  in  this  great 
task.  "  It  would  be  the  proper  answer  to  the  sneers  which 
are  too  often  levelled  at  her  selfish  isolation  and  insular 
pride."  The  statesman  who  inaugurated  such  an  achieve- 
ment "  would  have  done  more  than  all  the  speculations 
of  philosophers  and  the  dreams  of  philanthropists  to  give 
reality  to  those  projects  of  universal  peace  which  have  too 
long  been  deemed  to  belong  to  the  Commonwealth  of  Utopia." 
But  public  opinion  was  not  ripe  for  this  enlightened 
anticipation  of  the  League  of  Nations.  All  that  could  be 
aimed  at  was  an  understanding  with  the  United  States, 
and  with  this  in  view  a  Royal  Commission  was  appointed 
in  May  1868  to  inquire  into  the  British  laws  of  naturaliza- 
tion and  allegiance.  Clarendon  presided  over  this  Com- 
mission, and  Harcourt  was  invited  to  become  a  member. 
The  Commission  reported  in  April  of  the  next  year.  They 
recommended  that  British  subjects  naturalized  in  a  foreign 
country  should  cease  to  be  British  subjects,  that  is,  they 
proposed  that  the  doctrine  of  the  indelibility  of  British 
nationality  should  be  abandoned. 

It  is  inexpedient  (they  said)  that  British  law  should  maintain 
in  theory,  or  should  by  foreign  nations  be  supposed  to  maintain  in 
practice,  any  obligations  which  it  cannot  enforce,  and  ought  not  to 
enforce  if  it  could  ;  and  it  is  unfit  that  a  country  should  remain 
subject  to  claims  for  protection  on  the  part  of  persons  who,  as  far  as 
in  them  lies,  have  severed  their  connection  with  it. 

So  far  Harcourt's  view  had  prevailed,  but  the  Report 
went  in  detail  into  the  question  of  who  should  be  regarded 
as  natural-born  British  subjects,  and  on  this  point  Harcourt 
was  not  in  agreement  with  the  majority  of  the  Commis- 
sioners. By  this  time  he  was  a  member  of  Parliament,  and 
found  himself  compelled  to  oppose  the  proposals  put  forward 
by  the  Government. 

The  recommendations  of  the  Committee  were  rejected 


i87o]  NATURALIZATION  LAWS  207 

on  the  ground  that  the  limited  object  of  the  Bill  was  the 
regulation  of  expatriation  and  repatriation  on  a  basis  which 
would  permit  the  required  understanding  with  the  United 
States.  The  Act,  somewhat  ambiguous  and  timorous  as 
it  was,  formed  the  basis  of  the  convention  signed  in  May 
1870  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  which 
provides  that  naturalization  in  either  country  is  to  be  valid 
immediately  on  completion,  but  permits  the  resumption  of 
British  or  American  nationality  on  certain  conditions. 

With  this  convention  the  sky  began  to  clear  over  the 
Alabama  issue.  Another  measure  passed  a  few  months 
later  (August  1870)  helped  to  the  same  end.  It  was  the 
new  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  based  on  the  recommendations 
of  the  Neutrality  Commission  of  which  Harcourt  was  a 
member.  In  one  respect  it  goes  beyond  those  recommenda- 
tions, because  it  gives  power  to  the  local  authority  named 
to  seize  a  vessel  if  they  have  reason  to  believe  that  she  is 
about  to  escape.  Harcourt,  pursuing  his  line  on  the  Com- 
mission, secured  the  insertion  of  a  clause  that  in  the  case  of 
a  pre-war  contract  the  builder  would  not  be  liable  if  he 
gave  notice  of  his  proceeding  to  the  Secretary  of  State. 

The  Alabama  controversy  was  at  last  in  a  fair  way  for 
settlement. 


CHAPTER  XI 
BELOW  THE  GANGWAY 

The  New  Men — Harcourt's  political  creed  still  Incomplete — First 
Speeches  in  the  House — New  Year's  Speech  (1870)  at  Oxford — 
Irish  Land  Question — Education  Act — Passage  of  arms  with  Mr. 
Gladstone — Excessive  Expenditure  on  armaments — Death  of 
Lord  Clarendon — Franco-German  War — Question  of  Neutrality 
— Criticism  from  Below  the  Gangway — Abolition  of  Purchase  by 
Royal  Warrant — Eighteenth-century  prejudices — Law  Reform 
— Death  of  Lady  Beaconsfield — The  Invasion  Panic — Para- 
mount importance  of  the  Navy — The  Battle  of  the  Parks — The 
Ballot  Act — Freedom  for  the  Public  House. 

THE  new  Parliament  which  met  in  February  1869 
is  a  landmark  in  political  history.  It  introduced 
new  leaders,  new  ideas  and  a  new  spirit  into  affairs. 
Not  since  Pitt  and  Fox  faced  each  other  across  the  floor  of 
the  House  had  there  been  so  Homeric  a  conflict  of  person- 
ality in  Parliament  as  that  presented  by  Gladstone  and 
Disraeli.  They  were  flint  and  steel  to  each  other's  genius, 
the  one  all  moral  fervour,  to  whom  politics  were  an  article 
of  religion,  the  other  a  romantic  artist,  to  whom  they  were 
the  material  of  a  diverting  tale.  Gladstone  always  seemed 
to  be  hurrying  with  a  message  from  Mount  Sinai  and  meeting 
Disraeli  coming  from  the  feet  of  Scheherazade.  The  gravity 
of  the  one  and  the  levity  of  the  other  left  them  no  common 
ground  of  intercourse.  To  the  great  sceptic,  Gladstone's 
seriousness  was  an  incomparable  jest ;  to  the  great  Church- 
man, Disraeli's  cynicism  was  an  outrage  on  all  the  sanctities 
of  life.  They  were  alike  in  one  respect.  Each  had  created 
a  new  party.  Gladstone  had  been  a  Tory,  but  he  had 
never  been  a  Whig,  and  the  party  he  led  was  a  new  instru- 

208 


1869]  DEVELOPS   HIS   CREED  209 

ment,  forged  by  his  own  genius  and  inspired  by  his  own 
imperious  purpose.  Disraeli  had  been  a  Radical  in  his 
youth,  but  he  had  never  been  a  Tory,  and  the  party  he 
led  was  the  creation  of  his  own  romantic  imagination.  The 
change  of  spirit  was  emphasized  by  the  operation  of  the 
new  Reform  Act.  For  the  first  time  the  towns  had  effective 
representation,  and  the  old  political  order  gave  place  to 
another  type  of  parliamentary  intelligence,  more  demo- 
cratic, more  instructed,  more  in  touch  with  realities.  It 
was  the  beginning  of  a  new  era,  social  as  well  as  poli- 
tical. 

In  no  previous  Parliament  had  there  been  anything 
comparable  to  the  legislative  activity  of  1869  and  1870. 
Harcourt  had  decided  on  the  role  of  the  candid  friend  of 
the  Government,  but  with  so  energetic  a  spirit  of  reform  in 
control  of  affairs  he  had  at  first  relatively  little  scope  for 
criticism.  His  own  political  creed  was  still  in  process  of 
development.  In  many  respects  he  was  an  advanced 
Radical.  He  was  a  passionate  anti-militarist  and  the  most 
militant  of  peace  men.  He  hated  the  Imperialism  of 
Disraeli  in  England  as  much  as  he  hated  the  Imperialism 
of  Louis  Napoleon  in  France.  His  views  on  the  land  had 
brought  him  into  collision  with  his  brother,  and  his  advocacy 
of  the  disestablishment  and  disendowment  of  the  Irish 
Church  had,  he  knew,  given  pain  to  a  father  whom  he  deeply 
revered.  His  study  of  international  law  had  led  him  to  a 
conception  of  world  relationships  far  in  advance  of  the 
general  thought  of  the  time,  and  on  questions  like  education, 
taxation  and  free  trade  he  represented  the  advanced  opinion 
of  the  party.  But  there  were  gaps  in  his  equipment,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  liquor  question,  in  regard  to  which  he  still 
adopted  an  extreme  laissez-faire  attitude  that  had  brought 
him  into  conflict  with  the  temperance  reformers.  While  a 
candidate  for  Oxford  he  had,  replying  to  a  correspondent 
who  had  asked  for  his  opinion  on  the  compulsory  closing  of 
public-houses  on  Sunday,  said  (Oxford  Chronicle,  June  30, 
1868)  : 

Each  man  should  be  governed  by  the  needs  of  his  own  health  and 

P 


210  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1869 

the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience.  I  have  been  all  my  life  a  hard 
working  man.  I  find  that  after  a  hard  day's  work  I  receive  not  only 
enjoyment,  but  strength  and  refreshment  from  a  good  glass  of  beer 
or  wine.  I  often  make  an  excursion  out  of  London  on  the  Saturday 
and  Sunday,  and  seek  fresh  air  and  exercise,  after  the  toil  of  the 
week,  at  Richmond,  or  Windsor,  or  Maidenhead.  I  should  think 
it  a  great  hardship  if,  after  a  good  walk,  I  could  not  get  a  good 
glass  of  beer.  ...  I  should  not  think  of  imposing  on  others  what  I 
should  deem  a  hardship  to  myself.  I  know  nothing  more  to  be 
desired  than  that  the  labouring  man,  upon  his  only  holiday,  should 
(not  inconsistently  with  his  service  of  God)  find  relaxation  for  his 
mind  and  refreshment  for  his  body.  We  must  trust  to  education, 
reflection,  and  religion  to  keep  men  within  the  bounds  of  moderation. 
The  scheme  of  compulsion  has  been  tried  in  some  of  the  States  of 
America  and  has  failed.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  the  State  of  Maine 
has  repealed  its  liquor  law. 

This  description  of  the  idyllic  week-ends  of  "  Historicus  " 
and  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it  annoyed  the  United 
Kingdom  Alliance,  who  had  promoted  in  Parliament  a 
permissive  Bill  embodying  the  principle  of  local  option, 
and  a  lengthy  correspondence  ensued.  Harcourt  admitted 
in  reply  to  criticism  that  when  he  wrote  "  Maine  "  he  should 
have  said  "  Massachusetts."  On  the  general  question  he 
contented  himself  with  saying  that  it  was  a  great  mistake 
to  allow  legislation  to  outrun  the  opinion  and  conscience 
of  the  majority  ;  that  laws  were  never  effective  when  they 
were  more  stringent  than  the  general  moral  sense  of  the 
people  was  disposed  to  support,  and  that  legislation  neces- 
sarily lags  behind,  though  in  the  end  it  always  follows  the 
aspirations  of  the  social  reformer. 

In  the  great  legislative  achievement  of  the  first  session, 
Irish  Disestablishment,  Harcourt  took  little  active  part. 
The  election  had  been  fought  and  won  on  the  issue,  and 
it  only  remained  to  give  parliamentary  effect  to  the  decision. 
But  he  lost  no  time  in  trying  his  parliamentary  paces.  He 
made  his  maiden  speech  on  February  23,  1869,  on  Lord 
Bury's  motion  to  alter  the  law  compelling  members  on 
accepting  office  under  the  Crown  to  seek  re-election.  He 
opposed  the  motion  in  an  elaborate  set  speech,  the  rhetoric 
of  which  was  a  little  in  excess  of  the  needs  of  the  occasion. 
It  was  extremely  well  received,  highly  praised  by  Gladstone 


1869]  MAIDEN   SPEECH  211 

and  much  discussed  in  the  Press.  "  The  speech  of  this  future 
Solicitor-General,  as  so  many  regard  him,"  said  the  Specta- 
tor, "  was  listened  to  with  the  most  fastidious  criticism  on 
both  sides  of  the  House,  and  on  both  sides  of  the  House 
evidently  more  than  fulfilled  expectation."  In  a  long 
criticism  of  the  speech  the  Manchester  Examiner  referred  to 
the  unusual  curiosity  with  which  the  first  utterance  of 
"  Historicus  "  had  been  awaited,  and  its  marked  success. 
The  writer  dwelt  upon  the  distinction  of  his  presence,  his 
"  clear  and  pleasant  voice,"  his  lucidity  of  style,  his  carefully 
marshalled  argument,  his  irony  and  sarcasm  and  his  power 
of  combining  breadth  of  view  with  monotony  of  detail. 
But  his  oratory  was  not  free  from  faults.  "  It  wants  free- 
dom and  spontaneity.  .  .  .  The  slowness  with  which  he 
speaks  tends  to  become  tedious.  His  delivery  and  manner 
are  too  didactic  and  dogmatic,  and  it  must  be  confessed  that 
his  apparent  confidence  in  himself  verges  upon,  if  it  does 
not  pass,  the  line  which  separates  confidence  from  self- 
conceit."  It  remained  true  to  the  end  that  in  his  prepared 
speeches  Harcourt  tended  to  be  +00  formal  and  elaborate. 
Nature  gave  him  an  unrivalled  endowment  for  debate — a 
full  mind,  a  ready  speech  and  an  abundant  humour — but 
he  never  wholly  trusted  it,  and  it  was  not  uncommon  for 
him  to  rise  and  delight  the  House  with  a  breezy  and  devas- 
tating retort  upon  an  opponent  and  then  relapse  upon  a 
prepared  speech  which  destroyed  much  of  the  effect  of  his 
livelier,  natural  style. 

It  was  to  legal  rather  than  general  political  subjects  that 
Harcourt  applied  himself  in  his  parliamentary  apprentice- 
ship. On  March  i  he  attacked  the  question  of  "  corrup- 
tion "  at  elections. 

A  week  later  he  raised  a  kindred  subject,  moving  for  the 
appointment  of  a  Select  Committee  to  inquire  into  the 
registration  of  voters  in  parliamentary  boroughs.  Sir  Robert 
Peel,  he  said,  had  stated  that  the  battle  of  the  constitution 
must  be  fought  in  the  registration  courts.  English  govern- 
ment was  understood  to  rest  on  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  constituencies,  but  what 


212  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1869 

the  constituencies  rested  on  was  by  no  means  clear.  They 
appeared  to  stand  on  the  overseer,  who  worked  on  the  rate- 
book, an  imperfect  and  incorrect  document  for  the  purpose. 
He  set  out  with  great  clearness  the  existing  chaos,  resulting 
in  the  exclusion  from  the  poll  of  many  qualified  electors, 
especially  from  the  working-classes,  and  asked  for  a  Com- 
mittee to  recommend  the  necessary  legislation.  The  motion 
was  agreed  to,  and  on  March  19  the  Committee  was  appointed. 
Stafford  Northcote's  name  was  the  first  on  the  list,  but  Har- 
court  was  elected  Chairman  and  drafted  the  report.  Dilke 
was  also  a  member.  The  report  is  dated  July  2  of  the  same 
year  (1869).  In  1871  a  Bill  was  brought  in  by  Harcourt, 
Dilke  and  others  to  give  effect  to  this  report.  The  question, 
however,  aroused  little  interest,  and  when  the  order  for  the 
Committee  was  read,  the  Bill  after  a  short  discussion  was 
withdrawn. 

In  his  advocacy  of  reform  in  the  "  fifties  "  Harcourt  had 
taken  the  view  that  the  power  of  the  middle  classes  was 
excessive  as  against  the  working  classes,  and  his  early- 
activities  in  Parliament  were  largely  concerned  with  improv- 
ing the  political  and  social  status  of  the  working  man.  "  I 
have  always  deeply  regretted,"  he  said  in  the  debates  on  the 
Assessed  Rates  Bill,  "  and  I  regret  now,  that  we  have  not 
in  the  House  a  member  of  the  working  classes  to  represent 
their  interests."  This  attitude  and  Harcourt 's  proposals 
gave  great  offence  to  the  Standard.  Harcourt  desired  the 
Bill  to  be  amended  in  a  radical  direction.  It  was  designed 
to  remove  a  very  real  grievance.  The  Reform  Act  of  1867 
had  secured  household  suffrage  by  an  amendment  which 
abolished  the  compounding  of  rates.  This  change,  however, 
proved  to  be  very  hard  on  many  poor  people,  who  now  had 
to  face  for  the  first  time  the  visit  of  the  rate-collector  without 
having  secured,  in  many  cases,  any  reduction  of  their  rents, 
and  to  find  in  one  week  money  to  meet  a  rate  demand  note 
for  three  months  or  for  six.  In  Harcourt's  words  "  the 
working  classes  had  gained  their  political  rights  at  the  expense 
of  their  social  comfort." 

The  Standard  was  outraged  by  this  proposal  to  encourage 


1870]          SPEECH  TO  THE  DRUIDS  213 

the  working  man  to  be  improvident.  The  three  months'  or 
six  months'  demand  for  rates  was  a  blessed  stimulus  to  him 
to  be  thrifty,  and  any  interference  with  it  was  an  attack  on 
"  habits  of  providence."  Harcourt  did  not  carry  his  amend- 
ment to  the  Bill,  but  he  secured  from  Goschen,  who  had  the 
measure  in  charge,  some  valuable  concessions  which  mitigated 
the  grievance. 

It  was  Harcourt's  practice  throughout  his  connection 
with  Oxford  to  deliver  a  New  Year's  address  on  public 
affairs  to  his  constituents  at  the  annual  dinner  of  the  Ancient 
Order  of  Druids.  In  his  speech  on  January  4,  1870,  he 
urged  that  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church  had 
not  settled  our  account  with  Ireland,  and  that  the  land 
question  called  for  immediate  treatment.  The  tenant's 
right  in  the  improvements  which  his  industry  had  invested 
in  the  soil  must  be  secured.  "  Nothing  could  be  more 
unjust,  or,  to  use  a  phrase  employed  by  Lord  Clarendon, 
'  more  felonious  '  than  that  a  man,  because  he  possessed 
the  right  to  evict  a  tenant,  should  exercise  that  right  without 
making  any  allowance  for  the  capital  which  had  been  invested 
by  the  tenant  in  the  improvement  of  the  soil."  His  other 
main  theme  was  education,  and  he  pleaded  for  a  national, 
unsectarian,  publicly-supported  and  publicly-controlled 
system.  This  attitude  on  education  was  consistently  main- 
tained to  the  end,  and  he  was  one  of  the  most  active 
opponents  of  the  Balfour  Education  Bill  of  1902. 

If  Gladstone  had  had  a  comparatively  easy  task  in  attack- 
ing the  first  of  the  great  Irish  grievances,  he  paid  the  penalty 
when  he  came  to  the  second.  The  tragic  record  of  the  mis- 
government  of  Ireland  had  no  more  shameful  chapter  than 
that  dealing  with  the  land.  Owned  by  absentee  landlords 
and  governed  by  an  absentee  Parliament,  the  interests  of 
the  tillers  of  the  soil  had  been  shamelessly  disregarded. 
"  Between  the  Union  and  the  year  1870,"  says  Lord  Morley,1 
"  Acts  dealing  with  Irish  land  had  been  passed  at  West- 
minster. Every  one  of  these  Acts  was  in  the  interest  of  the 
landlord  and  against  the  tenant.  A  score  of  Insurrection 
1  Morley,  Life  of  Gladstone,  Bk.  vi.,  Chap.  ii. 


214  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1870 

Acts,  no  Tenant  Right  Act.  Meanwhile  Ireland  had  gone 
down  into  the  dark  gulf  of  the  Famine."  Out  of  the 
misery  that  was  the  fruit  of  this  wrong  came  Fenianism  and 
crime  and  the  deadly  expedient  of  coercion.  Gladstone 
addressed  himself  to  the  task  of  removing  the  wrong  by 
establishing  the  cultivator  in  his  holding.  His  idea  was 
modest  enough.  It  was,  he  wrote  in  a  letter  to  Cardinal 
Manning,  "  to  prevent  the  landlord  from  using  the  terrible 
weapon  of  undue  and  unjust  eviction,  by  so  framing  the 
handle  that  it  shall  cut  his  hands  with  the  sharp  edge  of 
pecuniary  damages.  The  man  evicted  without  any  fault 
and  suffering  the  usual  loss  by  it,  will  receive  whatever  the 
custom  of  the  country  gives,  and,  where  there  is  no  custom, 
according  to  a  scale,  besides  whatever  he  can  claim  for 
permanent  buildings  or  reclamation  of  land."  In  this  way 
it  was  hoped  wanton  eviction  would  be  extinguished  and 
with  it  the  power  of  the  unjust  augmentation  of  rent,  which 
could  only  co-exist  with  the  power  of  wanton  or  arbitrary 
eviction. 

It  was  the  first  time  for  nearly  a  century  that  British 
statesmanship  had  entered  on  a  large  act  of  appeasement 
towards  Irish  secular  discontent,  and  Gladstone  found  himself 
in  the  midst  of  a  hornets'  nest.  He  was  assailed  on  all  sides 
by  actual  hostility  or  competitive  proposals.  The  Duke  of 
Argyll  was  actively  opposed  to  the  scheme.  Bright  was 
urging  a  project  of  purchase  by  state  aid  ;  Chichester- 
Fortescue,  the  Irish  Chief  Secretary  (who  had  married  Lady 
Waldegrave) ,  was  insisting  that  more  than  compensation  to 
tenants  for  their  improvements  was  needed  to  settle  the 
Irish  land  laws,  and  Clarendon  was  writing  to  Granville 
predicting  the  imminent  break-up  of  the  Government.  In 
the  midst  of  these  conflicting  counsels  Stuart  Mill  was  urging 
outside  that  the  only  effective  plan  was  to  buy  out  the  land- 
lords. The  proposal  was  greeted  as  a  wildly  impracticable 
one,  but  in  the  end  it  was  found  to  be  the  only  way  out. 
Harcourt,  while  giving  general  support  to  the  Irish  Land 
Bill,  did  not  like  the  graduated  scale  of  compensation,  anc 
wrote  at  great  length  to  The  Times  analysing  what  seemed 


i87o]          EDUCATION   BILL  OF   1870  215 

to  him  to  be  its  probable  disastrous  effects.  He  was  opposed 
to  the  excessive  subdivision  of  land  and  to  peasant  pro- 
prietorship, which  he  thought  led  to  starving  the  soil.  In 
the  end  Gladstone  carried  the  Bill  through  without  disaster 
to  his  Government. 

II 

It  was  in  connection  with  the  other  great  measure  of 
1870,  the  Education  Bill,  that  Harcourt  first  crossed  swords 
with  Gladstone.     Harcourt's  expressed  intention  of  adopting 
an  independent  attitude  in  Parliament  was  fully  carried  out 
in  the  debates  on  this  Bill.     He  took  an  emphatically  non- 
clerical  view.     He  was  a  member  of  the  Birmingham  League, 
which  stood  for  a  national,  free  and  compulsory  system  and 
for  the  absence  of  any  kind  of  sectarian  pressure.     It  was  ] 
as  a  member  of  the  League  that  Joseph  Chamberlain  first  / 
corresponded  with  him.     Sir   Charles   Dilke,   with   whom  I 
Harcourt  was  closely  associated  at  this  time,  went  further,/ 
and  stood  for  a  purely  secular  system.     In  an  extremely' 
interesting  letter  written  during  the  progress  of  the  measure, 
Harcourt  joins  issue  with  him  on  this  point. 

Harcourt  to  Dilke. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  1876. — I  sincerely  hope  that  you  and  I 
and  Dixon  shall  be  able  to  agree  on  some  common  course  of  action 
on  Monday,  as  I  feel  sure  that  everything  depends  on  it.  We  are 
fighting  a  great  cause  with  inferior  forces  and  everything  must 
depend  on  husbanding  our  strength,  using  it  to  the  best  advantage 
and  not  exposing  ourselves  to  needless  defeats.  We  must  always 
seem  to  win  even  though  we  do  not  get  all  we  want.  That  is  what 
up  to  this  point  we  have  accomplished.  But  we  must  not  allow 
ourselves  to  be  precipitated  upon  destruction  by  men  who  may 
be  philosophers  but  who  are  not  politicians  (Fawcett). 

We  have  thrown  up  the  first  earthwork  against  denominationalism 
in  the  Amendment,  and  we  have  smashed  up  the  main  assault  of 
the  enemy.  We  must  now  retire  on  the  second  line  of  defence. 
What  is  that  to  be  ?  I  lay  down  first  that  the  thing  to  be  resisted 
is  denominationalism.  If  it  can  be  got  rid  of  altogether — best. 
If  not,  then  to  the  greatest  degree — next  best. 

Now  as  a  politician  (not  as  a  philosopher)  I  am  quite  satisfied 
that  neither  in  the  House  of  Commons  nor  in  the  country  can  we 
beat  denominationalism  by  secularism.  If  we  attempt  to  meet  the 


216  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1870 

flood  by  the  direct  dyke  it  will  simply  be  over  our  heads,  and  we 
shall  go  to  the  bottom.  We  must  break  the  force  of  the  wave  by 
a  side  slope,  and  deal  with  its  diminished  weight  afterwards  as  we 
best  may. 

If  the  Government  succeed  in  Gladstone's  plan  of  rival  sectarian 
teaching  by  all  Denominations  out  of  school  hours  this  is  nothing 
but  denominationalism  run  mad,  and  seems  to  me  the  very  worst 
thing  that  could  happen.1  For  my  part  I  would  prefer  one  sect  to 
half  a  dozen  on  the  principle  that  you  can't  have  too  little  of  a  bad 
thing. 

There  remains  that  which  to  my  mind  is  the  only  practicable 
means  of  defence.  I  mean  the  acceptance  of  the  simple  Bible 
reading  in  the  time  set  apart  for  religious  instruction — exclude 
everything  else.  Behind  such  a  line  of  defence  as  this  we  shall  rally 
a  great  party — I  believe  the  most  powerful  party  in  the  country. 

Whatever  objections  you  may  have  to  the  scheme  it  has  the 
enormous  advantage  that  it  is  substantially  defensible,  which  in  my 
judgment  no  other  is.  We  shall  drive  our  opponents  to  contend 
that  the  Bible  is  not  enough  to  satisfy  them  and  that  they  must  and 
will  have  sectarianism,  and  in  that  position  we  can  punch  their 
heads  instead  of  their  punching  ours. 

You  will  say  that  after  all  this  is  nothing  but  a  form  of  denomina- 
tionalism and  so  it  is — logically  I  admit  it.  But  it  is  the  smallest 
amount  of  denominationalism  which  in  the  present  state  of  public 
opinion  is  attainable.  Let  us  give  our  Republic  not  the  best  possible 
laws  but  the  best  which  they  will  bear. 

This  is  the  essence  of  politics  ;    all  the  rest  is  speculation.  .  . 

On  the  second  reading  of  Forster's  Bill,  George  Dixon, 
the  spokesman  of  the  Birmingham  League,  moved : 

That  this  House  is  of  opinion  that  no  measure  for  the  elementary 
education  of  the  people  will  afford  a  satisfactory  or  permanent 
settlement  which  leaves  the  principle  of  religious  instruction  in 
schools  supported  by  public  funds  and  rates  to  be  determined  by 
local  authorities. 

When  the  debate  on  this  amendment  was  resumed  on 
March  15,  Harcourt  made  a  considerable  speech.  He  defined 
the  doctrine  of  religious  equality  : 

If  I  understand  the  doctrine — it  is  this — that  the  State  in  its 
relations  with  its  citizens  is  absolutely  indifferent  to  all  forms  of 
religion  and  religious  teaching,  and  as  regards  any  funds  raised 
either  directly  by  the  State,  or  indirectly  under  its  authority,  one 

1  In  a  letter  to  The  Times  (March  28)  Harcourt  says  this  would  make 
the  national  schoolroom  "  the  drum  ecclesiastic  of  rival  sects." 


i87o]  COWPER-TEMPLE   CLAUSE  217 

form  of  religious  opinion  has  as  full  a  right  to  share  in  the  appropria- 
tion of  such  funds  as  another. 

After  prolonged  discussion  the  Government  met  the  point 
of  the  amendment  by  accepting  the  Cowper-Temple  proposal 
that  no  religious  catechism  or  religious  formulary  which  is 
distinctive  of  any  particular  denomination  should  be  taught 
in  any  school  provided  out  of  the  rates,  at  the  same  time, 
however,  conceding  an  increased  grant  from  the  Exchequer 
to  denominational  schools.  This  did  not  satisfy  Harcourt, 
who  had  tabled  the  wider  amendment  that  the  religious 
instruction  given  in  rate-aided  schools  should  be  unde- 
nominational in  character  and  confined  to  unsectarian 
instruction  in  the  Bible.  In  the  course  of  the  debate  Glad- 
stone said  that  Harcourt  had  described  the  Cowper-Temple 
amendment  as  exhibiting  pure  and  undiluted  denomination- 
alism.  "  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  with  what  kind  of  fairness 
any  person  who  has  examined  the  matter  can  contrive  to  force 
even  his  organs  of  speech  to  utter  such  a  statement,  "he  said. 

The  next  day  Harcourt  wrote  as  follows  to  Gladstone  : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  June  25,  1870. — I  am  sure  you  will  be 
neither  surprised  nor  displeased  that  I  should  be  sensitive  to  censure 
coming  from  one  for  whom  both  in  his  public  capacity  and  in  his 
private  character  I  have  always  felt  and  I  hope  not  failed  to  show  the 
deepest  respect. 

You  will  I  feel  confident  forgive  me  if  I  am  anxious  to  show  you 
that  the  phrase  of  mine  (however  rhetorically  "  undiluted  ")  on 
which  you  commented  yesterday  did  not  in  fact  bear  the  sense 
which  you  attributed  to  it. 

I  did  not  say  that  Mr.  C.  Temple's  amendment  was  "  pure  and 
undiluted  denominationalism."     To  have  said  so  would  have  been 
no  doubt  absurd  and  untrue.     What  I  did  say  was  something  which 
I  conceive  was  very  different.     I  expressed  an  opinion  that  Mr. 
[  C.  Temple's  amendment  was  an  ineffectual  counterpoise  and  safe- 
guard against  the  denominationalism  of  the  rest  of  the  Bill,  and 
especially  of  the  new  proposal  to  increase  the  Parliamentary  grants 
'  (to  denominational  schools).     And  therefore  that  the  Bill  not  by 
virtue  of  nor  in  spite  of  Mr.  C.  Temple's  amendment  remained  a 
!:  scheme  of  "pure  and  undiluted  denominationalism." 
I  said  in  short  that 

-f-  2  —  4  =  —  2,  not  that  -j-  2  =  —  2. 


218  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1870 

I  may  be  quite  wrong  about  my  (  —  4)  and  therefore  in  the  net 
result,  but  surely  I  am  guiltless  of  a  misrepresentation  which  would 
have  been  unpardonable. 

I  did  not  feel  that  my  opinions  were  of  sufficient  importance  to 
justify  me  in  the  crisis  of  a  great  division  attempting  any  public 
explanation.  But  I  trust  you  will  not  misunderstand  my  motives 
in  thus  seeking  to  set  myself  right  in  your  opinion. 

I  feel  sorry  that  in  maintaining  to  the  best  of  my  power  what  I 
have  long  held  to  be  a  principle  of  the  first  importance,  viz.  that  of 
unsectarian  religious  instruction,  I  should  have  been  forced  in  some 
degree  into  opposition  to  the  policy  of  the  Government,  as  well  as 
to  that  of  my  friends  of  the  League.  But  this  seemed  to  me  a  ques- 
tion on  which  the  assertion  of  independent  opinion  was  not  only 
admissible  but  necessary. 

In  withdrawing  my  amendment  after  your  declaration  last  week 
with  the  object  of  supporting  in  Committee  that  of  Mr.  Jacob 
Bright,  I  took  the  course  which  I  thought  most  likely  to  promote 
the  cause  I  had  at  heart  and  the  least  calculated  to  obstruct  the  Bill. 

I  should  be  very  sorry  to  remain  under  the  impression  which  the 
tone  of  your  remarks  rather  conveyed  to  me,  that  in  freely  criticising 
the  religious  clauses  of  the  Bill  you  considered  that  I  had  been  guilty 
either  of  disloyalty  to  your  Government  or  of  want  of  respect  towards 
yourself. 

Three  days  passed  without  reply.  Then  on  June  28  Har- 
court  alluded  to  the  misconception  in  the  House,  and  there- 
upon Gladstone  wrote  to  him  as  follows  : 

Gladstone  to  Harcourt. 

10,  DOWNING  STREET,  June  28. — As  you  gave  me  an  opportunity 
this  day  in  the  House  of  expressing  the  pleasure  with  which  I 
learned  that  I  had  mistaken  the  intended  application  of  your  refer- 
ence to  pure  and  undiluted  denominationalism,  I  need  only  thank 
you  for  your  letter  and  join  very  sincerely  in  your  expressions  of 
regret,  while  most  fully  admitting  the  permanent  title  of  conviction 
to  guide  conduct,  and  assuring  you  that  I  never  felt  myself  even 
tempted  to  impute  to  you  the  slightest  trespass  beyond  the  bounds 
of  public  duty. 

It  was  the  first  rift  in  the  lute,  but  it  foreshadowed  many 
a  difference.  The  two  men,  though  they  were  perhaps  more 
nearly  agreed  on  the  main  issues  of  politics  than  any  of  their 
leading  contemporaries,  were  born  to  strike  mutual  sparks. 
Both  were  intellectual  autocrats  and  intolerant  of  opposition, 
and  temperamentally  they  were  remote  from  each  other. 
Harcourt  to  the  end  was  sensible  of  Gladstone's  moral 


i87o]  BURDEN   OF   RATES  219 

grandeur,  but  his  high  spirits  were  a  little  chilled  by  his 
senior's  enormous  seriousness.  He  loved  the  fun  of  the  fight 
and  could  not  restrain  his  gift  of  caricature,  and  his  tendency 
to  drive  in  his  points  with  an  exaggerated  phrase  offended 
the  austere  mind  of  Gladstone,  whose  excesses  proceeded 
from  the  other  extreme  of  an  ingenious  intellect  so  painfully 
concerned  to  be  exact  that  it  often  gave  the  impression  of  a 
deliberate  attempt  to  obscure  the  truth. 

In  the  debate  on  the  financial  clauses  of  the  Bill,  Harcourt 
gave  forcible  expression  to  two  themes  which  were  always 
present  to  his  mind — the  unjust  system  of  local  taxation  and 
the  excessive  expenditure  on  armaments.  After  paying  a 
tribute  to  the  financial  genius  of  Gladstone,  who  had  so 
rearranged  the  burdens  of  taxation  as  to  make  them  as  little 
felt  as  possible,  and  had  thus  incidentally  removed  one  of  the 
checks  on  expenditure,  he  said  the  state  of  local  taxation 
was  a  disgrace  to  the  country. 

It  was  unequal  in  its  incidence  as  regarded  classes,  and  unfair  in 
its  incidence  as  regarded  property.  It  was  impossible  to  defend  it 
on  any  principle  of  reason  or  justice.  .  .  .  We  had  carried  our 
system  of  imperial  taxation  to  great  perfection,  and  swept  away 
the  whole  of  our  financial  rubbish  under  the  bed  of  local  taxation. 
.  .  .  House  rent  was  an  article  of  first  importance  to  the  poor  man. 
...  It  meant  the  decent  comfort  of  his  family,  the  health  of  his 
sons,  the  virtue  of  his  daughters  ;  and  it  was  upon  this  that  they  were 
going  to  place  the  heavy  burden  of  a  new  tax.  For  the  increased 
rate  meant  nothing  but  an  enhanced  house  rent.  He  asked  on  what 
districts  the  tax  would  fall  most  heavily.  On  the  East  of  London, 
on  the  slums  of  Liverpool,  and  places  of  that  kind  which  had  fewest 
schools,  because  they  were  least  able  to  provide  them.  In  these 
districts  people  would  be  unable  to  pay  the  school  fees,  and  the  rate 
would  be  further  raised,  the  burden  falling  on  the  provident. artisan. 

The  rate  should  be  limited,  and  the  remainder  charged  on  the 
Imperial  Exchequer.  Money  for  the  army  and  navy  was  not 
charged  on  local  rates,  and  the  hostile  force  of  ignorance  was  actually 
present  while  the  army  and  navy  were  increased  against  an  invasion 
which  he  thought  never  would  occur.  The  State  of  Massachusetts 
spent  more  on  education  than  was  spent  by  the  British  Empire. 
One -tenth  of  the  money  spent  on  fortifications  (a  vote  of  which 
members  were  probably  ashamed)  would  have  sufficed  to  cover  the 
country  with  schools  from  one  end  to  the  other.  .  .  . 

He  had  looked  into  the  Navy  Estimates  lately,  and  found  that  the 


220  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1870 

last  ironclad  which  was  built  cost  a  sum  about  equal  to  the  whole 
of  the  voluntary  subscriptions  for  education.  Having  arrived  at  a 
point  in  the  cost  of  engines  of  war  when  the  expense  of  fitting  up  a 
school  was  about  equal  to  the  cost  of  a  cannon,  the  House  might 
fairly  borrow  from  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty  and  the  Minister 
of  War  as  much  money  to  relieve  local  taxation  as  was  necessary 
to  make  this  a  workable  Bill. 

He  reminded  the  House  that  the  Birmingham  League  had 
indeed  proposed  that  one-third  of  the  cost  of  education 
should  be  borne  by  the  rates,  but  that  proposal  was  coupled 
with  free  education.  They  had  never  contemplated  that 
the  classes  benefiting  should  pay  in  fees  and  in  rates.  It 
was  right  that  some  charge  should  be  laid  on  local  rates  to 
ensure  good  local  administration.  He  suggested  that  the 
limit  might  be  one-sixth.  He  then  moved  an  amendment 
to  this  effect,  but  was  defeated  by  176  to  21. 

The  Education  Act  of  1870  did  not  establish  a  complete 
and  uniform  system  of  education,  but  it  did  more  than  was 
contemplated  by  the  Government  when  it  was  first  intro- 
duced. This  enlargement  of  its  scope  was  largely  due  to  the 
determined  efforts  of  the  friends  of  the  Birmingham  League 
who  sat  below  the  gangway,  and  to  no  one  more  than  to 
Harcourt.  It  was  very  much  more  than  a  Bill  to  "  complete 
the  voluntary  system  and  to  fill  up  gaps,"  as  it  had  been 
represented  in  the  first  instance.  Education  was  not  made 
free  of  fees  as  the  Birmingham  League  had  desired,  but  power 
was  given  to  remit  the  fee  in  cases  of  extreme  poverty. 
Neither  was  the  desire  of  all  advanced  educationists  that 
education  should  be  uniformly  compulsory  attained,  but  a 
long  step  was  taken  in  that  direction  by  enabling  the  Boards 
to  make  by-laws  under  which  attendance  was  compulsory. 

While  the  struggle  over  the  Education  Bill  was  at  its 
height  Gladstone  lost  an  able  colleague,  and  Harcourt  a 
close  personal  connection  by  the  death  of  Lord  Clarendon. 
He  had  filled  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  public  life  of  the 
country  since  his  mission  to  Spain  in  1833  when  he  laid  the 
foundations  of  the  Quadruple  Alliance.  He  had  been  thrice 
Foreign  Minister,  and  when  Gladstone  formed  his  Govern- 
ment he  had  expressed  the  opinion,  apropos  of  some  opposi- 


i87o]  FRANCO-GERMAN   WAR  221 

tion  from  the  Queen,  that  he  was  the  only  living  British 
statesman  whose  name  carried  any  weight  in  the  councils  of 
Europe.  He  was  a  j  ovial,  free-spoken  man ,  wholly  immersed 
in  foreign  politics  and  always  a  little  alarmed  about  the 
advanced  wing  of  the  party  and  Harcourt's  tendency  to  kick 
over  the  traces.  Largely  through  his  marriage  with  Claren- 
don's niece,  Harcourt  had  been  brought  into  the  closest 
association  with  him,  and  though  his  intellectual  debt  to  him 
was  not  of  the  nature  of  that  which  he  owed  to  Cornewall 
Lewis,  it  was  considerable,  and  on  the  personal  side  the  loss 
was  a  heavy  one. 

in 

It  came  at  a  critical  moment  in  the  affairs  of  Europe. 
Clarendon  died  on  June  27,  and  on  July  6  Lord  Granville 
took  over  the  seals  of  his  office,  to  encounter  the  most  sudden 
and  unexpected  storm  that  had  swept  over  the  Continent 
in  living  memory.  The  Franco-German  War  came  like  a 
bolt  from  the  blue.  On  the  afternoon  of  July  8,  Hammond, 
the  Permanent  Under-Secretary  at  the  Foreign  Office,  told 
Granville  that  in  all  his  long  experience  he  had  never  known 
so  great  a  lull  in  foreign  affairs,  and  that  he  was  not  aware  of 
any  important  question  that  he  (Granville)  would  have  to 
deal  with.  At  six  o'clock  that  evening  Granville  received  a 
telegram  informing  him  that  the  provisional  Government  of 
Spain  had  offered  the  Crown  to  Prince  Leopold,  a  Catholic 
member  of  the  house  of  Hohenzollern  and  of  Leopold's 
acceptance  of  the  offer.  A  week  later  France  had  declared 
war  on  Germany.  The  responsibility  for  the  war  is  pretty 
evenly  divided.  On  the  one  side,  Bismarck  certainly  desired 
it  as  the  instrument  for  unifying  Germany.  On  the  other 
side,  the  tottering  Imperialism  of  France  contemplated  it 
as  a  means  of  recovering  influence.  The  King  of  Prussia 
did  not  want  it,  and  yielded  to  the  French  opposition  to  the 
Hohenzollern  succession  ;  but  the  preposterous  de  Gramont, 
the  French  Foreign  Minister,  intent  on  playing  the  role  of 
Talleyrand,  sought  to  convert  the  surrender  of  the  King  of 
Prussia  into  a  public  humiliation.  He  demanded  through 


222  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1870 

the  French  Ambassador  Benedetti  that  the  King  should  bind 
himself  for  all  future  time  not  to  consent  to  a  Hohenzollern 
candidature,  and  sought  the  backing  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment in  this  gratuitous  demand.  In  addition  to  this  exten- 
sion of  the  trouble,  a  despatch  came  from  Paris  asking  for  an 
apologetic  letter  from  the  King  to  the  French  Emperor. 
The  King  was  naturally  angry  at  the  attempt  to  turn  his 
pacific  action  into  a  French  diplomatic  victory,  and  told  the 
French  Ambassador  at  Ems  that  he  would  conduct  future 
negotiations  direct  with  Paris.  He  framed  a  telegram  re- 
jecting the  new  demand,  and  left  it  to  Bismarck  to  decide 
whether  the  rejection  should  be  communicated  to  the  Ger- 
man Ambassadors  and  to  the  Press.  Bismarck  reduced  the 
message  by  eliminating  some  words,  gave  it  a  more  decisive 
form,  and  issued  it  to  the  world.  There  followed  a  night  of 
agitation  in  Paris,  and  on  July  15  the  Emperor  declared  war. 

Opinion  in  England  at  the  time  regarded  France  as  the 
aggressor.  The  public  distrust  of  Napoleon  had  fluctuated 
during  his  reign,  but  had  never  wholly  subsided.  No  one  had 
expressed  a  stronger  detestation  than  Harcourt  of  the 
methods  of  corruption  employed  by  Napoleon.  He  had  in 
1859  believed  that  war  was  inevitable,  and  had  been  an 
enthusiastic  supporter  of  the  Volunteer  movement,  and  even 
of  Palmerston's  fortification  scheme.  His  opinion  had  not 
altered  now. 

Speaking  to  his  constituents  in  the  autumn  (October  18) 
during  the  progress  of  the  war,  he  said  : 

The  Liberal  party  are  of  opinion  that  the  war  commenced  by 
France  is  entirely  unjust  ;    that  France  forced  upon  an  unwilling 
people,  upon  a  pretext  which  hardly  pretended  to  be  serious,  a  war 
that  had  no  object  but  that  of  ambition  and  aggrandizement.     The 
German  people  have  met  that  menace  in  a  spirit  of  fortitude  that 
truly  admirable  ;   for  they  did  not  anticipate  the  wonderful  success 
that  they  have  since  achieved.     One  of  the  causes  for  which  war 
was  undertaken  was  to  prevent  the  national  unity  of  Germany. 
.  .  .     Now,  one  of  the  first  results  of  the  war  has  been  the  fall  of 
the  imperial  system  in  France.  .  .  .  That  Government  rested  on  I. 
three  principles.     It  may  be  said  to  have  rested  on  a  tripod  ;    it  * 
rested,  first,  upon  ignorance,  because  it  appealed  not  to  the  enlight- 
ened mind,  but  to  the  ignorance  of  France,  for  its  support.     Its 


= 

ss 


i87o]          NEUTRAL   RIGHTS   IN   1870  223 

second  support  was  corruption — corruption  which  was  used  without 
any  reserve,  and  used  at  the  expense  of  the  nation.  And  its  last 
and  principal  support  was  armed  force — the  army  of  France. 

On  August  2  he  asked  a  question  in  the  House  of  Commons 
which  drew  from  Mr.  Gladstone  an  important  statement  on 
the  origin  of  the  war.  Harcourt  asked  for  the  production 
of  the  negotiations  instituted  by  the  late  Lord  Clarendon 
before  the  war  to  secure  disarmament  on  the  part  of  France 
and  Prussia,  and  why  Baron  Brunnow's  suggestion  of  a 
protocol  to  be  drawn  up  by  the  Great  Powers  recognizing 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Hohenzollern  candidature  was  not 
followed,  and  whether  any  attempt  had  been  made  to  secure 
a  combined  remonstrance  from  the  Great  Powers  against 
this  unnecessary  war. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Civil  War  in  America,  both  belligerents 
proclaimed  their  grievances  against  the  exercise  of  neutrality 
by  this  country,  and  "  Historicus  "  once  more  laid  down 
the  law  in  The  Times  on  the  obligations  of  the  neutral  State. 
After  stating  the  rules  of  neutrality,  he  pointed  out  that, 
where  there  was  no  blockade,  "  the  sole  duty  of  the  neutral 
Government  in  respect  of  contraband  trade  carried  on  by  its 
subjects  is  to  be  passive  and  not  to  interfere  between  them 
and  the  right  of  capture  which  the  law  of  nations  gives  to  the 
belligerents." 

In  the  light  of  the  European  War  of  1914-18,  and  the 
restrictions  imposed  by  England  on  neutrals,  it  is  important 
to  record  Harcourt's  judgment  on  the  position  in  1870.  He 
protested  against  the  contention  that  neutrals  were  bound 
to  prevent  the  export  of  contraband  to  either  party,  which 
was,  he  thought,  both  impolitic  and  impracticable,  since  in 
order  to  ensure  anything  of  this  kind  it  "  would  be  necessary 
to  establish  a  belligerent  excise  in  every  workshop  and  yard 
in  the  neutral  country."  The  right  of  the  capture  of  con- 
traband was  confined  to  the  high  seas.  France  and  Prussia 
could  trade  in  contraband  with  the  neighbouring  countries 
of  Holland  and  Belgium  without  hindrance.  This  same 
consideration  would,  he  said,  make  any  blockade  impractic- 
able, since  Prussia  might  as  well  be  supplied  through 


224  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1870 

Antwerp  and  Rotterdam  as  through  Hamburg.  We  have 
lived  to  see  a  very  different  state  of  affairs  in  which  it  was 
found  practicable  to  exercise  a  very  efficient  supervision  of 
neutral  trade  with  Prussia,  both  by  sea  and  land. 

Harcourt's  generation  would  assuredly  have  been  startled 
to  see  the  power  that  resides  nowadays  with  the  Executive 
Government.  In  a  letter  to  The  Times  (July  30)  he  lays 
down  the  theory  of  the  source  of  the  authority  of  a  Royal 
Proclamation  : 

A  proclamation  of  the  Crown  can  of  its  own  force  and  virtue 
create  no  illegality  as  respects  the  subject.  It  rehearses  and  records  ; 
it  cannot  make  law.  If  it  were  otherwise  the  liberties  of  Englishmen 
would  not  be  worth  an  hour's  purchase.  It  is  true  that  in  certain 
cases  the  Legislature  has  conferred  on  the  Crown  power  to  forbid 
certain  things  by  Proclamation  or  Order  in  Council,  such  as  the 
export  of  munitions  of  war.  But  the  power  depends  not  on  the 
Proclamation  but  on  the  Statute,  and  it  is  only  exercised  when  war 
is  anticipated  with  this  country,  and  in  defence  of  the  interests  of 
the  Realm. 

It  is  true  that  Harcourt  was  contemplating  international 
affairs  only,  but  the  passage  has  a  much  wider  application 
now,  when  Acts  are  passed  by  Parliament  giving  the  widest 
limits  to  government  by  administrative  order. 

His  sympathy  with  Germany  did  not  prejudice  his  view  of 
the  law  when  it  operated  in  favour  of  France.  On  August  i 
he  wrote  to  The  Times  on  the  question  of  whether  coal 
should  or  should  not  be  regarded  as  contraband.  Prussia 
was  disturbed  at  the  suggestion  that  British  ships  might  be 
supplying  coal  to  the  French  fleet  in  the  Baltic.  That  such 
provision  was  possible  was  due  to  the  maritime  superiority 
of  France.  As  a  neutral  Great  Britain  must  make  no  conces- 
sion which  would  weaken  her  own  vital  interest  in  time  of 
war.  The  advantages  (he  said)  which  France  may  now 
happen  to  enjoy  by  virtue  of  her  powerful  marine  are  engines 
of  self-defence  of  which  we  may,  we  know  not  how  soon, 
stand  sorely  in  need.  No  country  in  the  world  is  bound 
by  anything  like  the  interest  which  compels  us,  even  in  a 
situation  of  neutrality,  to  respect  in  others,  in  order  that  we 


i87i]        CONFLICTS  WITH   LEADERS          225 

may  maintain  for  ourselves,  the  unimpaired  rights  which 
belong  to  maritime  superiority.  To  other  nations  these 
rights  may  be  much  ;  to  us  they  are  alL 

IV 

By  the  end  of  the  Session  of  1870  it  had  become  apparent 
that  Harcourt's  support  of  the  Government  was  qualified 
by  an  independence  which  was  apt  to  be  more  formidable 
than  the  hostility  of  the  Opposition.  He  had  the  fighting 
temperament,  and  was  happier  in  disagreement  than  in 
agreement.  He  worked  hard,  and  hit  hard.  Neither  then 
nor  at  any  time  could  he  resist  the  temptation  to  let  his  gifts 
of  wit  and  satire  have  full  play,  and  he  made  enemies  among 
his  political  friends  as  cheerfully  as  among  his  political  foes. 
Like  Scott's  schoolmaster,  who  apologized  to  the  boy  for 
knocking  him  down  by  saying  that  he  did  not  know  his  own 
strength,  Harcourt  hurt  more  than  he  knew  and  more  than 
he  intended.  But  he  hurt  without  malice,  and  his  essential 
good  nature  usually  healed  wounds  that  his  hasty  and 
impetuous  temper  had  made.  He  showed  little  respect  for 
the  Front  Bench,  and  "  incidents  "  with  his  leaders  were  of 
frequent  occurrence.  Generally  they  ended  happily  enough. 
Thus  we  find  W.  E.  Forster,  whom  he  had  fought  with  so 
much  tenacity  during  the  progress  of  the  Education  Bill, 
writing  to  him : 

W.  E.  Forster  to  Harcourt. 

80,  ECCLESTON  SQUARE,  January  20, 1871. — Few  letters  have  ever 
given  me  more  pleasure  than  your  most  kind  note,  but  it  has  also 
given  me  some  pangs  of  remorse,  for  I  feel  now  that  I  have  sometimes 
thought  unjustly  of  you.  However,  in  future  we  shall  understand 
one  another  when  we  differ,  and  very  likely  differ  less  than  we  had 
expected. 

And  later,  in  the  course  of  the  conflict  over  the  Abolition 
of  Purchase  in  the  Army,  Sir  John  Coleridge,  the  Solicitor- 
General,  wrote  : 

Sir  J.  Coleridge  to  Harcourt. 

i,  SUSSEX  SQUARE,  August  16,  1871. — Your  few  words  yesterday 
were  most  kind  and  I  assure  you  touched  me  not  a  little.  I 
believe  I  was  very  ill-tempered  and  unreasonable  with  you.  But 

0 


226  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1871 

indeed  for  the  last  month  I  have  hardly  been  able  to  keep  about 
and  have  never  been  so  weak  and  ill  from  work  in  my  life.  .  .  . 
Pray  forgive  me  if  I  said  what  you  feel  to  require  forgiveness.  I 
felt  it  the  more  as  now  in  many  years  we  have  never  had  an  unkind 
word. 

It  is  shabby  to  say  sharp  words  in  public  and  apologize  in  private  ; 
but  the  first  time  I  speak  and  can  find  or  make  an  opportunity  I  will 
say  what  I  can  to  show  my  respect  and  regard  for  you  and  to  set 
straight  anything  that  is  wrong.  At  my  time  of  lif  e  I  cannot  readily 
afford  to  lose  a  friend. 

It  was  not  by  any  means  the  last  of  the  tiffs  with  the 
Solicitor-General,  for  if  Harcourt  was  critical  of  most  of  his 
leaders  he  was  especially  critical  of  the  law  officers.  He 
pursued  them  with  that  abnormal  industry  and  research 
which  he  had  applied  in  the  past  to  Seward  and  Fish, 
Napoleon  and  Derby  and  the  rest  of  his  multitudinous  list 
of  public  opponents.  After  one  of  the  numerous  conflicts 
we  find  him  stating  his  general  attitude  to  the  Government 
in  a  letter  to  Coleridge  in  the  following  terms  : 

Harcourt  to  Sir  J.  Coleridge. 

Wednesday,  December,  1872. — I  am  very  anxious  that  our  conversa- 
tion of  to-night  (which  I  regard  on  your  part  as  a  very  friendly  one) 
should  not  be  misunderstood  as  regards  myself. 

I  am  speaking  not  of  course  with  respect  to  you  but  with  regard  to 
others  when  I  say  that  I  am  very  willing  and  should  be  glad  to  be 
regarded  as  a  friend. 

I  am  equally  willing  to  be  treated  as  a.  foe  if  that  course  is  preferred. 
As  the  French  say,  "  c'est  a  prendre  ou  a  laisser."  I  am  still  young 
enough,  ambitious  enough — if  you  please,  vain  enough — to  be 
indifferent  to  either  fortune.  Only  I  don't  want  you  or  others  to 
suppose  that  antagonism,  if  there  be  antagonism,  is  of  my  making 
or  seeking. 

I  should  not  have  said  so  much  only  your  good  nature  led  me  into 
saying  more  perhaps  than  I  should  have  said,  and  I  therefore  wish 
that  you  should  be  under  no  misapprehension  as  to  what  I  really 
meant.  .  .  . 

The  "  others  "  of  whom  he  was  speaking  in  this  letter  no 
doubt  included  the  Prime  Minister  himself.  Time  was  not 
improving  the  relation  between  Gladstone  and  Harcourt. 
A  note  of  asperity  became  increasingly  evident  in  the  replies 
of  Gladstone  to  the  criticisms  of  his  intractable  follower. 
In  the  course  of  the  debate  on  the  Budget  of  1871  he  told 


[87i]        STATUTE   OR   PREROGATIVE          227 

lim  that  if  his  strictures  on  military  expenditure  were  not 
extravagantly  unjust,  it  was  his  duty  to  try  to  put  an  end  to 
:he  Government.  And  later  in  the  year  a  more  sustained 
iiscord  arose  between  the  two  statesmen  in  regard  to  the 
ise  of  the  Royal  Prerogative  for  the  abolition  of  the  practice 
:>f  purchasing  commissions  in  the  Army.  This  strong  action 
had  arisen  out  of  the  drastic  army  reforms  introduced  under 
:he  influence  of  the  Franco-German  War.  Gladstone's 
proposal  to  abolish  purchase  had  met  with  fierce  hostility 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  who  saw  in  the  scheme  a  menace  to 
the  aristocratic  control  of  the  Army.  Gladstone  had  replied 
by  announcing  the  abolition  by  Royal  Warrant.  This 
unusual  procedure  was  an  opportunity  after  Harcourt's  own 
tieart  for  the  discussion  of  nice  points  of  constitutional  law, 
md  he  flung  himself  into  the  fight  with  a  zest  that  brought 
aim  into  violent  conflict  with  the  Solicitor-General  and  his 
Chief.  He  had  supported  the  proposal  in  the  first  instance 
because  he  understood  that  it  was  a  purely  statutory  execu- 
tion of  a  power  conferred  on  the  Executive  by  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment. But  it  appeared  in  the  course  of  debate  that  the 
Solicitor-General  based  the  Government's  action  on  an 
obscure  statute  of  Charles  II  asserting  royal  supremacy  over 
the  Army.  There  was  much  bandying  of  references  and  a 
leated  personal  explanation.  In  a  speech  made  on  August 
15,  Harcourt  made  a  hit  by  saying,  "  They  were  entitled  to 
j:all  upon  the  owner  of  those  two  distinguished  steeds,  the 
Solicitor-General  and  the  Attorney-General,  to  name  the  one 
py  which  he  intended  to  win,  whether  by  the  Solicitor- 
Greneral  on  Prerogative  or  the  Attorney-General  on  Statute." 
The  Solicitor-General  had  distinctly  said  that  purchase  was 
abolished  by  the  prerogative  of  the  Crown  ;  that  the  Crown 
was  the  sole  governor  and  regulator  of  the  Army,  and  that 
Parliament  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  "  Why,"  said  Har- 
:ourt,  "  Strafford  died  on  the  block  and  Clarendon  was 
disgraced  for  pretending,  the  one  and  the  other,  that  the 
3rown  was  the  supreme  governor  and  regulator  of  the  Army.' ' 
He  proceeded  with  his  historical  doctrine  down  to  the  Revolu- 
tion, the  Bill  of  Rights  and  the  annual  Mutiny  Act,  and 


228  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1871 

declared  that  there  had  already  been  too  much  royal  influence 
about  the  Army,  and  that  the  abolition  of  purchase  would 
do  something  to  get  rid  of  it.  But  there  had  been  no 
reason  for  introducing  the  "  odious  and  detestable  word 
Prerogative." 

Gladstone  replied  with  great  acerbity.  After  commenting 
on  "  the  historical  readings  without  end  "  of  Harcourt,  he 
said,  "  To  them  (Harcourt  and  Fawcett)  all  things  are  clear 
'  and  lucid,  owing  to  the  piercing  characters  of  the  intellects 
which  they  possess — so  different  from  the  dull  brains  of 
common  men  and  official  plodders." 

No  act  of  Gladstone's  administration  aroused  more  dis- 
quiet, not  among  his  opponents,  but  among  his  friends,  than 
this  incident,  and  the  venerable  Earl  Russell,  now  in  retire- 
ment, wrote  to  Harcourt : 

PEMBROKE  LODGE,  August  17,  1871. — You  must  allow  me  to 
congratulate  you  on  your  progress  in  constitutional  studies.  What- 
ever you  may  think  of  the  decay  of  statesmanship,  I  have  deeply 
regretted  the  disappearance  of  constitutional  lawyers,  and  I  am 
happy  to  find  from  your  late  speeches  and  your  admirable  letter  in 
The  Times  to-day,  that  the  race  is  reviving. 

I  disapprove  strongly  of  the  abuse  of  the  prerogative  in  the  issue 
of  the  Royal  Warrant,  and  see  very  clearly  that  if  the  power  had 
been  used  against  some  measure  the  House  of  Commons  liked,  instead 
of  the  Act  of  1809,  which  they  disliked,  we  should  have  heard  much 
of  the  dispensing  Power.  I  hope,  you  will  go  on,  and  set  right  the 
facts  imagined  by  our  Ministers.  They  seem  to  me  to  be  wanting 
in  truth  whenever  they  are  obliged  to  answer  on  ministerial  or 
constitutional  points. 

It  was  not  easy  at  this  time  to  fit  Harcourt  into  any 
category.  On  the  constitutional  side  he  took  his  stand  on 
the  blessed  Revolution  of  1688,  which  had  settled  all  things 
well.  Ecclesiastically,  he  was  the  most  uncompromising 
Erastian,  to  whom  the  Church  was  as  much  a  department 
of  State  as  the  Local  Government  Board,  and  to  whom  the 
modern  Anglican  movement  was  only  a  pernicious  reversion 
to  Romanism.  He  was  a  modern  Radical  in  his  passion 
for  peace,  his  hatred  of  war,  his  international  outlook,  his 
faith  in  the  widest  extension  of  self-government,  and  his 


i87i]  ANTI-FEMINISM  229 

enlightened  economic  and  financial  convictions.  But  he 
cultivated  little  idealism.  His  temper  was  aristocratic  and 
his  tastes  were  of  the  eighteenth  century.  He  loved  the 
formalist  of  Pope's  poetry  and  the  rationalism  of  Walpole's 
politics.  Mr.  T.  P.  O'Connor  once  remarked  to  him  that  he 
would  like  to  revisit  the  world  a  century  after  his  death  and 
see  what  changes  had  taken  place.  "  I  have  quite  an 
opposite  wish,"  said  Harcourt.  "  I  would  like  to  go  back. 
I  would  like  to  have  been  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  of  Sir 
Robert  Walpole."  Harcourt  had  a  genuine  affection  for 
the  working  classes,  but  an  unconcealed  dislike  for  the  new 
commercial  plutocracy,  and  on  such  subjects  as  the  social 
status  of  womeruhe  was  as  uncompromising  a  reactionary 
as  Dr.  Johnson.  Writing  to  Mrs.  Henry  Ponsonby,  in  answer 
to  an  appeal  for  his  support  in  the  promotion  of  the  univer- 
sity training  of  women,  he  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby. 

TRINITY  COLLEGE,  CAMBRIDGE,  November  23,  1871. — I  am  far 
too  deeply  committed  to  go  back  unless  I  am  prepared  like  Cranmer 
(which  I  am  not)  to  put  my  hand  into  the  fire.  I  could  not  retract 
in  the  presence  of  this  University  the  deep  oaths  I  have  -sworn 
against  "the  higher  education  of  woman."  Even  your  influence 
cannot  convince  me.  Have  I  not  resisted  to  the  death  Lady  Amber- 
ley  who  regards  me  as  what  Dizzy  calls  "  one  of  the  nincompoops  of 
Politics."  You  will  say  why  ?  That  is  just  what  I  can't  tell  you. 
A  man — even  a  lawyer  and  a  Radical — must  have  some  prejudices, 
and  this  is  as  respectable  a  one  as  another,  perhaps  more  so.  I  am 
a  country  gentleman  on  this  subject.  You  might  just  as  well  try 
to  persuade  him  to  kill  foxes  or  not  to  preserve  pheasants.  I  have 
an  instinct,  a  sentiment,  a  passion,  a  prejudice — call  it  what  you 
please.  I  don't  profess  to  account  for  it.  You  might  as  well  ask 
me  why  I  am  in  love  with  one  woman  rather  than  another. 

Don't  believe  that  this  arises  from  a  disparaging  idea  or  feeling 
about  women.  Nothing  could  be  less  true.  No  man  has  owed  more 
to  women  or  respects  them  more  or  has  felt  their  influence  more 
than  I  have.  As  to  their  education,  God  knows  a  pupil  of  Mons. 
Roche  (Th&re'se  Harcourt  was  Roche's  pupil)  knows  ten  times  more 
than  ninety-nine  out  of  100  men  who  take  their  degrees  in  this 
place.  But  I  do  shrink  from  assimilating  their  status  in  any  respect 
to  that  of  men.  It  seems  to  me  that  their  charm,  their  influence, 
their  force  depends  so  much  on  their  dis -similarity — in  modes  of  life, 
modes  of  action,  modes  of  thought.  I  know  I  am  not  enlightened. 


230  SIR   WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1871 

All  my  younger  friends  tell  me  so.  Herbert,  Dilke,  etc.,  call  me 
an  "  antiquated  Radical  of  the  poor  old  John  Bright  school."  I  be- 
lieve it  is  quite  true.  I  have  none  of  the  new  lights,  and  am 
altogether  behind  the  age.  But  don't  be  discouraged — you  have 
plenty  far  better  men  than  I  on  your  side  here  who  are  working  for 
your  cause.  .  .  . 

I  am  greatly  occupied  about  my  Land  Question  which  grows  upon 
me  in  interest  and  importance.  I  have  been  much  cheered  by 
letters  of  approval  from  Gladstone  (no  very  partial  critic),  but  still 
more  from  Hastings,  Russell  (Duke  of  Bedford),  dated  from  Wo  burn- 
does  not  it  sound  strange  ?  I  have  told  him  if  he  thinks  so,  why  does 
not  he  say  so.  People  would  listen  to  him  who  will  pay  no  attention 
to  the  lackland  ideologues  of  Greenwich  and  Oxford. 

I  had  a  charming  letter  from  Dizzy,  very  flattering  of  course 
about  everything  except  land,  on  which  he  advised  me  to  say  nothing 
in  Parliament. 


The  allusion  to  the  land  question  relates  to  a  new  crusade 
on  which  he  had  embarked  against  the  law's  delays  and  the 
evils  of  the  land  system.  In  1871  and  1872  he  wrote  to  The 
Times  an  important  series  of  letters  on  Law  Reform.  These! 
letters  are  in  amplification  and  explanation  of  an  address  ., 
which  he  gave  in  his  capacity  of  President  of  the  Jurispru- 
dence Department  of  the  Social  Science  Congress  held  at 
Leeds  in  October  1871.  The  address  was  afterwards  issued 
in  pamphlet  form  as  a  Plan  for  the  Amendment  of  the  Law,  and 
embodies  radical  and  far-reaching  proposals,  going  beyond 
the  conclusions  reached  by  the  Judicature  Commission,! 
which  had  then  issued  part  of  their  report.  He  complained 
of  the  way  in  which  the  Inns  of  Court  made  use  of  their 
rich  endowments,  and  suggested  the  termination  by  Act  of 
Parliament  of  these  "  ropes  of  sand  held  together  principally 
by  dinners,"  and  their  reconstruction  as  a  legal  university. 
He  sought  a  closer  union  between  the  two  branches  of  the 
legal  profession,  remedies  for  the  existing  confusion  in 
English  statute  law,  and  a  reorganization  of  the  superior 
courts.  He  even  attacked  the  long  vacation,  which  served, 
he  declared,  no  real  purpose  except  to  protect "  the  monopoly, 
already  sufficiently  great,  of  a  few  principal  practitioners." 
His  iconoclasm  extended  to  the  office  of  the  Lord  Chancellor 


i87i]  THE  DEAD    HAND  231 

himself,  essentially  a  party  politician  and  yet  the  head  of  a 
judicial  system  carefully  guarded  at  other  points  from 
political  influence. 

Not  content  with  this  assault  on  his  profession,  Harcourt 
turned  to  the  attack  of  the  most  sacred  creed  of  his  class. 
If  the  administration  of  the  law  was  bad,  the  state  of  the 
land  laws  was  worse.  "  To  misuse  and  waste  land  is  nothing 
else  but  to  waste  and  misuse  England.  If  a  man  has  £50,000 
a  year  in  the  Funds  and  chooses  to  dissipate  it  in  riotous 
living  he  alone  is  the  worse  for  it.  The  stock  passes  into 
other  hands  who  know  how  to  employ  it  better.  .  .  .  But 
if  a  man  with  £50,000  a  year  in  land  lets  his  property  go  to 
rack  and  ruin  it  is  not  he  alone  that  suffers.  The  homesteads 
and  the  villages  over  50,000  acres  and  the  people  who  inhabit 
them  suffer  by  his  fault.  The  land  is  ill-farmed  .  .  .  the 
peasants  are  ill-housed,  ill-paid,  ill-taught,  ill-fed."  He  did 
[not  want  state  ownership,  nor  peasant  proprietorship  ;  but 
le  wanted  the  land  set  free  tp  the  play  of  economic  influences 
the  destruction  of  thelaw  of  entail,  which  enabled  the 
lead  hand  to  tie  it  up  and  encumber  and  impoverish  it  by 
•estrictions  which  played  havoc  with  the  interests  of  the 
;ommunity. 

It  will  be  said  that  the  present  system  is  necessary  in  order  to 
ceep  up  old  families.  I  venture,  however,  to  think  that  old  families, 
f  they  are  worth  keeping  up,  will  keep  up  themselves.  And  if 
:hey  are  not  able  to  take  care  of  themselves  it  is  not  for  their  advant- 
age, certainly  not  for  the  advantage  of  the  community,  that  the  law 
should  attempt  to  keep  them  up.  A  law  framed  with  such  an 
object  is  in  the  nature  of  a  protective  duty  of  the  worst  description. 

In  acknowledging  a  copy  of  the  pamphlet  on  Law  Reform 
which  Harcourt  had  sent  to  him  "  as  a  slight  acknowledgment 
of  the  public  and  private  courtesy  I  have  received  at  your 
lands,"  Disraeli  said  : 

HUGHENDEN  MANOR,  November  7,  1871. — .  .  .  I  think  it  would 
:>e  well  for  you  to  bring  the  whole  subject  before  Parliament.  Prigs 
and  pedants  depreciate  the  utility  of  our  debates.  For  my  own  part, 
I  am  not  ashamed  to  say,  that  I  never  seem  thoroughly  to  under- 
stand a  question,  till  it  has  been  discussed  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
In  such  a  motion,  you  would,  of  course,  not  treat  of  the  land 


232  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1871 

laws,  which  require  to  be  separately  considered.  My  impression,  in 
reading  your  address,  was,  that  you  had  not  sufficiently  taken  into 
account  all  the  mitigations  of  the  powers  and  consequences  of  the 
settlement  of  landed  estates,  which  have  accrued  during  the  last 
quarter  of  a  century  ;  but  it  is  almost  presumption  in  me  to  make  this 
remark. 

This  interchange  was  but  one  incident  of  a  personal 
relationship  between  Disraeli  and  Harcourt  which  was  inter- 
rupted only  by  death.  Harcourt's  social  friendships  had 
little  to  do  with  his  political  affinities,  and  though  he  had 
been  opposed  to  Disraeli  on  most  public  issues  he  was  pro- 
foundly attracted  by  his  bizarre  personality  and  his  cynical 
genius.  Disraeli,  on  his  side,  was  early  sensible  of  Harcourt's 
political  possibilities,  and,  as  already  said,  had  sought  to 
enlist  him  on  his  side  by  the  offer  of  a  safe  Welsh  seat  in 
1866.  The  proposal  was  not  entertained,  but  the  friendly 
intercourse  between  the  two  continued,  and  in  November 
1872  Harcourt  paid  a  visit  to  Disraeli  and  Lady  Beacons- 
field  at  Hughenden  Manor,  a  record  of  which  appears  in  the 
My  Reminiscences  by  Lord  Ronald  Gower.  It  was  after 
this  visit  that  Harcourt  wrote  to  Lady  Beaconsfield  a  confes- 
sion of  petty  larceny  : 

CAMBRIDGE,  November  26,  1872. — I  have  all  my  life  made  efforts 
(apparently  destined  to  be  unsuccessful)  to  appear  what  Falstaff 
or  is  it  Touchstone  calls  "  moderate  honest."  But  here  I  am  actually 
a  felon  malgrS  moi. 

Joseph's  brother  was  not  more  alarmed  and  shocked  than  I  was 
when  on  opening  my  sack  the  first  thing  I  discovered  in  its  mouth 
was  the  French  novel  you  had  provided  for  my  entertainment  in  my 
charming  bedroom  at  Hughenden.  Whether  the  act  was  one  of 
accidental  larceny  by  my  servant  or  whether  it  was  insidiously 
effected  by  Lord  J.  Manners  in  order  to  ruin  my  public  and  private 
reputation  I  do  not  feel  sure.  I  did  however  return  it  by  this  morn- 
ing's post  before  I  left  London,  and  so  I  hope  to  be  forgiven. 

I  have  already  taken  measures  to  secure  a  consignment  to  you 
of  Trinity  Audit  Ale.  Delicious  as  it  is  I  doubt  whether  there  really 
exists  anyone  except  a  Cambridge  man  who  can  drink  it  with 
impunity.  For  the  benefit  of  science,  however,  I  hope  the  experi- 
ment will  be  made  of  administering  a  whole  bottle  of  it  one  morning 
after  breakfast  to  the  "  Page  of  the  Peacocks  "  with  a  view  of  ascer- 
taining its  effects  on  his  moral  and  physical  nature.  .  .  . 

The  gift  was  duly  sent ;  but  the  acknowledgment  did  not 


i87i]  ON   INVASION   SCARES  233 

come  from  Lady  Beaconsfield.  She  died  a  few  weeks  later, 
and  in  answering  a  letter  of  condolence  from  Harcourt, 
Disraeli  said  : 


HUGHENDEN  MANOR,  /anwary  9,  1872.  —  .  .  .  She,  whom  I  mourn, 
my  inseparable,  and  ever-interesting  companion  for  a  moiety  of  my 
existence,  had  a  genuine  regard  for  you,  and  I  saw  you  appreciated 
her  happy  disposition,  and  the  constant,  yet  spontaneous,  gaiety 
of  her  mind,  which  softened  care,  and  heightened  even  joy. 

Yours  was  the  last  present  she  received.  She  was  conscious  of 
its  arrival,  and  gratified  by  it  ;  and  mentioned  your  name  with 
kindness. 

VI 

Meanwhile  Harcourt  had  become  engaged  in  another  of 
those  controversial  battles  in  which  he  delighted  and  which 
he  waged  with  such  consuming  energy.  The  Franco-German 
War  had  disturbed  the  public  mind  on  the  question  of  inva- 
sion and  military  security.  It  was  under  the  stimulus  of 
that  disquiet  that  Cardwell,  the  War  Secretary,  Harcourt's 
colleague  in  the  representation  of  Oxford,  had  carried  through 
his  Army  reforms  and  established  the  short  service  system 
with  its  potentiality  of  reserves.  In  the  public  discussion 
which  arose  on  the  question  of  defence,  Harcourt  came  for- 
ward as  the  protagonist  of  what  afterwards  came  to  be 
called  the  Blue  Water  School,  and  for  eighteen  months  in 
Parliament,  in  the  Press  and  on  the  platform  he  argued  the 
case  for  a  naval  against  a  military  policy  —  the  case,  that  is, 
of  defence  against  continental  intervention  —  with  inex- 
haustible fertiljfe^  and  vivacity.  He  began  the  campaign 
against  "  panic  "  measures  in  Parliament  with  an  attack  on 
Lowe,  who,  in  introducing  the  Budget  in  April  1871,  main- 
tained that  it  could  not  be  said  of  England  any  more  than  of 
France  that  her  soil  was  safe  from  invasion,  that  the  fleet 
might  be  decoyed  away  and  that  an  Army  sufficient  for 
dealing  with  an  invasion  was  necessary.  Harcourt  asked 
where  the  invasion  was  to  come  from.  Was  it  expected  from 
"  that  worn-out  crater  of  an  extinct  volcano,  France  "  ?  If 
from  the  Baltic,  neither  Prussia  nor  Russia  had  the  marine 
necessary  even  for  the  transport  of  50,000  men.  But  the 


234  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1872 

core  of  his  argument  was  that  if  the  Government  really 
believed  in  the  danger  of  invasion  it  was  their  duty  to 
.  increase  the  Navy,  not  the  Army.  The  proposed  increase  of 
I  the  Army  by  20,000  men  had  no  relevance  to  either  of  the 
policies  before  us — the  policy  of  defence  against  invasion 
and  the  policy  of  intervention  in  continental  warfare.  "  For 
the  security  of  a  defensive  policy  the  Government,"  he 
declared,  "  asked  too  much ;  for  a  policy  of  European 
intervention  their  preparations  were  ridiculously  and  con- 
temptibly inadequate." 

He  developed  his  Blue  Water  thesis  at  greater  length  in 
a  paper  read  before  the  Royal  United  Service  Institution  in 
the  May  of  the  following  year,  and  in  the  meantime  had 
begun  a  prolonged  discussion  of  the  subject  in  the  columns 
of  The  Times,  which  had  attacked  his  New  Year's  speech  at 
Oxford  in  which  he  had  said  : 

If  you  persist  in  increasing  your  expenditure  at  one  time  because 
you  say  wars  are  coming,  and  at  another  because  they  are  over, 
what  hope  is  there  of  any  pause  in  this  descent  into  the  bottomless 
pit  of  an  ever-increasing  extravagance  ? 

The  question  was  whether  we  stood  for  a  policy  of  defence 
or  of  aggression.  It  was  by  virtue  of  possessing  the  most 
powerful  navy  in  the  world  that  our  voice  would  be  heard  in 
the  counsels  of  Europe,  but  if  our  land  forces  were  to  be 
organized  on  a  footing  for  continental  action  the  military 
estimates  must  be  enormously  increased.  In  a  long  letter 
(January  16,  1872)  he  deals  with  the  various  invasion  scares 
which  had  disturbed  this  country  from  the  time  of  Napoleon 
onwards.  He  pointed  out  that  Napoleon  had  realized  that 
a  temporary  command  of  the  sea  was  useless  for  the  purpose 
of  invasion  ;  such  a  command  must  be  permanent,  so  as  to 
ensure  the  inviolability  of  the  invader's  communications. 
No  theory  of  the  possibility  of  "  decoying  away  "  the  Navy 
would  meet  this  condition.  Why  did  not  Napoleon  in  1803 
throw  on  these  shores  an  army  of  100,000  men  when  we  had 
only  an  army  of  60,000  men  ?  The  answer  was  to  be  found 
in  the  epigrammatic  remark  of  the  third  Napoleon  on  his 


1872]         TREATIES  OF  GUARANTEE  235 

Uncle's  enterprise,  "  a  maritime  expedition  without  a  mari- 
time superiority  is  a  contradiction  in  terms."  Harcourt 
showed  what  an  enormous  flotilla  of  transports  was  required 
for  the  small  expedition  to  Abyssinia,  but  it  was  the  case 
of  the  transfer  of  the  Anglo-French  armies  to  the  Crimea 
which  gave  him  the  material  for  the  most  overwhelming 
case  against  the  possibility  of  invasion  in  the  face  of  a 
dominant  fleet.  "  The  invasion  panic,"  he  went  on  to  say, 
"  I  do  not  fear.  Of  the  '  continental  obligation  '  panic,  I 
confess,  I  am  mortally  afraid." 

His  fear  was  well  founded.  The  country  had  narrowly 
escaped  being  drawn  into  the  Franco-German  conflict  on  the 
subject  of  Belgium.  On  the  eve  of  the  war,  Bismarck  had 
disclosed  in  The  Times  the  fact  that  in  1867  Napoleon  had 
sought  to  make  a  "deal"  with  Prussia  of  a  peculiarly  odious 
kind.  The  treaty  he  projected  provided  that  Prussia  was 
to  be  allowed  to  absorb  the  South  German  States,  while 
France  was  to  be  allowed  to  annex  Belgium.  Bismarck  had 
other  views  as  to  how  to  consolidate  Germany,  but  he  kept 
the  proposal  and  published  it  at  his  own  moment.  The 
revelation  created  great  alarm  in  this  country,  and  the 
Government  submitted  a  proposal  to  the  belligerents  by 
^  which  the  immunity  of  Belgian  soil  already  secured  by 
treaty  was  fortified  by  special  agreement  for  the  period 
of  war,  Great  Britain  engaging,  in  the  event  of  the  viola- 
tion of  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  by  either  belligerent, 
to  co-operate  with  the  other  in  its  defence.  It  was 
the  breach  of  Belgian  integrity  forty-six  years  later  by 
Germany  that  involved  this  country  in  the  European  War. 
On  the  question  of  these  continental  obligations  Harcourt 
took  his  stand  by  Bright.  In  the  House  of  Commons 
(March  n,  1872)  he  said : 

Treaties  of  guarantee  embody  all  the  vices  of  the  law  of  entail 
and  mortmain.  I  would  not  advocate  the  repudiation  of  existing 
^guarantees,  but  I  entirely  deny  the  right  of  one  generation  to  pledge 
the  fortune,  the  reputation  and,  it  may  be,  the  very  existence  of  its 
successors  by  obligations  of  which  it  can  by  no  possibility  be  a  judge 
as  to  the  power  of  posterity  to  fulfil.  ...  It  is  as  impossible  for 
England  to  become  a  military  power  on  the  Continent  as  it  is  for 


236  SIR   WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1872 

Switzerland  to  become  a  naval  power.  ...  In  the  case  of  the 
Belgian  treaty  we  might  have  to  meet  the  combined  armies  of  France 
and  Germany,  perhaps  1,000,000  men.  People  speak  of  garrisoning 
Antwerp  ;  we  might  as  well  talk  of  defending  France  by  garrisoning 
Brest  or  Cherbourg.  .  .  .  We  should  make  it  honestly  under- 
stood in  Europe  that  England  is  not  a  military,  but  a  naval 
power. 

Time  has  made  its  own  tremendous  comment  on  this  utter- 
ance. In  the  light  of  that  comment  it  will  seem  in  some 
respects  singularly  wide  of  the  mark.  Harcourt  had  not 
realized,  any  more  than  anyone  else  at  the  time  had  realized, 
that  the  organization  of  an  army  on  the  continental  scale 
was,  given  the  command  of  the  sea  and  the  control  of 
mechanical  production,  a  thing  that  could  be  improvised  in 
a  few  months.  But  the  essential  argument  that  underlies 
the  whole  case  that  Harcourt  presented  still  stands,  and  has 
been  strengthened  by  the  experience  of  the  war.  Invasion 
is  impossible  so  long  as  we  command  the  sea,  and  the  true 
policy  of  defence  is  not  a  great  army,  but  a  sufficient  navy. 
In  Chatham's  phrase,  the  fleet  is  the  standing  army  of 
England. 

It  was  one  of  the  defects  of  Harcourt's  ebullient  spirit  and 
love  of  disputation  that  he  fanned  his  indignation  so  exces- 
sively, and  enjoyed  it  so  much  that  he  led  duller  minds  to 
suspect  that  his  passion  was  all  make-believe.  This  was  un- 
just. The  passion  was  quite  sincere,  but  the  artist  in  him 
could  rarely  resist  the  temptation  to  overplay  his  part.  It 
was  so  in  regard  to  the  great  Battle  of  the  Parks  that  he 
fought  with  such  enormous  zest  from  February  1872  to  the 
spring  of  the  following  year.  He  enjoyed  the  fight,  I  think, 
because  it  was  a  fight,  and  he  enjoyed  it  none  the  less  because 
it  enabled  him  to  scourge  the  Government  of  which  he  was  a 
nominal  supporter  and  to  lash  the  leaders  of  whom  he  was 
supposed  to  be  a  follower.  But  the  issue  he  raised  was  a 
real  one,  and  the  victory  he  won  was  a  genuine  benefaction 
to  the  public.  Ayrton,  the  Commissioner  of  Works,  had 
promoted  a  Bill  for  the  regulation  of  the  royal  parks,  which 
gave  the  Ranger,  who  was  a  nominee  of  the  Crown,  the  right 


i872]    THE   PARKS   FOR   THE   PEOPLE       237 

of  framing  new  rules  for  the  conduct  of  the  public  in  the 
parks  and  the  keepers  extraordinary  power  of  enforcing 
them,  including  arrest  without  the  issue  of  a  warrant. 
Among  the  new  regulations  was  a  clause  which  reduced  the 
liberty  of  public  speech  in  the  parks  to  the  narrowest  limits. 
Harcourt  attacked  the  proposal  as  a  scheme  for  depriving  theV 
people  of  air  and  space  as  well  as  of  rights  of  speech.  It  was 
"  Algerine  legislation,"  in  which  a  Liberal  Government  was 
the  vehicle  of  Conservative  aims  : 

The  law  with  regard  to  our  parks  was  different  from  that  of  any 
country  in  the  world,  because  it  excluded  from  them  all  but  carriage 
folk.  (No,  no.)  Yes  ;  no  carriage  but  a  private  one  was  allowed 
to  enter  the  parks,  but  in  Paris  there  was  no  restriction  on  any  person 
driving  upon  the  Champs  £lys6es  or  the  Bois  de  Boulogne  ;  and 
there  was  no  despotic  country  in  the  world  where  people  who  had 
not  a  carriage  of  their  own  were  refused  access  to  the  parks. 
(February  12,  1872.) 

He  quoted  a  Conservative  journal  as  having  said  that  the 
Bill  was  to  get  rid  of  "  that  loathsome  and  disorderly  crew 
who  may  be  seen  any  afternoon  disporting  themselves  like 
Yahoos  in  St.  James's  Park,"  and  took  this  as  the  clue  to  the 
policy  of  popular  exclusion.  A  corner  of  the  Thames  Em- 
bankment was  not  to  be  given  to  the  people.  In  Epping 
Forest,  in  the  New  Forest,  wherever  there  was  a  chance  of 
the  people  getting  a  little  air  and  space,  he  and  a  few  of  his 
friends  had  to  fight  a  battle  against  a  Liberal  administration. 
He  expressed  a  malicious  pleasure  when  Gladstone  and 
Disraeli  had  a  fierce  passage  over  the  subject,  and  "  offered 
a  few  words  of  mediation  between  such  great  allies  "  now 
that  their  grand  alliance  "  seemed  to  be  broken  up."  His 
own  proposal  was  that  the  regulation  of  the  parks  should  be 
left  to  the  police.  If  that  were  done  the  breach  between  the 
great  chiefs  could  be  healed  and  they  might  again  "  kiss 
and  be  friends." 

The  core  of  the  disagreement  between  Gladstone  and  Har- 
court was  public  right  v.  Crown  right.     Gladstone  agreed, 
that  the  people  should  hold  meetings  in  the  Park,  as  other- 
wise they  would  have  to  hold  them  in  the  town  to  the 


238  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1872 

inconvenience  of  the  rest  of  the  public,  but  he  was  against 
the  statutory  right  of  meeting.  In  the  end  Harcourt  and  the 
other  critics  got  modifications  in  the  Bill  which  met  their 
case,  and  the  rules  were  withdrawn.  However,  during  the 
Recess,  new  rules  which  had  not  been  approved  by  the 
House  were  issued,  and  under  them  a  group  of  men  were 
prosecuted  in  November  in  connection  with  a  meeting  in 
Hyde  Park.  Thereupon  the  storm  broke  out  with  redoubled 
fury.  Harcourt  was  at  Trinity  College,  but  he  thundered  in 
The  Times,  and  carried  on  agitation  in  private.  To  Dilke 
he  writes  : 

Harcourt  to  Dilke. 

CAMBRIDGE,  1872. — The  issuing  of  the  Rules  in  the  Recess  is  a 
gross  breach  of  faith.  I  don't  know  whether  I  told  you  that  in 
July  Ayrton  gave  me  a  copy  of  the  Rules  (substantially  the  same  as 
the  present).  I  showed  them  to  Forster  who  professed  to  be  shocked 
and  disgusted  at  them.  They  were  quashed  by  the  Cabinet  and  at 
F.'s  instance.  I  allowed  the  matter  therefore  to  drop  instead  of  as 
I  intended  bringing  it  before  the  House  of  Commons.  The  Rules 
being  thus  withdrawn  when  Parliament  was  sitting  are  reproduced 
as  soon  as  it  rises. 

I  have  written  to  Forster  on  the  subject.  The  matter  is  a  delicate 
one  as  so  much  of  it  passed  in  private,  but  I  must  wait  till  I  hear 
from  F.  and  see  what  happens  on  the  summonses  on  Monday. 

A  few  days  later  he  writes  again  to  Dilke  : 

I  have  sent  a  second  letter  to  The  Times  setting  forth  a  semi- 
legal view  against  the  Rules,  but  I  fear  it  is  not  water-tight.  Never- 
theless the  Rules  are  done  for  and  Ayrton  too,  whatever  becomes 
of  the  legal  decision.  I  have  a  letter  from  Lord  Russell  in  a  great 
state  of  exultation  at  the  row.  He  says  "  there  never  was  a  Govern- 
ment towards  which  distrust  was  more  justifiable  and  of  all  its 
members  Ayrton  is  the  least  trustworthy."  Don't  you  think  some- 
thing might  be  done  in  the  way  of  getting  up  big  petitions  all  over 
London  for  the  removal  of  Ayrton.  If  a  few  hundred  thousand 
signatures  were  got  and  sent  in  to  Gladstone  it  would  have  a  good 
effect. 

The  Hyde  Park  case  went  to  appeal,  and  the  Court  affirmed 
the  conviction  ;  but  the  agitation  which  Harcourt,  Peter 
Rylands,  Dilke  and  others  carried  on  during  the  winter  had 
its  reward.  When  Parliament  met  new  rules  were  laid  on 
the  table  by  the  Home  Secretary.  The  rules  admitted 


i872]  DISLIKES   THE   BALLOT  239 

the  right  of  delivering  public  addresses  in  Hyde  Park  without 
any  previous  formalities,  so  long  as  they  were  held  within 
certain  limits.  With  this  concession  Harcourt  practically 
withdrew  any  imputation  he  might  have  made  on  the  good 
faith  of  the  Government.  He  had  won  a  conspicuous 
victory,  and  was  disposed  to  be  quite  amiable,  even  to 
Ayrton. 

In  another  case  Harcourt  had  a  complete  and  deserved 
victory.  The  old  question  of  the  Crown  rights  in  regard  to 
the  reclaimed  land  at  the  western  end  of  the  Thames  Em- 
bankment was  revived  and  embodied  by  Lowe  in  a  Bill. 
Harcourt,  standing  for  the  public  rights  in  the  matter, 
moved  its  rejection  and  secured  its  defeat. 

He  was  less  successful  in  two  other  directions  during  the 
Session.  They  were  directions  in  which  he  had  always  been 
out  of  the  modern  current  of  Liberalism  and  was  entirely 
unrepentant.  Even  when  arguing  for  reform  in  the  Cam- 
bridge Union  he  had  opposed  the  ballot,  and  on  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Bill  of  1872  he  showed  no  sympathy  with  the 
measure,  though  he  took  an  active  part  in  modifying  its 
clauses.  Harcourt  only  differed  from  the  majority  in  ex- 
pressing his  dislike  of  a  Bill  which  had  few  enthusiastic 
friends.  "  It  became  law,"  says  the  Annual  Register  of 
that  year,  "  in  spite  of  the  all  but  unanimous  hostility  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  the  secret  disapproval  of  the  House  of 
Commons  and  the  indifference  of  the  general  community." 
And  no  Act  ever  passed  probably  had  a  more  unchal- 
lenged success  in  operation.  The  same  may  almost  be  said 
of  Brace's  famous  Licensing  Act  of  the  same  year  which 
among  other  things  put  an  end  to  the  scandal  of  the  un- 
limited hours  of  the  public-houses.  Thousands  of  poor 
women  in  the  land  had  reason  to  bless  a  measure  that  sent 
their  husbands  home  at  some  time  before  the  morning. 
Harcourt,  however,  would  have  no  terms  with  what  he 
regarded  as  an  interference  with  personal  liberty,  and  in  his 
speech  (December  30,  1872)  to  his  constituents  at  the 
/Oxford  Town  Hall,  after  his  colleague,  Cardwell,  had  given 
his  blessing  to  the  Act,  he  denounced  it  with  uncompromisng 


240  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1872 

vigour.     In  the  midst  of  an  eloquent  and  generally  sound 
plea  for  liberty,  he  said : 

We  no  longer  prescribe  the  course  of  trade  by  Act  of  Parliament, 
but  it  seems  we  are  to  establish  protective  prohibitory  duties  upon 
,  the  habits  of  the  people.  We  have  removed  religious  tests  and  now 
we  are  to  have  Thirty-nine  Articles  for  the  Tavern.  The  policy  of 
the  Liberal  party  has  been  for  generations  a  policy  of  emancipation 
from  restriction  and  if  it  is  now  to  begin  to  forge  fresh  fetters  for 
the  free  I  will  have  nothing  to  say  to  such  a  perversion.  ...  I 
don't  admire  a  grand -maternal  Government  which  ties  nightcaps 
on  a  grown-up  nation  by  Act  of  Parliament.  I  am  against  putting 
people  to  bed  who  want  to  sit  up.  I  am  against  forbidding  a  man 
to  have  a  glass  of  beer  if  he  wants  a  glass  of  beer.  I  am  against 
public -house  restriction  and  park  regulations.  I  don't  approve 
Mr.  Ayrton  making  it  a  misdemeanour  to  use  soap  in  bathing.  I 
am  against  sending  people  to  prison  for  disclosing  their  votes.  .  .  . 

It  is  good  boisterous  fun,  but  it  reads  a  little  hollow  to-day, 
and  the  author  of  the  Local  Option  Bill  came  in  time  to  see 
how  hollow  it  was. 


CHAPTER  XII 
IN   OFFICE 

Social  Life — Lady  Waldegrave — Log  of  the  Loulou — Law  of  Entail 
— Irish  Universities  Bill — Friendship  with  Disraeli — The 
Alabama  Arbitration — The  Trade  Unions — Gas- Workers' 
Strike — The  Law  of  Conspiracy — Harcourt  Solicitor-General 
— Objection  to  Knighthood — Economy  and  the  Estimates. 

IN  1870  Harcourt  had  lost  the  most  cherished  link  with 
his  undergraduate  days  through  the  death  of  Julian 
Fane,  and  in  the  following  year  he  sustained  another 
heavy  personal  berearement.  His  father,  who  had  spent 
the  last  ten  years  of  his  li'fe  in  the  pursuit  of  his  scientific 
studies  at  Nuneham,  died  at  an  advanced  age,  leaving  his 
elder  son  Edward  to  succeed  to  the  estates.  The  political 
differences  between  the  two  brothers  did  not  interrupt  their 
friendly  intercourse.  They  sat  on  opposite  sides  of  the 
House,  after  1878,  the  elder  then  representing  the  County 
of  Oxfordshire  in  the  Conservative  interest ;  but,  in  spite 
of  the  note  of  ostracism  struck  by  Edward  at  the  time  of 
his  brother's  election  for  Oxford  City,  he  remained  on  cordial 
personal  terms  with  him,  was  obviously  proud  of  his  achieve- 
ments, and  never  failed  to  consult  him  on  business  affairs 
affecting  Nuneham  and  questions  such  as  the  family  settle- 
ments upon  the  sisters.  Harcourt's  own  life  in  these  years, 
as  will  have  been  apparent  from  what  has  gone  before,  had 
been  extraordinarily  full.  Few  men  had  touched  the 
public  affairs  of  the  time  at  more  points  or  flung  themselves 
into  the  current  of  controversy  with  more  enjoyment.  His 
political  work,  vast  as  it  was  in  bulk,  only  represented  one 

241  R 


242  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1873 

phase  of  his  many-sided  activities.  His  work  at  the  Parlia- 
mentary Bar  was  increasing,  and  he  carried  out  his  duties 
at  Cambridge  with  the  whole-hearted  enthusiasm  that  he 
seemed  able,  from  his  abundant  resources,  to  put  into  any 
task  that  he  undertook.  Fortunately  the  delicacy  of  con- 
stitution with  which  he  began  life  had  disappeared,  though 
he  had  not  yet  assumed  those  Falstaffian  proportions  which 
marked  him  in  later  years  and  were  the  delight  of  the  cari- 
caturists. Apart  from  an  attack  of  scarlet  fever  in  the 
beginning  of  1872,  he  had  enjoyed  good  health,  and  he  took 
his  pleasures  with  the  same  high  spirits  that  he  took  his 
work  and  his  innumerable  combats. 

The  chief  of  those  pleasures  centred  around  the  son  who 
embodied  the  memories  of  his  brief  domestic  happiness. 
Wherever  he  went  Loulou  went  with  him,  and  the  child 
became  the  petted  associate  of  half  the  public  men  of  the 
time.  In  two  homes  the  father  and  son  were  especially 
welcome.  Through  Cornewall  Lewis,  Harcourt  had  become 
an  intimate  friend  of  Lord  and  Lady  de  Grey  (afterwards 
the  Marquis  and  Marchioness  of  Ripon),  and  on  the  death 
of  Mrs.  Harcourt  the  latter  took  a  maternal  interest  in 
father  and  son.  Lady  Ripon  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
women  of  her  generation.  Afflicted  for  many  years  by  a 
disfiguring  ailment,  she  appeared  little  in  the  public  eye, 
but  privately  she  exercised  a  powerful  influence  upon  many 
public  men  in  the  Liberal  party,  notably  Harcourt,  G.  J. 
(afterwards  Lord)  Goschen  and  W.  E.  Forster.  She  held 
very  advanced  views,  and  applied  to  all  issues  a  singularly 
rigorous  and  clearly  defined  code  of  principles,  and  until 
she  left  England  in  1880  on  the  appointment  of  her  husband 
as  Viceroy  of  India  no  one  was  more  constantly  consulted 
by  Harcourt  on  public  affairs  than  she  was.  He  did  not 
always  act  on  her  advice — for  example,  she  was  later  strongly 
opposed  to  his  support  of  a  Harrington  leadership  against 
Gladstone — but  much  that  he  did  owed  its  inspiration  to 
her  counsel.  Her  kindness  was  not  merely  political.  From 
his  earliest  years  she  largely  took  charge  of  Harcourt's  son, 
who  found  a  second  home  in  her  household  both  in  London 


i873l  AT   STRAWBERRY   HILL  243 

and  at  Studley  Royal,  the  family  seat  in  Yorkshire,  where 
he  spent  many  of  his  holidays. 

Another  household  in  which  Harcourt  was  a  constant 
visitor  in  these  years  was  that  of  the  Countess  Waldegrave. 
After  the  death  of  her  third  husband,  George  Granville 
Harcourt,  she  had  married  Chichester-Fortescue  (afterwards 
Lord  Carlingford),  a  high-minded  if  not  very  distinguished 
politician  who  had  filled  the  post  of  Chief  Secretary  during 
Gladstone's  first  Irish  legislative  period  and  then  succeeded 
Bright  at  the  Board  of  Trade.  On  leaving  Nuneham  the 
Countess  had  resumed  her  residence  at  Horace  Walpole's 
villa  at  Twickenham,  Strawberry  Hill,  and  here,  in  the 
strange  confection  of  sham  Gothic  that  Walpole  had  created, 
and  to  which  she  largely  added,  she  set  up  the  most  famous 
political  salon  of  the  period.  With  the  disappearance  of 
Lady  Palmerston  from  the  stage,  she  became  the  leading 
hostess  of  the  Liberal  party,  and  the  week-end  gatherings 
at  Strawberry  Hill,  where  the  Saturday  night  dinner  party 
not  infrequently  numbered  fifty  guests,  became  an  important 
factor  in  the  political  life  of  the  time.  To  her  table  came 
all  the  brightest  wits  and  sharpest  tongues  of  the  period, 
but  the  most  constant  member  of  her  entourage  was  Harcourt, 
for  whom  from  the  Nuneham  days  she  had  conceived  a  great 
friendship,  whose  marriage  she  had  done  much  to  make 
possible  and  in  whose  political  career  she  took  an  interest 
second  only  to  that  of  her  husband. 

Lady  Harcourt,  who  remembers  the  generous  hospitality 
of  Strawberry  Hill,  has  sent  me  some  of  her  recollections. 
She  writes  : 

Sant,  the  artist,  adorned  the  walls  of  the  long  room  built  in  imita- 
tion of  the  one  at  Nuneham,  with  portraits  of  fair  ladies,  statesmen, 
diplomatists,  a  somewhat  flamboyant  presentment  of  the  hostess 
leaning  out  of  a  bower  of  roses  holding  pride  of  place  on  the  walls. 
Guests  pouring  in  at  all  times  and  seasons  were  received  not  only 
by  the  hostess,  but  met  by  Miss  Braham,  Lady  Waldegrave 's  niece 
(now  Lady  Strachie),  who  sorted  out,  combined  a  shifting  mass  of 
nationalities  with  different  aims,  different  opinions,  different  wishes, 
with  a  tact  and  gentleness  which  all  admired  and  some  still  remember. 
There  came  many  ambassadors  and  envoys,  there  came  important 
Liberal  statesmen,  not  all  congenial  spirits,  and  the  ways  for  these 


244  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1873 

were  not  always  paths  of  pleasantness.  There  came  selections  of 
relatives  from  former  marriages,  whose  exact  kinship  to  the  hostess 
it  was  difficult  to  unravel,  but  who  mixed  more  or  less  harmoniously 
with  the  crowd. 

There  was  Lady  Moles  worth,  noisy  and  good  humoured,  who 
wondered  if  one  could  know  anybody  living  on  the  wrong  side  of 
Oxford  Street,  and  who,  advised  of  a  more  moderate  dressmaker 
than  her  own,  asked  doubtfully,  "  Do  you  think  cheap  gowns  suc- 
ceed ? "  She  herself  lived  in  Eaton  Place  where  she  entertained 
carefully  and  successfully.  Mr.  A.  Hayward,  the  well-known  essay- 
ist, diner-out,  raconteur,  an  habitud  of  both  ladies'  houses,  notes 
in  his  Selected  Essays  an  amateur  performance  at  Lady  Moles  worth's 
of  Alfred  de  Musset's  II  faut  qu'une  porte  soit  ouverte  ou  fermec 
before  a  distinguished  audience  comprising  both  French  and  English 
royalty.  There  was  Mrs.  Cornwallis  West  in  the  hey-day  of  her 
youth  and  beauty,  singing  Irish  songs  and  brimming  over  with  animal 
spirits.  There  was  Bernal  Osborne,  intensely  witty  and  amusing 
as  long  as  he  could  provide  himself  with  a  butt  whose  sufferings  he 
enjoyed,  although  the  victim  writhed.  All  this  within  the  natural 
everyday  setting  of  house,  garden,  grounds.  Set  balls,  set  festivities 
came  at  intervals,  when  perhaps  masked  figures  and  fancy  dress 
enriched  the  summer  night. 

A  great  feature  of  that  world  was  association  with  the  Orleans 
princes  and  their  families — the  Due  d'Aumale,  the  Comte  de  Paris, 
the  Due  de  Chartres,  who  enlivened  their  exile  with  other  revels 
— dinners  at  Orleans  House  near  by,  ffites  then  called  "  breakfasts," 
beginning  with  a  fancy  fair  of  booths  with  contents  to  tempt  the 
unwary  and  ending  with  dance  and  supper.  The  Due  d'Aumale, 
brilliant  in  conversation,  courtly  in  manners,  a  lover  of  literature 
although  a  soldier,  was  a  stately  figure,  and  to  Strawberry  Hill 
and  its  mistress  a  loyal  friend. 

Of  course  neither  then  nor  at  any  time  was  there  any  one  society. 
Great  ladies  were  certainly  a  law  unto  themselves,  and  allowed  access 
to  their  inner  circle  on  conditions  framed  entirely  without  trace  of 
constitutional  right — a  despotism  tempered  only  by  their  smiles. 
There  was  another  set  more  amiable  but  still  holding  aloof  from 
Strawberry  Hill  by  virtue  of  old  tradition — one  tradition  being 
oddly  enough  that  of  the  breakfast  table,  only  some  accidental 
condition  of  health  being  allowed  to  interfere  between  hostess  and 
guests  at  that  well-spread  board,  to  which  ladies  came  attired  in 
what  now  seems  the  strange  array  of  silk  gowns  and  short  kid  gloves. 
But  at  Strawberry  Hill  all  broke  their  fast  when  and  where  they 
pleased  ;  neither  hostess  nor  lady  guests  usually  appearing  until 
a  later  period  in  the  day. 

The  joyous  life,  of  which  this  is  a  poor  description,  went  on 
season  after  season,  but  the  end  was  sudden,  tragic.  Lady  Walde- 
grave  died  unexpectedly  on  July  15,  1879,  after  a  few  days'  illness. 


1873]          CRUISE  IN  THE  LOULOU  245 

Unsettled  affairs  demanded  prompt  action.  To  the  less  intimate 
part  of  the  social  world  all  came  like  the  fall  of  the  curtain  after  a 
successful  comedy  ;  no  sound  of  speech,  no  echo  of  gay  song  broke 
the  utter  stillness. 

Friends  mourned  truly  and  deeply,  grateful  for  past  kind  deeds, 
sorrowing  for  valued  companionship.  To  the  one  chief  mourner, 
her  husband,  the  light  of  life  went  out,  nor  was  it  ever  rekindled  in 
the  sad  days  that  remained  to  him. 

For  his  main  recreation  in  these  strenuous  years  Harcourt 
still  went  to  Scotland,  staying  sometimes  with  the  Duke  of 
^/Sutherland  at  Dunrobin  Castle,  at  other  times  with  the  Duke 
of  Argyll  'at  Inverary,  the  Min+r>c  at  Hawick,  Sir  John 
Fowler,  or  Millais.  Occasionally  he  exchanged  shooting 
for  yachting,  as  in  1872  when  he  bought  a  small  schooner 
of  15  tons  which  he  christened  the  Loulou,  in  which  he  cruised 
during  the  autumn  with  his  son,  aged  nine,  and  a  crew  of 
two.  Of  this  adventure,  Harcourt  wrote  a  comic  frag- 
ment of  history,  a  log  of  the  Loulou,  and  the  late  Lord 
Harcourt  supplied  me  with  the  following  reminiscences : 

There  was  one  small  cabin  which  served  us  as  saloon  and  sleeping 
quarters,  with  a  small  hatch  opening  to  the  fo 'castle  through  which 
our  food  (of  a  primitive  character)  was  handed. 

One  night  we  anchored  in  the  Bay  of  Glenelg — N.  of  Sound  of 
Sleat — in  calm  weather.  In  the  night  it  blew  a  gale  from  the  S.W. 
and  the  Loulou  was  blown  ashore  on  the  shingle.  We  scrambled 
out  on  to  the  beach,  went  to  the  inn  at  2  a.m.,  could  make  no  one 
hear,  so  opened  a  window  and  occupied  an  empty  room  for  the  night, 
to  the  great  dismay  of  a  maid-servant  who  found  us  in  the  morning. 

We  got  the  yacht  off  the  shore  that  day,  apparently  undamaged, 
and  dredged  for  our  lost  anchor  and  cable,  which  we  recovered. 
Later  in  the  same  autumn  we  crossed  the  Minch — north  of  Skye 
— for  Harris,  to  stay  with  Lord  and  Lady  Ripon,  who  were  living 
at  Lord  Dunmore's,  Fincastle,  N.  Harris. 

On  the  way  over  we  sprang  a  leak  in  a  heavy  wind,  and  the  crew 
of  two,  W.  V.  H.,  and  I  were  pumping  all  night  to  keep  her  afloat. 

When  we  reached  East  Tar  bet,  Harris,  in  the  morning,  she  was 
down  to  the  deck  line,  and  to  prevent  her  from  sinking  we  ran  her 
ashore  on  some  sand  at  low  water.  We  then  went  on  to  the  Ripons. 

Later  the  Loulou  was  repaired  and  refloated  and  taken  back  to 
Kyle  Akin,  but,  being  discovered  to  be  thoroughly  rotten,  she  was 
abandoned  there  and  subsequently  looted  and  broken  up  by  the 
inhabitants  without  protest  by  W.  V.  H. 

It  was  during  one  of  these  visits  to  Scotland  that  Harcourt 


246  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1873 

was  seized  with  a  new  passion.  The  game  of  lawn  tennis 
had  just  become  the  popular  novelty  in  outdoor  games,  and 
Millais  in  his  autumn  holiday  at  Erigmore  had  taken  it  up 
with  boyish  enthusiasm. 

He  was  quite  fierce  in  his  determination  to  master  the  game 
(writes  J.  G.  Millais  in  the  Life  of  his  father),  the  more  so  as  we  were 
expecting  visitors  who  probably  knew  something  of  it  already. 
They  came  at  last — Sir  William  Harcourt,  Sir  Henry  James,  and 
my  uncle  George  Stibbard — and  were  so  taken  with  the  game  that 
they  too  must  become  proficient,  or  perish  in  the  attempt.  In 
deadly  earnest,  then,  they  set  to  work.  The  balls  flew  about  in  the 
most  lively  and  erratic  way,  and,  as  to  the  rules,  nobody  knew 
exactly  what  they  meant,  and  nobody  cared  so  long  as  his  interpre- 
tation was  upheld.  The  thing  was  to  get  this  interpretation  accepted 
by  the  adversaries,  and  to  this  end  the  game  was  stopped  again  and 
again,  until  one  or  other  of  the  opponents  gave  way.  Never  was 
heard  such  an  array  of  arguments  as  a  disputed  "  fault  "  would 
draw  forth  from  that  able  lawyer,  Lord  James,  or  such  a  torrent 
of  eloquence  as  the  great  leader  of  the  Liberal  party  let  fall  now  and 
again  in  imploring  his  host  and  partner  to  keep  clear  of  that  "  horrid 
net,"  and  never  did  the  host  himself  go  to  work  in  more  fiery  mood 
than  at  this  new  plaything  that  had  caught  his  fancy.  For  hours 
together  the  game  went  on  in  this  absurd  fashion,  the  genial  banter 
of  the  combatants  keeping  us  all  in  fits  of  laughter  as  we  sat  and 
watched  the  performance. 

In  the  meantime,  largely  at  the  instance  of  Lady  Ripon, 
Harcourt  had  consented  to  a  separation  from  his  son,  who 
was  sent  to  a  private  school  at  Eastbourne,  more  with  a  view 
to  his  health  than  his  education.  The  first  news  from  thence 
Harcourt  conveys  to  Dilke  in  the  following  note  early  in 
1873. 

Loulou  is  overcome  with  joy  and  gratitude  at  the  stamps.  He 
has  only  been  at  school  a  fortnight,  and  has  been  elected  by  the  boys 
(apparently  a  purely  democratic  performance)  to  be  "  head  of  the 
War  Office,"  a  mysterious  office  of  a  Vehmgericht  character  which 
determines  who  shall  fight  and  is  generally  a  sort  of  Prime  Minister - 
ship  of  the  school — having  no  relation,  I  am  happy  to  say,  to  acquire- 
ments of  any  description.  You  may  imagine  how  delighted  I  am 
that  he  should  be  the  popular  leader  at  once — Voild  qui  marche.  .  .  . 

A  few  scraps  from  his  correspondence  at  this  time  will  give 
the  flavour  of  his  intercourse  with  his  friends  of  the  other 
sex.  Writing  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby  (May  1876),  he  says  : 


i873]         BRIGHT   AND   THE   BISHOP  247 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  Sunday  evening. — .  .  .  You  read  the 
Examiner,  don't  you  ?  It  is  the  organ  of  the  enlightened  philoso- 
phers. Will  you  be  good  enough  to  look  at  a  poem  in  that  of  May  17 
called  "  Dirae  or  the  Saviour  of  Society  "  by  Swinburne  ?  Will  you 
teach  it  to  your  daughter  ?  Will  you  even  read  it  aloud  to  me  ? 
That  is  the  sort  of  argument  I  like.  It  is  short,  compendious,  un- 
answerable. Depend  upon  it,  we  learn  more  from  our  children  than 
they  do  from  us.  That  is  the  use  of  having  them.  You  know  the 
saying,  Tous  les  -pvejuges  sont  respectables.  Permit  me  to  add, 
Toutes  les  philosophies  sont  detestables. 

To  Lady  Dilke  he  writes  : 

1873.  .  .  .  My  wretched  memory  conveyed  to  you  an  imperfect 
version  of  the  lines  which  you  so  much  appreciated.  I  send  you  the 
correct  card.  They  are  from  the  "  Progress  of  Man  "  in  the  Anti- 
Jacobin. 

Of  Whist  or  Cribbage  mark  the  amusing  game, 
The  partners  changing  but  the  sport  the  same  ; 
Else  would  the  Gamester's  anxious  ardour  cool, 
Dull  every  deal  and  stagnate  every  pool — 
Yet  must  one  man  with  one  unceasing  wife 
Play  the  long  rubber  of  connubial  life. 

Remember  this  in  the  long  evenings  of  double  dummy. 
Referring  to  the  death  of  Samuel  Wilberforce,  Bishop  of 
Oxford,  he  says  in  a  letter  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby  (July  1873)  : 

.  .  .  Alas  for  our  poor  Bishop.  He  was  a  finished  Philistine. 
Did  you  ever  hear  the  story  of  Bright  taking  him  by  the  lappel  of 
his  purple  coat  and  saying,  "  Bishop,  is  this  the  proper  thing,  purple 
and  fine  linen  ?  "  to  which  he  replied,  "  No,  Mr.  Bright,  it  is  meant 
to  show  you  that  the  Church  should  always  be  inviolate."  He  always 
seemed  to  me  to  have  had  a  splendid  nature  debauched  by  society — 
or  just  an  angel  who  had  been  too  much  about  town.  He  was  an  un- 
happy man,  but  happy  in  dying  without  knowing  it.  How  much 
to  be  wished  I  think  by  all  in  spite  of  the  Litany !  It  will  be  a  great 
shock  to  Granville  who  has  a  tender  heart,  and  especially  to  Glad- 
stone who  is  always  meditating  a  retraite  and  is  like  the  Trappist 
digging  his  own  grave — barring  the  silence.  .  .  . 

II 

With  the  close  of  the  session  of.  1872.  the  Gladstone  Minis- 
try had  shot  its  bolt.  It  had  achieved  an  unequalled  record 
of  first-class  legislation,  but  its  popularity  had  largely  dis- 
appeared, and  the  seeds  of  internal  disruption  were  abund- 
antly present.  Not  the  least  of  its  afflictions  was  the  group 


248  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1873 

of  brilliant  but  equivocal  supporters  below  the  gangway, 
Harcojirt,  Fawcejtt,  Dilke,  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice.  and  Henry 
Jame^all  of  whom,  and  chiefly  Harcourt,  had  been  liberal 
in  inflicting  the  faithful  wounds  of  friendship.  In  his 
customary  New  Year's  speech  at  Oxford  on  January  i, 
1873,  he  was  less  critical  of  his  leaders  than  he  had  been  in 
the  speech  on  the  Bruce  Act  two  years  before.  He  devoted 
himself  mainly  to  the  position  of  agriculture  and  to  the 
subject  of  agricultural  wages,  developing  the  attack  on  the 
law  of  entail  which  he  had  made  at  the  Social  Science  Con- 
gress, and  showing  how  that  mischievous  custom  encumbered 
the  owner,  impoverished  the  soil,  and  prevented  the  farmers 
from  putting  capital  into  their  farms.  Another  hindrance 
to  production  was  the  excess  of  ground  game  : 

What  would  you  think  (he  said)  if,  when  a  corn  factor  leased 
premises  for  his  trade,  his  landlord  required  that  he  should  always 
keep  a  few  hundred  rats  in  his  granary  ?  But  the  rats  would  not  be 
more  injurious  in  the  granary  than  are  hares  and  rabbits  among  the 
crops.  What  would  you  think  if  a  dairyman  were  compelled  to  keep 
a  stock  of  cats  among  the  cream  ?  Or  the  butchers  to  keep  a  constant 
supply  of  flies  among  the  meat  ? 

Writing  to  Spencer  Butler  who,  following  those  speeches, 
had  sent  him  "  a  plea  in  favour  of  the  silver  shrines  of  the 
real  property  law,"  Harcourt  bade  him  have  no  fear.  "  It 
is  as  little  likely  that  there  will  be  any  substantial  Land 
Reform  undertaken  by  the  present  Government,  or  the 
present  Parliament,  as  that  I  shall  be  S.-G. (Solicitor-General). 
The  great  motto  in  life  is  patience.  I  don't  expect  we  shall 
do  any  more  good  till  we  have  had  the  fallow  of  a  short  Tory 
Government  to  clear  the  ground.  Then  something  may 
be  accomplished  by  the  next  Liberal  administration." 
And  a  few  days  later,  in  answer  to  another  letter  from  Butler, 
he  says  : 

STRATFORD  PLACE,  Saturday. — What  I  practically  want  is  that 
tenants  for  life  should  not  be  hampered  or  limited  in  charging  or 
borrowing,  or  selling  for  the  sake  of  the  improvement  of  the  estate. 
This  is  the  real  evil  which  to  a  certain  degree  retards  improved 
cultivation.  How  can  a  man  who  has  six  children,  and  who  knows 
the  estate  is  all  to  go  to  the  eldest  son,  lay  out  on  the  land  the  money 


i873]         IRISH   UNIVERSITIES   BILL  249 

he  might  save.  He  must  keep  it  for  the  younger  children,  or  they 
will  starve.  This  was  the  case  at  Nuneham.  The  power  of  charging 
under  the  entail  had  been  long  ago  exhausted.  My  father  was 
obliged  to  save  all  he  could,  and  therefore  could  not  improve  the 
estate.  This  is  the  real  mischief.  Is  not  the  practical  remedy  to 
give  to  tenant  for  life  all  the  power  for  the  purpose  of  improvement 
of  the  soil  (and  for  no  other)  which  owners  in  fee  would  have. 

As  you  know,  tenant  for  life  now,  if  he  borrows  must  pay  7  per 
cent,  to  replace  capital  in  twenty-five  years.  Whereas  he  might 
borrow  as  owner  in  fee  at  4  or  4^  per  cent.  This  is  done  to  protect 
the  inheritance,  but  in  fact  the  growing  wealth  of  the  country  is  the 
true  protection  of  the  inheritance. 

If  you  lay  out  ^10  an  acre  to-day,  you  may  be  sure,  whatever 
becomes  of  your  improvement  (whether  it  is  worn  out  or  not)  the 
land  itself  will  be  worth  £10  more  twenty-five  years  hence.  So  the 
protection  is  really  superfluous. 

Tell  me  how  you  can  free  tenant  for  life  completely  for  land  im- 
provement purposes  only,  and  leave  him  tied  up  not  to  waste  the 
estate  for  gambling,  racing  and  other  things.  You  need  never  fear 
a  man  being  a  spendthrift  on  improvements. 

The  new  Session  opened  with  a  formal  attack  by  Harcourt 
on  the  question  of  public  expenditure.  In  a  speech  of 
weighty  criticism  he  moved  a  resolution  (February  18) 
couched  in  the  historic  formula  that  the  national  expenditure 
has  increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be  diminished. 
No  sooner,  however,  had  Jacob  Bright,  who  seconded  the 
motion,  sat  down  than  Gladstone  rose  and  took  the  sting 
out  of  the  attack  by  offering  a  Select  Committee  to  consider 
the  state  of  the  public  expenditure,  and  on  this  compromise, 
which  Harcourt  accepted  while  expressing  doubt  as  to 
whether  it  would  serve  the  cause  of  public  economy,  the 
motion  wai  withdrawn.  A  few  weeks  later,  however,  the 
Government  were  on  the  rocks.  Not  for  the  first  or  the 
last  time  it  was  Ireland  that  brought  about  disaster.  Having 
disestablished  the  Irish  Church  and  established  the  principle 
of  tenant  right  in  the  improvement  of  the  soil,  Gladstone 
attacked  the  third  branch  of  what  he  had  called  the  upas 
tree  of  poisonous  ascendancy  in  Ireland.  For  years  the 
grievance  of  the  Catholics  on  the  subject  of  university  educa- 
tion had  perplexed  successive  Governments,  but  no  solution 
had  been  found.  Gladstone  sought  to  remove  it  by  the 


250  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1873 

Irish  Universities  Bill,  which  proposed  to  set  up  a  new  uni- 
versity in  Dublin  in  which  there  were  to  be  no  religious 
tests  either  for  teachers  or  taught,  and  in  which  there  was 
to  be  no  university  teacher  in  theology,  modern  history,  or 
moral  and  mental  philosophy.  The  separate  affiliated 
colleges  might  make  arrangements  for  those  subjects,  but 
the  new  university  would  not  teach  them  directly  and 
authoritatively.  It  was  a  compromise.  It  aimed  at  meeting 
the  grievance  of  Catholic  Ireland  without  offending  the 
prejudices  of  Protestant  England.  Gladstone's  speech  in 
introducing  it  "  threw  the  House  into  a  mesmeric  trance," 
and  if  the  fate  of  the  Bill  could  have  been  settled  offhand 
he  would  have  carried  his  measure. 

But  as  the  debate  proceeded  opposition  grew,  and  though 
Cardinal  Manning  had  urged  acceptance,  the  Irish  hierarchy 
rejected  the  measure  as  the  endowment  of  "  non-Catholic 
and  godless  Colleges."  On  March  10  Harcourt  opened  the 
discussion  by  a  speech  in  advance  of  any  he  had  yet  delivered 
in  its  effect  upon  the  House.  Severe  in  criticism  of  detail, 
he  was  favourable  to  the  substance  of  the  Bill.  He  sup- 
ported it  in  the  hope  that  it  might  be  made  tolerable  in 
Committee,  but  he  described  the  clauses  which  excluded 
theology,  philosophy,  and  modern  history  from  the  curriculum 
of  the  new  university  as  "  the  most  hideous  deformity  ever 
laid  by  an  English  Government  on  the  table  of  the  House." 
,  He  considered  the  whole  scheme  faulty,  but  he  thought  that 

V  the  danger  of  handing  over  the  Government  to  Disraeli  was 
greater  than  any  danger  to  be  feared  from  the  Bill.  The  vote 
was  taken  the  following  night,  when  Disraeli  spoke  till 
midnight  and  Gladstone  followed  him  for  two  hours.  At  two 
In  the  morning  the  Government  were  defeated  by  three  votes, 
and  Gladstone  resigned.  But  Disraeli  refused  to  take  office 
without  a  dissolution,  and  after  some  days  of  negotiation 
Gladstone  resumed  power.  His  troubles,  however,  continued 
to  accumulate.  The  discovery  that  a  sum  of  £800,000  had 
been  irregularly  detained  on  its  way  to  the  Exchequer  and 

j  applied  to  the  service  of  the  telegraphs  led  to  the  enforced 
retirement  of  Lowe  from  the  Treasury,  Monsell  from  the 


i873]        THE  WASHINGTON  TREATY          251 

Post  Office,  and  Ayrton  from  the  Board  of  Works,  all  having 
been  involved  in  this  gross  impropriety. 

in 

Harcourt's  declaration  that  he  would  rather  have  a  Bill 
for  which  he  had  no  enthusiasm  than  run  the  risk  of  a 
Government  of  which  Disraeli  would  be  the  head  did  not 
indicate  any  change  of  attitude  in  the  personal  relations  of 
the  two  men.  Indeed  they  were  at  this  time  in  cordial 
correspondence  on  a  question  to  which  it  is  necessary  to 
return  once  more,  and  finally.  The  long  struggle  over  the 
Alabama  claims  had  at  last  come  to  an  end.  It  had  been 
bitter  and  menacing  throughout,  and  never  more  menacing 
than  in  its  last  phase.  Gladstone  had  taken  up  the  thorny 
problem  where  Disraeli  had  left  it.  As  a  preliminary  a  new 
Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  based  on  the  recommendation  of 
the  Royal  Commission  of  1868,  was  passed,  by  which,  among 
other  things,  it  was  made  an  offence  to  build  a  ship  with 
reasonable  cause  to  believe  that  it  would  be  employed  in 
the  service  of  a  foreign  state  at  war  with  a  friendly  state. 
Harcourt  declared  this  Act  to  be  "  the  best  and  most  com- 
plete law  for  the  enforcement  of  neutrality  in  any  country." 
Following  on  this,  Gladstone  in  1871  sent  a  Commission 
headed  by  Lord  de  Grey  (lyfnrflnfc  of  Ripnn)  to  Washington 
to  arrange  a  treaty  of  arbitration  in  regard  to  the  outstanding 
issues  between  the  two  countries.  The  negotiations'  were 
extraordinarily  difficult,  and  they  were  complicated  by  an 
amazing  memorandum  by  Sumner  to  Fish  in  which  he 
suggested  that  as  Fenianism  in  the  United  States  was 
excited  by  the  proximity  of  the  British  flag  in  Canada,  that 
flag  should  be  withdrawn  from  the  whole  American  hemi- 
sphere, including  the  islands.  Fish,  never  behindhand  in 
extreme  proposals,  added  his  own  modest  hint  that  the 
cession  of  Canada  might  end  the  trouble.  The  real  struggle, 
however,  was  as  to  the  rules  to  be  laid  down  for  the  arbi- 
trators. Certain  of  the  rules  proposed  by  the  United  States 
had  not  been  established  when  England's  alleged  breaches 
of  neutral  obligation  had  been  committed.  Those  breaches 


252  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1873 

had  been  breaches  not  of  international  law,  but  of  English 
municipal  law,  and  it  was  necessary  to  make  the  new  rules 
retro-active  in  order  to  bring  those  breaches  within  the 
scope  of  an  international  tribunal.  This,  however,  was 
conceded,  the  treaty  was  signed,  and  the  Geneva  arbitration 
tribunal,  consisting  of  five  members  named  by  Great  Britain, 
the  United  States,  Switzerland,  Italy,  and  Brazil,  was  agreed 
upon.  At  last  all  the  danger-points  seemed  to  have  been 
passed. 

But  before  the  meeting  of  the  tribunal  the  whole  contro- 
versy flared  up  again  with  astonishing  violence.  The  claim 
put  in  by  the  United  States  to  the  arbitrators  was  not 
limited  to  the  depredations  of  the  Alabama,  the  Florida,  and 
the  Shenandoah.  It  represented  the  full  original  demands 
of  Sumner,  all  the  losses,  individual,  national,  direct,  indirect, 
constructive,  material,  that  could  by  the  most  liberal 
interpretation  be  attributed  to  the  activities  of  the  vessels. 
It  was  not  a  matter  of  millions  ;  it  was  a  matter  of  hundreds 
of  millions.  Gladstone  was  horrified.  "  We  must  be 
insane,"  he  said,  "  to  accede  to  demands  which  no  nation 
with  a  spark  of  honour  or  spirit  left  could  submit  to  even 
at  the  point  of  death."  For  months  the  new  conflict  waxed 
hot  and  hotter,  and  when  the  arbitrators  met  at  Geneva  in 
June  1872  it  seemed  that  they  had  only  met  to  break  up, 
and  Cockburn,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  who  did  not  believe 
in  the  arbitration  though  he  had  been  chosen  as  the  English 
representative,  was  satisfied  that  all  was  well  over.  He 
proposed  an  adjournment  for  eight  months.  Happily 
there  was  a  wiser  man  there.  Adams,  the  United  States 
representative,  saved  the  situation  by  an  act  of  courage 
and  statesmanship  which  is  the  supreme  witness  of  that 
distinguished  man's  wisdom.  In  disregard  of  the  position 
taken  up  by  his  own  Government,  he  arranged  with  his  col- 
leagues on  the  tribunal  to  make  a  spontaneous  declaration 
that  the  American  Government  would  not  press  the  indirect 
claims.  It  was  a  daring  and  brilliant  outflanking  movement. 
It  left  the  diplomatists  at  home  en  I' air  and  the  tribunal  mas- 
ter of  the  field.  The  court  set  to  work  forthwith,  and  in  Sep- 


i873]        ALABAMA    CLAIMS   SETTLED         253 

tember  gave  its  award,  unanimous  in  the  case  of  the  Alabama, 
not  quite  unanimous  in  the  other  cases.  England  was 
called  upon  to  pay  a  gross  sum  of  three  and  a  quarter  millions, 
and  the  world  was  enriched  with  the  most  splendid  prece- 
dent in  all  its  history  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  inter- 
national differences. 

Harcourt  rejoiced  in  the  settlement  of  the  great  contro- 
versy in  which  his  pen  had  played  so  large  a  part.  He  had 
always  been  a  friend  of  arbitration,  believing  "  that  it  was 
for  the  highest  interests  of  civilization  that  the  rule  of 
reason  and  justice  should  be  substituted  for  the  barbarism 
of  war."  But,  like  other  jurists,  both  English  and  American, 
he  was  disquieted  by  the  interpretation  placed  by  the  Geneva 
tribunal  on  the  rules  embodied  in  the  Washington  Treaty. 
There  were  discrepancies  between  the  Foreign  Enlistment 
Act  and  the  rules  which  might  lead  to  serious  difficulties, 
supposing  one  belligerent  demanded  a  judgment  in  our  prize 
court  on  the  basis  of  the  Act  and  the  other  on  the  basis  of 
the  rules.  The  effect  of  the  new  doctrines  as  interpreted  at 
Geneva  would  be  to  make  neutrality  impossible,  and  in  the 
war  of  the  future  every  nation  would  find  it  necessary  to 
range  itself  on  one  side  or  the  other.  He  was  especially 
alarmed  about  the  second  rule,  designed  "  not  to  permit  or 
suffer  either  belligerent  to  make  use  of  its  (the  neutral's) 
ports  or  waters  as  the  basis  of  naval  operations  against  the 
other,  or  for  the  purpose  of  the  renewal  of  military  supplies 
or  arms,  or  the  recruitment  of  men."  This,  Harcourt  held, 
was  extremely  ambiguous,  and  was  published  at  a  moment 
when  we  were  engaged  in  controversy  with  Germany  with 
reference  to  our  dealings  with  France  in  munitions  of  war. 
If  that  rule  was  literally  accepted  the  Germans  had  won 
their  case.  The  Award  interpreted  this  rule  to  the  effect 
that  the  supply  of  coal  in  limited  quantities  converted  a 
neutral  country  into  a  "  base  of  operations  "  because  such 
supplies  would  assist  a  vessel  to  sail.  Thus,  if  a  French 
fleet  watered  or  coaled  at  Heligoland  the  German  Govern- 
ment would  have  claims  against  this  Government  to  the 
extent  of  the  damage  resulting  to  the  Germans.  The  law 


254  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1873 

applied  not  only  to  Aldbamas,  but  to  properly  commissioned 
vessels. 

In  a  letter  to  Harcourt  Disraeli  said  : 

EDWARDS  HOTEL,  February  9,  1873. — It  appears  to  me  that  the 
best  mode  of  meeting  the  case  we  were  talking  about  would  be  for 
an  independent  member  to  give  notice  of  an  Address  to  the  Crown, 
praying  H.M.  not  to  communicate,  etc.,  the  three  rules  to  Foreign 
Powers  without  accompanying  them  with  a  note,  expressing  H.M.'s 
interpretation  of  them. 

This  would  bring  the  whole  affair  into  discussion,  and  we  might 
go  to  the  bottom  of  it. 

Think  of  this  ;   the  motion  would  require  careful  wording. 

Harcourt  in  reply  (February  10)  sent  the  terms  of  an 
Address  to  Disraeli,  but  urged  that  it  was  not  a  case  for  a 
private  member,  but  for  persons  of  the  highest  responsibility 
in  the  House.  He  had  no  predilection  for  his  own  form  of 
words,  and  asked  Disraeli  to  ascertain  the  views  of  Lord 
Cairns  on  the  matter,  as  he  (Harcourt)  had  been  in  agree- 
ment with  him  on  the  Neutrality  Commission.  In  the  end 
the  Address  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  Gathorne  H.  Hardy, 
and  a  prolonged  debate,  in  the  course  of  which  Harcourt 
spoke  at  great  length,  followed  on  March  21.  The  Govern- 
ment, however,  were  hostile,  and  the  Address  was  rejected. 


IV 

At  this  time  another  issue  of  a  domestic  character  engaged 
the  attention  of  Harcourt.  The  hostility  to  the  trade 
unions  had  not  yet  been  overcome,  and  among  the  hostile 
element  were  many  Liberals  of  the  Manchester  school. 
Harcourt  was  not  one  of  them.  He  had  no  passion  for 
the  middle  classes,  but  he  had  a  genuine  affection  for  the 
working  classes.  In  his  Autobiographic  Memories  Frederic 
Harrison  says  : 

I  had  a  good  deal  of  business  with  Harcourjt  when,  with 

leadin 


and  Hughes  and  Mundella,  he  took  a  leading  part  in  the  reform  of 
the  law  of  Trades  Unions.  In  all  these  questions  I  always  found  him 
clear-headed,  courageous,  and  trustworthy.  Of  course,  he  never 
ceased  to  be  the  genuine  aristocrat  at  heart,  both  outwardly  and 


i873]  GAS-STOKERS'   STRIKE  255 

inwardly.  I  remember  him  as  a  friend  of  Maine  and  a  promising 
barrister  in  the  fifties,  when  he  was  at  once  elegant  and  magnificent. 
One  night,  as  we  walked  home  together  from  the  Cosmopolitan,  and 
I  was  full  of  the  Disestablishment  of  the  Church  of  England,  he 
larched  on,  grandly  shouldering  his  cane,  crying  out  in  the  dead  of  the 
night  in  Oxford  Street,  "  Then  I  and  my  people  will  go  forth  into  the 
wilderness  !  "  He  was  always  instinctively  in  the  grand  mood,  which 
was  in  no  way  affected  to  impose  on  others,  but  was  a  native  sense  / 
that  he  was  both  socially  and  intellectually  of  the  order  of  magnates.  *^ 

But,  as  a  magnate,  he  had  a  real  sense  of  the  imperative 
duty  of  the  governing  class  to  do  justice  to  the  working 
classes,  and  he  took  up  the  cause  of  justice  to  the  trade 
'-'unionists  with  enthusiasm.  He  had  endeavoured  unavail- 
ingly  to  raise  the  question  of  the  law  affecting  Labour  in 
the  House  of  Commons  in  1872,  and  with  Henry  James  had 
helped  in  drafting  the  demands  of  the  Trades  Union  Con- 
gress. Later  in  the  year  the  issue  had  assumed  an  urgent 
shape.  There  was  a  strike  of  gas-stokers  employed  by 
the  London  gas  companies  in  November,  and  the  Chartered 
Gas  Company,  when  the  strike  was  most  serious,  summarily 
and  permanently  dismissed  1,400  strikers,  and  five  of  the 
leaders  were  brought  up  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy  at  the 
Central  Criminal  Court  before  Mr.  Justice  Brett,  and  were 
/  sentenced  to  twelve  months  imprisonment.  This  proceeding 
created  indignation,  and  led  to  an  impressive  demonstration 
in  Hyde  Park.  Harcourt  raised  the  question  in  Parliament. 
He  denounced  the  attempt  to  subvert  the  CriminaL-feeEW 

^^"^"^^KS^^B^^v 

Art  of  1877,  which  recognized  the  legality  of 


combination  for  trade  purposes,  by  indictments  "taken 
from  the  rusty  armour  of  the  common  law,"  the  law  of 
conspiracy.  Of  all  civil  contracts,  one  contract  alone 
was  enforced  by  the  cruel  arm  of  the  criminal  law — the 
, /contract  of  master  and  servant.  The  same  law  was  being 
applied  to  merchant  shipping,  and  he  understood  that  at 
Cardiff  men  had  been  committed  to  prison  for  breaking 
their  contract  because  the  ship  in  which  they  were  to  sail 
was  unseaworthy.  He  recalled  a  saying  of  Wilkes's  that  the 
worst  use  to  which  you  could  put  a  man  was  to  hang  him. 
He  thought  that  one  of  the  worst  uses  to  which  you  could 


256  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1873 

put  a  man  was  to  put  him  in  prison.  He  went  on  to  point 
out  that  for  other  breaches  of  contract,  financial  and  other, 
in  which  the  happiness  and  the  fortune  of  many  people  might 
be  affected,  the  offence  was  not  regarded  as  criminal  unless 
fraud  could  be  proved.  Only  in  the  case  of  master  and 
servant  was  the  criminal  law  called  in.  If  that  was  not 
class  legislation  he  did  not  know  what  was. 

The  Attorney-General  (Coleridge)  in  his  reply  took  his 
revenge  on  Harcourt  for  many  old  wounds : 

His  honourable  and  learned  friend  (he  said)  hardly  ever  addressed 
the  House  without  administering  a  lecture  on  our  rashness  and 
inconsideration,  leaving  it,  of  course,  to  be  inferred  that  his  own 
wisdom,  his  calm  and  temperate  view  of  matters  were  above  all 
suspicion  and  all  praise,  leaving  them  to  imagine  that  he  alone 
stood  the  one  faithful  soul  true  to  his  trust,  who  had  warned,  but 
like  Cassandra  in  vain,  the  House  of  Commons  not  to  proceed  on  a 
course  of  legislation  which  experience  had  shown  them  could  lead 
only  to  contempt. 

This  rebuke  was  robbed  of  something  of  its  reality  by 
Coleridge's  agreement  that  the  law  of  conspiracy  needed 
amendment  and  his  suggestion  that  Harcourt,  "  whose 
accuracy,  love  of  detail,  and  ability  to  devote  time  in  a  spirit 
of  self-sacrifice  to  a  difficult  and  intricate  subject  were 
recognized  by  all,"  should  prepare  a  Bill. 

A  few  days  later  Harcourt  brought  forward  his  Bill,  which 
was  backed  by  himself,  Rathbone,  Mundella,  and  Henry 
James.  It  dealt  with  the  law  of  conspiracy  as  it  affected 
trade  combinations  and  the  law  of  master  and  servant. 
It  provided  that  no  prosecution  for  conspiracy  should  be 
instituted  unless  the  offence  was  indictable  by  statute  or 
was  punishable  under  some  statute  with  reference  to  violent 
threats,  intimidation,  or  molestation  ;  that  no  prosecution 
should  be/instituted  without  the  consent  of  one  of  the  law 
officers  of  the  Crown,  and  that  persons  convicted  on  such 
prosecution  should  not  be  liable  to  any  greater  punishment 
than  that  provided  by  law  for  such  cases.  He  explained 
that  the  object  of  the  Bill  was  simply  to  bring  the  law  into 
harmony  with  the  intention  of  the  Criminal  Law  Amendment 


i873]  JOHN   BRIGHT  RETURNS  257 

Act  of  1871.  The  Bill  passed  through  the  House  of  Commons, 
but  was  lost  in  the  House  of  Lords.  As  for  the  five  men 
sentenced  by  Mr.  Justice  Brett,  the  Home  Secretary  ordered 
their  release  after  they  had  served  four  months  of  their 
sentence. 

During  the  summer  and  early  autumn  numerous  changes 
were  made  in  the  Ministry,  which  was  now  pretty  visibly 
sinking.  John  Bright  rejoined  it,  and  Harcourt,  writing  to 

him,  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Bright. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  August  8. —  ...  I  hope  you  will  bring 
much  to  the  Government,  your  health  which  is  the  first  thing  and 
then  your  policy,  and  that  we  shall  feel  your  hand  in  next  year's 
Estimates  and  next  year's  Budget.  A  good  rattling  Budget  such 
as  Gladstone  knows  how  to  propound  and  a  settlement  of  the  2gth 
clause  (which  is  the  most  rubbishy  trifle  that  a  great  party  ever 
squabbled  over)  may  yet  do  something  for  us. 

I  confess  I  am  not  for  "  big  programmes  "  and  "  loud  cries  "  ; 
they  seem  to  me  the  resources  of  advertising  tradesmen  and  bank- 
rupt politicians.  At  present  I  am  sure  they  would  only  revolt  the 
country  and  make  the  business  worse  than  ever. 

I  wish  you  could  get  the  Government  to  address  itself  seriously  to 
the  grievances  of  the  Criminal  Law  Amendment  Act,  the  Master  and 
Servants  Acts,  and  Company  Law. 

These  are  the  sorts  of  things  the  mass  of  the  people  do  care  about 
and  which  have  been  strangely  neglected. 

I  could  not  refrain  from  telling  you  as  one  of  the  passengers  in 
the  water-logged  and  sinking  ship  with  what  pleasure  I  had  learnt 
that  an  experienced  old  pilot,  who  has  weathered  many  a  storm, 
had  gallantly  come  on  board  to  lend  a  hand  at  the  helm  and  the 
pumps. 

If  he  was  not  a  leading  member  of  the  Government  by 
that  time  would  he  come  down  and  pitch  into  them,  wrote 
Chamberlain  to  Harcourt  a  little  later  (September  3)  apropos 
of  the  annual  meeting  of  the  National  Education  League  at 
Birmingham  in  October.  Harcourt  did  not  go,  although 
he  was  not  a  leading  member  of  the  Government  then. 

He  went  to  Scotland  instead  on  a  visit  to  the  Duke  of 
Sutherland  at  Dunrobin  Castle.  There  is  a  record  of  that 
visit  in  some  lines  which  Harcourt  wrote  at  Dunrobin  to 
another  visitor  there,  "  the  daughter  of  two  skies,"  Teresa 
Caracciolo,  who  in  1875  married  Prince  Colonna,  and  became 


258  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1873 

mother  of  Vittoria,  the  wife  of  Prince  Teano.  But  while 
Harcourt  was  stalking  the  deer  and  penning  pretty  compli- 
ments to  his  fellow-guests,  things  were  happening  far  away 
in  London.  A  vacancy  which  he  had  long  been  expected 
to  fill  was  created  in  the  Solicitor-Generalship  by  the 
elevation  of  Coleridge,  the  Attorney-General,  to  the  Bench. 
The  position,  however,  was  given  to  Henry  James,  who, 
in  writing  to  Harcourt  announcing  the  fact,  said  : 

28,  WILTON  PLACE,  Thursday. — I  am  sure  I  sincerely  wish  you 
had  had  this  office  instead  of  me.  You  had  far  higher  political 
claims  and  would  have  made  a  far  better  Law  Officer,  but  as  it  is  I 
hope  that  your  friendship  will  cause  you  to  give  me  your  good 
wishes. 

If  Harcourt  was  disappointed,  his  disappointment  was 
short-lived.  Sir  George  Jessel,  the  new  Attorney-General, 
was  raised  to  the  bench,  and  James  succeeded  him.  Glad- 
stone offered  the  vacant  Solicitor-Generalship  to  Harcourt, 
who  wrote  : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

TRINITY  COLLEGE,  November  13. — I  gladly  accept  the  offer  which 
you  have  been  so  good  as  to  make  to  me.  Your  letter  only  reached 
me  here  this  morning,  where  I  am  engaged  in  delivering  my  annual 
course  of  lectures.  This  must  be  my  apology  for  a  delay  in  my 
answer,  which  I  fear  may  be  inconvenient.  ...  I  shall  of  course 
observe  the  absolute  secrecy  which  you  enjoin.  But  I  shall  be  much 
obliged  if  you  will  allow  your  secretary  to  inform  me  at  the  earliest 
moment  when  I  may  communicate  with  my  friends  at  Oxford — 
as  constituencies  though  gracious  are  apt  to  be  somewhat  jealous 
sovereigns.  .  .  . 

The  Press  naturally  showed  much  interest  in  the  elevation 
of  the  famous  guerrilla  chief  to  the  Ministry  he  had  so  often 
assailed.  The  Spectator  spoke  of  him  as  a  Liberal  Disraeli, 
the  Saturday  Review  observed  that  he  was  thoroughly  sound 
on  the  subject  of  beer,  and  The  Times  delivered  a  homily 
on  Harcourt 's  doctrine  of  Peace,  Retrenchment  and  Reform, 
recalled  me  "  Historicus  "  chapter  in  his  past,  and  congratu- 
lated Gladstone  on  the  magnanimity  he  had  shown  in 
preferring  one  who  had  so  frequently  led  the  opposition  to 
his  policy.  Sir  Henry  Maine  wrote  : 


i873]     BECOMES   SOLICITOR-GENERAL       259 

Sir  H.  Maine  to  Harcourt. 

27,  CORNWALL  GARDENS,  November  17. — You  have  climbed  as  high 
as  a  lawyer  can,  without  sacrificing  your  chance  of  more  than  the 
humble  parliamentary  position  of  most  lawyers.  I  hope  you  will 
do  something  to  restore  the  time  when  the  Crown  Officers  were  a 
real  power  in  the  House  of  Commons. 

Times  are  changed  since  I  taught  you  Greek.  You  will  clearly 
have  to  make  me  something  extremely  swell  some  day,  as  a  mark  of 
my  share  in  giving  you  a  liberal  education. 

To  Dilke,  Harcourt  wrote  his  private  thoughts  on  what 
he  had  done : 

Harcourt  to  Dilke. 

CAMBRIDGE,  November  21,  1873. — I  don't  know  if  I  have  done  a 
very  wise  or  a  very  foolish  thing,  probably  the  latter.  But  it  is 
done,  and  my  friends  must  help  me  to  make  the  best  of  it.  It  was 
a  great  inducement  to  me  the  having  H.  James  as  a  colleague.  I 
could  not  have  gone  into  it  with  the  other  chaps.  .  .  . 

I  feel  like  an  old  bachelor  going  to  leave  his  lodgings  and  to  marry 
a  woman  he  is  not  in  love  with,  in  grave  doubts  whether  he  or  she 
will  suit.  However,  fortunately  she  is  going  to  die  soon  and  we  shall 
soon  again  be  in  opposition  below  the  gangway  and  take  the  seats 
of  T.  Collins  and  J.  Lowther  with  Hoare  for  our  Elcho.  The  Duke 
of  Argyll  says  "  now  I  am  in  harness  I  must  be  driven  in  blinkers," 
but  then  Dukes  are  insolent  by  nature.  Whatever  comes  I  shall 
never  leave  the  House  of  Commons.  I  don't  see  why  I  am  not  to 
be  a  politician  because  I  am  a  Law  Officer.  Law  Officers  used  to  be 
politicians  some  years  ago  till  the  men  of  later  days  degraded  the 
office. 

Replying  to  a  letter  of  congratulations  from  Lord  E. 
Fitzmaurice,  Harcourt  wrote  : 

Harcourt  to  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice. 

Like  you  I  had  begun  to  find  the  responsibility  of  the  gangway 
rather  fatiguing,  and  I  accepted  as  much  out  of  moral  laziness  as 
anything  else.  We  can  always  take  refuge  in  a  Gladstonian  non 
possumus.  One  consolation  is  it  will  not  last  long. 

I  never  felt  more  convinced  that  we  like,  I  will  not  say  the  ship 
of  fools,  but  at  least  the  ship  of  Plimsoll,  Omnes  ibimus  ad  diabolum 
et  Dizzy  non  conquerabit. 

There  was  one  cross  to  be  borne.  Writing  to  Mrs.  Pon- 
sonby,1*  Harcourt  said  : 


260  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1873 

Harcourt  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby. 

STRATFORD  PLACE,  Wednesday. — I  am  on  Friday  next  at  Windsor 
to  undergo  the  last  humiliation  of  being  made  a  Knight ! 

I  went  down  on  my  knees  to  Gladstone  to  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me,  and  asked  him  how  he  would  like  it  himself,  but  he  was  inexor- 
able. I  think  he  had  a  malicious  joy  in  thus  punishing  me  for  all  my 
past  sins.  He  is  so  like  a  woman.  Never  mind,  I  will  be  even  with 
him  yet  and  make  him  a  Lord.  It  is  horribly  vulgar — almost  as 
bad  as  being  a  Baronet — but  it  can't  be  helped.  The  only  thing 
which  would  take  the  taste  out  of  my  mouth — I  mean  the  iron  off 
my  shoulders — would  be  if  you  and  your  husband  would  give  me 
luncheon  in  the  Norman  Tower,  and  show  mercy  to  a  degraded  being. 

Both  he  and  James  pleaded  with  Gladstone  against  the 
knighthood,  but  Gladstone  insisted  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
necessary  to  attach  knighthoods  to  certain  distinguished 
offices  in  order  to  keep  up  the  prestige  of  the  Order.  Har- 
court replied  :  "I  have  a  better  plan  than  that  to  submit 
to  you."  "  What  is  that  ?  "  '  That  you  should  take  a 
knighthood  yourself."  1 

On  his  appointment,  Harcourt  was  returned  unopposed 
for  Oxford.  He  delivered  one  speech  in  which  he  dealt 
largely  with  domestic  questions,  education,  trade  unions, 
and  so  on,  which  brought  him  a  cordial  letter  from  Earl 
Russell  and  another  also  of  peculiar  interest  from  Disraeli 
(December  30)  : 

Disraeli  to  Harcourt. 

HUGHENDEN,  December  30,  1873. — Returning  from  Trentham,  I 
find  on  my  table,  with  pleasure,  a  copy  of  your  speech  on  your 
re-election,  and  from  yourself.  This  gives  me  a  natural,  and  un- 
obtrusive, occasion  to  congratulate  you  on  your  late  appointment 
to  an  eminent  post,  and  which  is  only  the  first  step  in  the  course  of 
high  promotion,  which  you  are  destined  to  run. 

1  His  son  used  to  relate  that  after  he  had  been  knighted  he  received 
a  bill  of  considerable  fees  from  Garter  King-at-Arms.  These  he 
refused  to  pay,  but  added  that  if  Garter  had  attended  the  ceremony 
in  his  tabard  and  blown  a  fanfare  on  a  trumpet,  he  (Harcourt)  would 
have  been  inclined  to  give  him  largesse,  but  none  of  these  things 
had  happened,  and  he  had  received  a  secret  and  silent  accolade. 
He  told  Garter  King-at-Arms  that  if  he  liked  to  submit  the  charters 
upon  which  he  founded  his  claim  to  fees,  he,  as  Law  Officer  of  the 
Crown,  would  advise  him  as  to  the  legality  of  his  claim.  This 
Garter  did  not  think  it  well  to  do,  and  ultimately  a  compromise 
was  effected  for  a  small  sum. 


i873]          LETTERS  FROM  DISRAELI  261 

At  the  beginning  of  the  year,  I  assured  our  dear  friend — and  alas  ! 
my  fair  foe — Lady  Waldegrave,  who  was  always  interested  about 
your  career,  and  sometimes  anxious — that  you  would  surely  mount, 
and  I  was  so  confident  on  this  head,  that  I  mentioned  to  you,  when 
we  were  alone  in  the  summer,  that,  in  my  opinion,  it  would  have  been 
a  great  error,  had  you  accepted  office  on  the  formation  of  the  present 
Government.  In  that  case,  you  could  scarcely  have  founded  the 
parliamentary  reputation,  which  is  the  surest  basis  of  power,  and 
which  has  led  to  your  present  preferment. 

I  regret  that  it  is  not  our  fate  idem  sentire  de  republica,  which  is 
said  to  be  the  most  powerful  element  of  friendship,  but  personal 
sympathy  and  similar  tastes  are  strong  bonds,  and  I  heartily  hope 
that  in  our  instance  they  will  always  preserve  for  me  a  friendship 
which  I  appreciate,  and  a  friend  whom  I  greatly  regard. 

There  is  a  certain  note  of  cordiality  and  intimacy  in 
Harcourt's  communications  with  Disraeli  which  contrast 
with  the  severely  official  correspondence  at  this  time  with 
Gladstone.  It  was  not,  as  the  Spectator  suggested,  that  they 
were  political  birds  of  a  feather,  but  that  they  shared  each 
other's  mundane  interests  and  each  enjoyed  the  other's  wit. 
In  the  previous  August,  Harcourt,  in  sending  a  sketch  of 
Pitt  (still  at  Hughenden)  to  Disraeli,  wrote  : 

LONDON,  August  16,  1873. — I  despatched  by  train  the  sketch  of 
Pitt,  which  I  think  is  spirited  and  probably  like.  It  has  the  con- 
sciousness of  superiority  about  the  look,  and  justifies  the  saying  that 
orbem  naso  suspendit.  I  picked  it  up  some  years  ago ;  it  is  one  of  a 
series  of  sketches  done  by  Jackson  for  Lodge's  portraits,  and  if  it  is 
thought  worthy  of  a  place  in  your  gallery  it  will  have  reached  its 
proper  goal.  Not  that  I  can  allow  your  claim  to  Pitt  any  more  than 
Grenville  as  a  purely  Tory  Minister.  I  think  that  like  the  child 
before  Solomon's  judgment  seat  he  should  be  divided  and  that  we  are 
entitled  to  the  first  half  of  his  public  life.  I  shall  not  grudge  you 
the  second.  .  .  . 

Disraeli  in  sending  his  thanks  referred  to  other  additions 
to  his  gallery,  and  added  : 

HUGHENDEN,  August  17,  1873. — I  do  not  at  all  agree  with  you  in 
your  estimate  of  Mr.  Pitt's  career.  It  is  the  first  half  of  it  which  I 
select  as  his  title-deed  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  Tory  minister  :  hos- 
tility to  boroughmongering,  economy,  French  alliance,  and  commer- 
cial treaties,  borrowed  from  the  admirable  negotiations  of  Utrecht. 
The  latter  half  is  pure  Whiggism  :  close  parliaments,  war  with 
France,  national  debt,  and  commercial  restrictions  ;  all  prompted 
and  inspired  by  the  arch -Whig  trumpeter,  Mr.  Burke. 


262  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1873 

However,  we  won't  quarrel  about  this,  at  least  not  now,  but 
postpone  it  till  our  next  ramble  in  Bradenham  Chase. 

I  was  much  obliged  to  you  for  breaking  my  solitude.  Your 
visit  was  too  short,  but  very  agreeable. 

If  it  was  assumed  that  office  would  quieten  his  activities 
the  expectation  was  disappointed.  He  was  no  sooner  in 
office  than  we  find  him  writing  to  Bright  urging  him  to  press 
on  Gladstone  a  policy  of  retrenchment,  especially  in  regard 
to  armaments  : 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  December  n,  1873. — I  can't  approach  G. 
myself  on  the  subject  (i)  because  it  would  seem  egotistical,  (2)  because 
it  would  appear  independent.  Two  things  most  obnoxious  to  Govern- 
ments. You  I  hope  will  not  accuse  me  of  the  first  and  will  forgive 
me  the  second. 

If  you  have  had  time  to  look  at  my  Oxford  speech,  which  was  only 
reported  in  The  Times  of  Tuesday,  I  hope  you  will  pardon  my  fidelity 
to  the  Church  in  consideration  of  my  obstinate  adherence  to  Peace 
and  Economy.  If  the  Estimates  of  1874  are  to  be  what  they  have 
been  for  the  last  three  years  I  do  not  see  how  you  and  I  can  personally 
support  them,  when  even  The  Times  suggests  their  reduction.  It 
is  not  only  the  harm  they  do  in  themselves  but  the  example  we  set 
to  the  Tory  Government  which  is  so  soon  going  to  occupy  our  seats. 

Lady  Waldegrave  evidently  had  reason  to  think  that 
Harcourt  meant  to  be  troublesome,  for  writing  to  him  from 
Strawberry  Hill  (December  u)  she  read  him  a  very  severe 
lesson : 

Lady   Waldegrave   to  Harcourt. 

STRAWBERRY  HILL,  December  n. — What  is  the  matter  now  ? 
What  has  happened  since  you  took  office  to  make  you  say  that  if 
the  Government  does  not  go  out  soon  you  will  ?  The  only  event 
I  know  of  likely  to  make  you  discontented  with  your  position  is 
your  own  speech.  To  follow  out  your  own  simile  of  having  married 
a  woman  you  did  not  love — this  speech  is  as  inappropriate  to  your 

present  position,  as  if  the  Duke  of ,  in  returning  thanks  at  his 

wedding  breakfast,  had  launched  out  into  fresh  praise  of  his  late 
mistress,  and  then  cried  down  his  wife  and  her  family.  The  speech 
itself  is  intensely  clever  and  the  language  admirable,  but  the  whole 
tone  of  it  fully  accounts  for  the  silence  of  the  Telegraph.  No  Govern- 
ment could  be  carried  on  if  all  its  members  were  intent  upon  only 
playing  their  own  game.  No  one  is  fit  to  govern  who  does  not  know 
how  to  serve.  This  is  true  even  for  the  individual,  who  cannot  serve 
himself,  if  he  cannot  govern  himself.  You  have  taken  the  shilling 
and  must  serve  loyally,  though  you  may  hate  and  despise  the  com- 
mander-in-chief.  . 


CHAPTER  XIII 
DIFFERENCES   WITH   GLADSTONE 

New  Year's  Speech  at  Oxford — Attack  on  Radical  crotchet -mongers 
— Hoisting  the  Whig  flag — Fall  of  the  Gladstone  Government 
— The  Greenwich  seat — Oxford  election — Champions  Harting- 
ton  as  Party  leader — Differences  with  Gladstone  on  Public 
Worship  Regulation  Bill — The  Admiralty  Estimates — Glad- 
stone's Six  Resolutions — Controversy  in  The  Times — Difference 
with  Gladstone  becomes  more  acute — Death  of  Lady  Dilke — 
Gladstone's  pamphlet  on  the  Vatican  Decrees — Haf court  on 
himself. 

PERHAPS   the   homily   addressed   to   him   by   Lady 
Waldegrave  had  its  effect.     In  any  case,  Harcourt's 
customary  speech  at  the  Druids'  dinner  at  Oxford 
on   New   Year's   Day,    1874,  contained   plenty   of   "  fun," 
but  he  was  quite  civil  to  the  Government.     He  spoke  of 
the  immense  surplus  which  the  Budget  would  disclose,  and 
described  his  leader  as  "  the  greatest  Finance  Minister  whom 
this  or  any  country  has  seen."/  He  denounced  the  growth 
of  local  taxation  and  its  caufees  in  terms  which  must  have 
made  some  of  his  Radical  colleagues  a  little  alarmed  : 

The  ratepayer  is  the  helpless  victim  of  the  crotchet-mongers. 
Rate  after  rate  is  imposed  in  the  vain  attempt  to  fill  the  rapacious 
maw  of  centralized  philanthropy  and  doctrinaire  extravagance.  The 
rate  is  nothing  else  than  the  quarterly  bill  sent  in  by  a  grand- 
motherly Government.  The  country  is  infested  by  a  voracious 
caterpillar — I  don't  know  what  the  entomologists  call  it — I  would 
call  it  the  Inspector  Vastattfr.  I  think  I  once  told  you  that  the  day 
might  come  when  the  number  of  the  inspectors  would  exceed  the 
number  of  the  inspected  ;  it  is  fast  approaching.  Till  you  stay  this 
plague  of  crotchets,  till  you  have  the  courage  and  good  sense  to  resist 
the  importunate  benevolence  of  these  reckless  spendthrifts,  all  your 
attempts  to  reform  local  taxation  will  be  in  vain.  * 

263 


264  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1874 

But  it  was  in  regard  to  the  land  that  he  was  most  vigorous 
and  most  amusing.  He  dismissed  the  talk  about  the  "  un- 
earned increment  xrf  land "  as  "an  idea  so  illogical,  so 
unreasonable,  so  per^ctly  unjust  and  so  absolutely  philo- 
sophical "  that  it  did  not  deserve  refutation  ;  but  he  wanted 
the  land  to  be  freed  from  the  paralysis  of  the  law  of  entail. 
He  drew  a  delightful  picture  of  the  English  landowner,  who 
was  "  not  a  sort  of  ogre  in  top-boots  who  roasts  a  peasant 
in  the  morning  and  stews  a  baby  for  supper."  But  he  was 
afraid  that  they  (the  landowners)  preferred  foxes  to  Radicals 
and  would  rather  preserve  rabbits  than  Nonconformists. 
As  to  the  idea  that  the  law  of  entail  was  necessary  to  the 
preservation  of  old  families,  a  subject  in  which,  with  his  eye 
on  Nuneham,  he  always  revelled,  he  said  : 

I  have  myself  no  aversion  to  old  families.  If  they  are  made  of 
good  stuff,  like  old  wine  they  grow  better  by  keeping.  If  they 
come  of  a  bad  vintage,  the  longer  you  bottle  them  the  worse  they 
grow.  If  a  man  is  fit  to  support  a  great  name,  he  will  not  want  the 
law  of  entail  to  sustain  him  in  the  station  to  which  he  is  born.  If 
he  is  not  fit  the  worst  thing  that  can  happen  to  him  is  that  he  should 
be  bolstered  up  in  a  position  that  he  discredits. 

The  speech  was  well  received,  and  Harcourt,  writing  to 
Spencer  Butler  (January  5),  said,  "  I  am  amused  to  see  how, 
by  dint  of  using  the  proper  country  gentleman  slang  in 
which  I  was  brought  up  I  have  been  able  to  propound  this 
revolutionary  scheme  and  yet  be  called  a  Tory  for  it."  But 
there  was  one  quarter  in  which  he  was  in  no  danger  of  being 
called  a  Tory.  It  was  no  doubt  with  this  offence  in  mind 
that  his  brother  Edward  wrote  to  him  : 

E.  W.  Harcourt  to  his  Brother. 

HASTINGS,  March  18. — And  now  a  word  about  our  mutual  relation. 
It  has  been  a  greater  deprivation  to  me  than  I  can  say  the  not 
having  you  at  Nuneham — nothing  but  an  ineradicable  dislike,  on 
principle,  to  the  opinions  you  represent  at  Oxford  could  have  made 
me  look  with  anything  but  the  greatest  pleasure  upon  having  at 
Nuneham  a  brother  who  has  always  (excepting  in  one  respect)  shown 
me  the  most  delicate  affection. 

I  now  tell  you  what  I  mean  to  propose  to  you.  I  ask  for  no  answer 
and  for  no  promise.  I  merely  express  a  hope  that  you  will  be  able 
to  do  as  I  so  strongly  wish, 


i874]  HOISTS   THE   WHIG   FLAG  265 

One,  that  when  at  Nuneham  you  will  take  no  political  action  in 
Oxfordshire. 

Two,  that  you  will  abstain  from  education  theories  in  Oxford. 

Three,  that  as  soon  as  you  can  see  your  way  to  do  it  you  will  cease 
to  represent  Oxford  as  a  Radical. 

These  points  I  do  not  make  into  conditions,  but  only  express  an 
ardent  hope  that  you  will  favour  my  prejudices  (if  you  like  to  call 
them  so)  in  respect  to  them. 

Having  said  this  much  I  have  only  to  add  that  I  hope  you  and 
Loulou  will  consider  Nuneham  your  home. 

Writing  to  Mrs.  Tom  Hughes,  Harcourt  announces  that 
he  has  hoisted  the  Whig  flag  : 

Harcourt  to  Mrs.   Tom  Hughes. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  January  4,  1874. — We  are  very  glad  to 
hear  of  Plump's  (T.  Hughes's  son)  triumphs.  Loulou  has  also  his 
to  record.  He  was  the  only  boy  in  the  school  who  came  back  with 
two  prizes.  And  he  had  the  most  marks  of  twenty-five  boys.  East- 
bourne has  answered  admirably  for  him  both  in  mind  and  body. 
I  never  saw  him  so  well.  .  .  . 

I  hope  you  read  my  speech.  I  am  delighted  to  see  how  it  has 
riled  the  "  enlightened  "  Party.  I  have  hoisted  the  good  old  Whig 
flag,  and  shall  stick  to  it.  These  duffers  who  have  gone  after  strange 
women  have  made  a  nice  mess  of  it. 

I  am  so  sorry  to  hear  you  have  been  so  much  amiss.  I  hope  you 
will  soon  return  to  town. 

I  trust  Tom  ceases  to  be  serious  for  an  interval  at  Christmas.  Tell 
him  it  is  bad  for  the  health  to  be  always  at  it. 

The  hoisting  of  the  Whig  flag  brought  him  an  enthusiastic 
letter  from  H.  Reeve  of  the  Edinburgh  Review,  who  said  : 

H.  Reeve  to  Harcourt. 

January  9,  1874. — Old  John  Russell  wrote  to  me  not  long  ago, 
"  The  Liberal  Party,  if  it  is  to  be  a  party  again,  must  be  the  Whig 
Party."  The  Radicals  may  flounder  and  bluster  as  they  please, 
but  they  will  not  get  very  far  without  us.  You  have  very  wisely 
and  ably  made  a  true  Whig  speech,  and  if  you  stick  firmly  to  the 
old  colours,  I  don't  know  any  man  who  has  a  better  claim  than 
yourself  to  lead  the  Whig  party,  which  upon  the  whole  is  the  most 
glorious  position  in  England.  / 

Gladstone  was  a  Tory,  and  is  a  Radical :  but  he  never  was  a 
Whig  at  all. 

Lord  Stanhope  is  desirous  of  proposing  you  as  a  Member  of 
"  The  Club."  I  cordially  concur  in  this  suggestion,  and  I  hope  it 
would  be  agreeable  to  you  if  you  are  elected. 


266  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1874 

In  the  meantime  events  were  rapidty  moving  to  a  crisis. 
On  January  23,  Chichester-Fortescue  (Lord  Carlingford) 
wrote  to  Harcourt : 

Chichester-Fortescue  to  Harcourt. 

January  23,  1874. — I  am  just  going  back  to  Dudbrook  after  a 
highly  interesting  Cabinet,  as  you  may  conceive.  We  were  all 
sworn  to  secrecy  about  the  coup  d'ttat  this  evening — otherwise  I 
should  like  to  have  seen  you.  I  hope  you  will  approve.  I  think  you 
will  like  the  Gladstonian  manifesto.  At  all  events  you  like  a  row.  The 
surprise  is  worthy  of  your  own  Dizzy.  How  he  will  denounce  it  1 

With  dissolution  imminent  Harcourt  disburdened  his  mind 
in  "a  letter  to  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice  : 

Harcourt  to  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice. 

January,  1874. — I  must  utilize  my  official  paper  before  next 
Tuesday. 

I  thought  at  first  that  the  Government  had  better  stay  in  to  meet 
Parliament,  but  I  don't  think  so  now.  I  spoke  the  words  of  prophecy 
because  I  knew  how  deeply  and  universally  the  Government  was 
execrated  throughout  the  country.  I  have  preached  like  Cassandra 
now  for  two  years,  and  I  told  Bright  on  the  celebrated  Friday  night 
when  the  resolution  to  dissolve  was  taken  that  it  would  be  1841 
over  again.  This  Government  has  fallen  as  all  Governments  will 
fall  in  England  from  sheer  lack  of  common  sense.  The  Treasury 
Bench  seem  to  me  very  much  in  the  position  of  the  Imperialists 
after  Sedan.  In  my  judgment  the  rout  has  been  richly  deserved, 

/'and  the  Liberal  Party  will  never  recover  till  it  is  led  by  different 
men  on  different  principles. 

The  sudden  decision  of  the  Cabinet  to  dissolve  has  been 
attributed  to  the  rather  trivial  controversy  that  had  taken 
place  during  the  autumn  in  regard  to  the  fact  that  Glad- 
stone on  taking  over  the  Chancellorship  of  the  Exchequer 
from  Lowe  had  not  submitted  himself  for  re-election  at 
Greenwich.  Around  this  trumpery  point  a  vast  battle  of 
words  had  raged.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Gladstone  had  acted 
entirely  on  the  advice  of  the  law  officers,  Coleridge  and  Jessel, 
who  had  declared  that  having  been  re-elected  on  assuming 
the  office  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury  the  Act  of  Queen 
Anne  did  not  require  further  re-election.  James  and  Har- 
court on  succeeding  to  the  law  offices  expressed  themselves 
inconclusively"on  the  subject.  Disraeli  put  the  matter  in 


i874]       THE  GREENWICH   ELECTION         267 

the  forefront  of  his  attack  when  the  dissolution  came,  and 
it  became  necessary  for  the  law  officers  to  clear  their  Chief. 
James,  writing  to  Harcourt  from  Taunton  in  the  midst  of 
the  election,  said  : 

I  have  had  a  letter  from  Godley,  and  I  am  to  speak  here  to-night 
denying  the  statement  in  Dizzy's  first  paragraph  about  the  Green- 
wich seat.  The  way  I  intend  to  put  it  is  that  Gladstone's  law 
officers  in  August  advised  him  that  his  seat  was  not  vacant,  and  that 
you  and  I  counselled  him  that  he  could  not  send  in  notice  to  the 
Speaker.  I  will  take  care  not  to  state  our  opinion  any  stronger. 

You  must  let  me  pledge  your  opinion  to  this  extent.  Telegraph  to 
me  to-morrow  morning,  but  you  really  must  not  object.  I  will  take 
every  care  not  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  whether  the  seat  was 
vacant  or  not. 

No  opposition  here,  but  by  jingo  what  a  lot  of  seats  we  shall  lose. 

From  this  it  is  pretty  evident  that  Harcourt,  whose  maiden 
speech  in  Parliament  had  been  a  defence  of  the  Act  of  Queen 
Anne,  had  been  disposed  to  think  that  Gladstone  should 
have  offered  himself  for  re-election.  His  own  reference  to 
the  subject  in  his  election  speech  to  his  constituents  at 
Oxford  confirms  this  view.  Replying  to  Disraeli's  attack, 
he  used  this  careful  phraseology,  which  must  be  read  in  the 
light  of  James's  letter  : 

I  feel  it  my  duty  to  tell  you  that  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  retaining  his 
seat  for  the  borough  of  Greenwich  till  the  meeting  of  Parliament,  was 
governed,  as  he  was  bound  to  be  governed,  by  the  opinion  of  the  law 
officers  of  the  Crown  ;  and,  further,  that  if  he  had  done  otherwise 
he  would,  in  my  opinion,  have  done  that  which  was  unconstitutional. 

But  apart  from  this  incident  Gladstone  had  another  reason 
for  making  the  plunge  then  rather  than  at  the  end  of  another 
Session.  His  Government — in  its  achievements  the  most 
brilliant  in  our  political  history — had  become  waterlogged 
He  had  in  prospect  a  magnificent  surplus,  and  he  aimed  at 
the  abolition  of  the  income  tax  and  the  sugar  duties.  To 
achieve  this  he  needed  the  economies  which  had  been 
promised  on  naval  and  military  expenditure,  but  Cardwell 
/at  the  War  Office  was  unable  to  meet  his  wishes,  and,  deter- 
mined to  carry  his  point  and  conscious  of  the  disintegration 
of  the  Ministry,  Gladstone  decided  on  the  bold  course  of 
an  appeal  to  the  country.  The  dissolution  took  place  on 


268  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1874 

January  26,  and  Gladstone  in  his  manifesto  to  the  Greenwich 
electors  promised  the  abolition  of  the  income  tax,  relief  to 
local  taxation  and  a  further  step  in  the  reduction  of  duties 
on  articles  of  general  consumption.  The  vigour  of  the 
appeal  alarmed  Disraeli,  who  thought  it  would  carry  the 
country.  He  retorted  on  what  he  called  his  rival's  "  prolix 
narrative  "  with  light  sarcasms  about  the  Straits  of  Malacca, 
and  with  vague  hints  that  the  national  institutions  and  the 
integrity  of  the  empire  were  in  danger  ;  but  to  the  proposals 
for  the  remission  of  taxation  which  were  the  core  of  Glad- 
stone's manifesto  he  offered  neither  criticism  nor  objection. 
Harcourt  went  down  to  Oxford,  from  whence  he  wrote 
to  Dilke  : 

OXFORD,  1874. — Ravi  nantes  in  gurgite  vasto.  "  Here  we  are 
again."  As  Dizzy  said  the  night  of  the  division  on  the  University 
Bill,  "  It  is  very  amusing."  To  tell  you  the  truth  I  am  not  sorry. 
It  had  to  come  and  it  is  as  well  over.  We  shall  get  quit  of  the 
County  duffers  of  the  party  and  begin  afresh.  I  return  to  town 
to-morrow.  We  must  all  meet  again  below  the  gangway.  We  shall 
still  have  a  nice  little  party  though  diminished.  I  am  very  sorry 
about  Fawcett,  but  we  shall  soon  get  him  back  again. 

If  in  his  private  letters  Harcourt  was  critical  of  the 
Government,  he  balanced  matters  by  the  fervour  of  his 
advocacy  to  his  constituents.  He  made  a  detailed  defence  of 
the  policy  pursued  by  Peel  and  continued  by  Gladstone, 
dwelt  on  the  triumphs  of  Gladstonian  finance,  drew  a 
fundamental  distinction  between  Liberal  and  Conservative 
foreign  policy,  contrasting  Gladstone's  protest  against  the 
cruelties  of  King  Bomba  with  the  Conservative  support  of 
Austria  and  sympathy  with  the  South  in  the  Civil  War.  In 
home  policy  he  touched  on  incidents  like  the  gas-stokers' 
strike,  the  Chipping  Norton  case,  the  Burials  Act,  and  the 
perpetual  hostility  of  the  House  of  Lords  to  all  the  allevia- 
tions of  popular  discontent.  The  result  of  the  poll  was  : 

Harcourt         .         .          .          .         .  2,332 

Cardwell         ......         2,281 

Hall  (C.) 2,198 

The  figures  showed  how  the  popular  tide  had  left  the 
Government  in  the  country  generally.  The  reaction  was 


i874]  LEAVES   OFFICE   GLADLY  269 

general,  and  the  Tory  majority  of  forty-eight  did  not  repre- 
sent the  real  dimensions  of  the  blow,  for  the  Irish  Liberals 
had  broken  away  from  the  British  political  system,  and 
established  the  Nationalist  party  with  the  name  of  Home 
Rulers  and  a  separate  organization. 

Writing  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby  immediately  after  the  election, 
Harcourt  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  Wednesday. — England  has  pronounced 
a  great  and  overwhelming  verdict  in  favour  of  Philistinism — which 
is  a  vituperative  epithet  intended  to  discredit  common  sense.  To 
poor  Philistines  like  myself  this  is  not  unsatisfactory.  .  ."  . 

The  philosophers  and  the  philanthropists  are  "  gone  to  pot." 
The  "  world  betterers  "  are  nowhere. 

The  profession  of  a  political  prophet  is  a  poor  one,  but  I  have 
pursued  it  with  some  success  for  the  last  two  years.  I  was  amused 
to  find  your  friend  the  "  intransigeant  "  F.  Harrison,  rejoicing  over 
the  fall  of  the  crotchet-mongers.  I  am  glad  my  dear  Dizzy  is  to  go 
to  his  grave  in  a  blaze  of  glory.  It  is  dreadfully  immoral  but  very 
amusing.  And  in  this  dull  world  that  is  always  something. 

For  my  part  I  go  into  Opposition  with  much  better  heart  than  I 
entered  Government.  Adversity  suits  my  temperament  and  puts 
me  in  good  humour  and  good  spirits.  If  I  must  be  a  knight  (and 
that  is  the  only  thing  which  is  indelible),  I  prefer  to  be  a  knight 
errant. 

Remember  me  to  your  husband  ;  he  is  like  the  physician  who 
attends  the  death-bed  of  innumerable  administrations. 

There  is  a  pleasant  appendix  to  the  Oxford  contest  in  the 
shape  of  a  letter  to  Harcourt  from  his  defeated  opponent, 
A.  W.  Hall,  who  says  : 

A.  W.  Hall  to  Harcourt. 

BARTON  ABBEY,  February  6. — Surely  no  man  ever  had  such 
generous  opponents !  Thank  you  very  much  indeed  for  your 
letter  ;  amidst  all  your  work  to  have  taken  the  trouble  to  write 
to  me  is  an  act  of  kindness  I  shall  not  forget.  I  enjoyed  the  fight 
uncommonly,  though  it  was  hard  work  for  a  novice.  It's  not  unlike 
the  excitement  of  a  good  run,  and  though  I  lost  my  fox,  I  have  the 
satisfaction  of  feeling  that  I  rode  straight  and  did  my  best. 

/  Cardwell,  on  the  defeat  of  the  Government,  accepted  a 
peerage,  and  Harcourt  seems  to  have  suggested  to  Chichester- 
Fortescue,  who^fcad  been  beaten  at  Louth,  that  he  should 


270  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1874 

contest  the  vacant  seat.     Fortescue,  however,  wrote  (Feb- 
ruary 17)  : 

I  did  not  get  away  from  Gladstone's  until  very  late  last  night. 
We  are  out  at  once,  though  there  may  possibly  be  another  Cabinet 
first.  Mr.  G.  will  not  act  as  leader  of  Opposition  and  will  make  that 
clear.  There  will  be  no  leader  so  far  as  I  can  see. 

I  have  decided  to  go  to  the  other  place — with  great  difficulty  and 
many  throes,  aided  by  the  doctor,  who  was  very  urgent  on  the  ground 
of  health.  Oxford  would  have  been  a  temptation  which  I  don't 
think  I  could  have  resisted,  had  it  been  safe,  but  it  was  evidently 
doubtful,  even  with  all  your  powerful  and  friendly  help  so  heartily 
promised. 

Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice  wrote,  February  18,  1874,  to  Har- 
court  suggesting  that  Fawcett  should  contest  the  Oxford 
seat,  and  adding  : 

HOME  DEPARTMENT. —  .  .  .  Gladstone  is  not  going  to  act  as  the 
regular  leader  of  the  party,  but  will  only  attend  the  House  occa- 
sionally. This  seems  to  me  about  the  worst  arrangement  possible. 
Hartington  is,  I  believe,  to  play  Addington  to  Gladstone's  Pitt. 
The  one  arrangement  will  last  about  as  long  as  the  other  did. 

In  his  reply  Harcourt  disclosed  the  attitude  in  regard 
to  the  leadership  of  the  Liberal  party  which  governed  his 
actions  for  the  next  half-dozen  years : 

Harcourt  to  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE. — You  may  be  sure  that  Fawcett  has  been 
present  to  my  mind,  but  I  fear  he  is  too  strong  meat  for  the  babes 
of  Oxford  who  have  been  fed  on  the  mild  pap  of  Cardwell  and  Har- 
court.    The  brewer  would  beat  him  into  fits,  and  a  personal  canvass 
is  absolutely  necessary.     I  should  not  like  to  expose  him  to  a  contest 
which  I  know  would  be  hopeless,  especially  in  a  place  where  the 
res  angusta  domi  is  not  appreciated.     You  don't  think  as  highly  of 
Hartington  as  I  do.     He  has  very  good  judgment,  great  honesty 
1  and  good  pluck,  all  great  political  qualities,  and  how  refreshing  a 
I  little  silence  and  indifferent  speaking  will  be.     The  change  in  itself 
!  would  be  delightful.     I  think  him  far  the  best  constitutional  Sovereign 
in  the  party  after  the  fall  of  the  despotism.    Some  good  stout  northern 
Borough  is  the  place  for  Fawcett. 

Harcourt  had  discussed  the  question  of  leadership  with 
Hartington,  who  wrote  to  him  : 


i874]  GLADSTONE  RETURNS  271 

Hartington  to  Harcourt. 

IRISH  OFFICE,  February  20. — Brand  (the  Speaker)  was  out  of 
town  yesterday,  and  I  saw  no  one  of  much  importance.  I  have, 
however,  thought  a  good  deal  of  our  conversation.  I  am  inclined 
to  think  that  so  long  as,- Mr.  Gladstone  continues  to  take  any  part 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  no  other  leader  of  the  party  is  possible  ; 
and  if  he  should  make  up  his  mind  to  retire  altogether,  the  members 
of  the  late  Government  and  other  heads  of  the  party  must  consider 
what  is  to  be  done.  I  do  not  think,  therefore,  that  any  independent 
expression  of  opinion  on  my  part  is  now  called  for,  or  would  in 
loyalty  to  Mr.  Gladstone  and  my  late  colleagues  be  justified. 

But  Harcourt  was  determined  that  the  leadership  should 
not  be  left  in  commission.  Writing  to  Frank  Hill,  the  editor 
of  the  Daily  News,  he  said : 

Harcourt  to  Frank  Hill. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  March  3. — I  need  not  say  I  certainly  concur 
in  the  sentiments  of  the  "  Liberal  M.P."  The  notion  of  letting  the 
Liberal  Party  drift  with  the  tide  like  an  old  collier  without  a  rudder 
seems  to  me  detestable.  It  is  all  due  to  the  selfish  egotism  of  the 
two  G's  (Gladstone  and  Granville)  as  they  are  called,  who  know  they 
cannot  carry  on  themselves  and  want  to  prevent  anyone  else  doing 
so.  I  am  more  and  more  convinced  that  Hartington  is  the  only 
possible  figureheaa  for  the  ship.  I  wish  you  would  write  an  article 
strongly  insisting  on  the  necessity  of  organization  and  a  leader,  and 
indicate  the  leader  or  not  as  you  think  best. 

The  issue  of  the  Liberal  leadership  rapidly  developed  as  the 
Session  advanced.  The  new  Government  had  foreshadowed 
in  the  Queen's  Speech  an  unexciting  programme  of  legislation, 
and  the  chief  interest  of  the  Session  centred,  not  in  a  Govern- 
ment measure,  but  in  the  Public  Worship  Regulation  Bill, 
which  was  introduced  ostensibly  as  a  non-party  measure  on 
which  members  might  vote  without  involving  the  Govern- 
ment. As  this  Bill  proposed,  in  the  blunt  phrase  coined  by 
Disraeli,  "  to  put  down  Ritualism,"  it  excited  enormous 
popular  interest.  It  summoned  Gladstone  from  his  very 
brief  retirement  at  Hawarden,  full  of  zeal  for  the  liberties  of 
the  Church.  The  discussions  on  this  Bill  were  important 
in  Harcourt's  career,  because  they  brought  him  into  frank 
conflict  with  Gladstone,  and  threatened  at  one  time  to  cause 
a  fatal  breach  between  the  two  men. 


272  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1874 

But  before  this  there  had  been  a  curious  little  aside  between 
Gladstone,  Goschen  and  Harcourt  which  had  shown  the  cross- 
currents within  the  party.  It  arose  in  connection  with  the 
Navy  Estimates.  In  introducing  them  Ward  Hunt,  the 
First  Lord  in  the  new  Government,  pointed  out  that  they 
were  the  estimates  of  the  late  Government.  Gladstone 
thereupon  wrote  to  Harcourt  pointing  out  that  they  were 
not  the  estimates  of  the  late  Government.  They  were  the 
estimates  of  the  Department,  and  had  not  been  endorsed  by 
the  Cabinet.  Harcourt  sent  the  letter  to  Goschen,  who  had 
been  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty  and  who  in  the  course  of 
his  reply  said  : 

Goschen  to  Harcourt. 

SEACOX  HEATH,  April  7. — It  is  no  use  beating  about  the  bush, 
and  I  should  like  to  write  to  Gladstone  direct,  as  I  should  be  entitled 
to  write  if  I  had  seen  the  letter. 

One  thing  I  can  tell  you.  The  estimates  were  not  sanctioned  by 
the  Cabinet  nor  by  Gladstone  before  we  went  out.  He  has  been 
very  particular  about  this,  and  both  Card  well  and  I  left  memoranda 
behind  us  stating  that  our  Estimates  were  departmental  only,  that 
they  contained  what  we  should  probably  have  submitted  to  the 
Cabinet,  but  that  they  had  not  been  passed.  (I  am  writing  of  course 
from  memory.)  .  .  .  My  theory  is  that  Gladstone  is  vexed  at  the 
Press  treating  the  Estimates  passed  on  to  our  successors  as  our 
Estimates,  after  the  trouble  he  had  taken  to  draw  the  distinction. 
It  is  certain  that  he  is  not  pledged  to  them.  .  .  . 

In  his  reply  to  Gladstone,  Harcourt  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

TORQUAY,  April  g. —  ...  I  am  very  glad  to  think  that  the 
Liberal  Party  is  not  committed  to  high  estimates,  for  I  have  never 
shared  the  opinion  that  growing  wealth  is  a  justification  for  increased 
extravagance.  I  do  not  know  if  you  are  aware  that  I  voted  last 
jveek  (the  only  vote  I  have  given  in  this  Parliament)  with  Lawson 
for  a  reduction  of  the  Army  Estimates.  I  could  not  do  otherwise, 
having  regard  to  my  former  declarations  and  conduct.  But  I  was 
sorry  that  A.  Peel  appeared  to  regard  it  as  a  vote  against  my  late 
colleagues — a  view  of  the  matter  which  I  am  happy  to  think  your 
letter  altogether  refutes. 

I  suppose  the  intentions  of  the  Government  on  the  Budget  are  a 
complete  mystery,  but  I  shall  be  most  happy  to  do  what  little  I  can 
to  sustain  the  cause  of  economy  to  which  in  these  adverse  times  I  am 
more  than  ever  faithful. 


i874]  PUBLIC  WORSHIP  BILL  273 

If  the  Government  once  repudiate  the  principle  of  remitting 
taxes,  there  will  be  no  end  to  extravagance,  for  so  long  as  the  residue 
is  only  to  go  to  liquidation  of  debt  no  one  will  care  how  small  is  the 
margin. 

It  seems  to  me  that  each  tax  taken  off  is  a  fresh  recognizance 

binding  on  the  Government  not  to  waste. 

-• 

II 

With  the  introduction  of  the  Public  Worship  Bill  there 
arose  an  open  conflict  between  Harcourt  and  his  Chief. 
Apart  from  the  temperamental  and  other  causes  of  friction 
between  these  two  somewhat  august  spirits,  a  plain  ecclesi- 
astical issue  was  certain  to  bring  them  into  collision.  They 
were  the  poles  apart  in  religious  feeling  and  church  polity. 
Gladstone  was  saturated  with  the  spirit  of  the  High  Anglican 
movement.  To  him  the  Church  was  a  divine  institution 
that  owed  no  homage  to  the  secular  will  of  the  State.  Har- 
court, on  the  other  hand,  was  both  by  origin,  taste  and 
training,  the  most  unmystical  of  Erastians.  He  was  a  sound 
Church  and  State  man,  who  sto^a  upon  the  rock  of  the 
blessed  Revolution,  spoke  of  the  Prayer  Book  as  the  schedule 
to  an  Act  of  Parliament,  and  regarded  the  Church  as  an 
institution  by  law  established,  over  which  Parliament  pre- 
sided as  a  court  armed  with  pains  and  penalties.  Between 
these  two  hostile  views  there  could  be  no  reconciliation  and 
the  attack  on  Ritualism  brought  them  into  sharp  collision. 

The  Bill  was  introduced  on  April  20  by  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  (Tait).  Its  intention  was  to  give  the  bishops 
and  the  archbishops  more  power  to  check  practices  which 
were  not  in  harmony  with  the  character  of  the  Established 
Church.  In  directing  the  forms  of  public  worship  the 
Bishop  was  to  be  assisted  by  a  Board  of  Assessors,  on  which 
laymen  and  clergy  would  sit.  Any  one  parishioner,  or  the 
rural  dean,  or  the  archdeacon  would  have  the  right  to  com- 
plain to  the  Bishop  of  any  practice  by  an  incumbent  which 
he  thought  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  Church. 
If  the  Bishop  thought  that  the  matter  ought  to  be  inquired 
into,  the  Board  of  Assessors  would  be  summoned,  and  the 
Bishop  would  be  guided  by  their  advice.  The  incumbent, 

T 


274  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1874 

if  the  judgment  went  against  him,  was  to  have  a  right  of 
appeal  to  the  Archbishop,  also  sitting  with  a  Board  of 
Assessors. 

The  proposal  reawakened  all  the  issues  of  the  "  No  Popery  " 
cry  of  the  fifties.  It  cut  right  across  the  party  lines,  and 
in  the  House  of  Lords  the  Secretary  for  India,  Lord  Salisbury, 
as  pronounced  a  High  Anglican  as  Gladstone  himself,  to- 
gether with  Lord  Selborne,  a  Low  Churchman,  violently 
opposed  the  Bill,  while  in  the  House  of  Commons,  Salisbury's 
leader,  Disraeli,  referring  to  his  opposition,  described  him  as 
"  a  master  of  gibes,  and  flouts  and  jeers."  The  measure  was 
substantially  modified  before  it  reached  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, notably  by  a  decision  that  an  ecclesiastical  judge 
should  preside  in  the  Courts  of  Canterbury  and  York.  Its 
arrival  brought  Gladstone  back  to  the  House  of  Commons 
to  declare  war  on  what  he  regarded  as  profanation.  In  a 
speech  on  the  second  reading,  which  greatly  moved  the 
House,  he  gave  notice  of  six  Resolutions  which  he  proposed  to 
move  on  the  principles  which  he  thought  ought  to  direct 
any  legislation  on  this  subject.  Needless  to  say,  these 
Resolutions  were  diametrically  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Bill.  They  laid  stress  on  the  diversity  of  usage  which  had 
grown  up  in  the  Church  since  the  Reformation,  and  the 
unreasonableness  of  proscribing  all  varieties  of  opinion,  on 
the  danger  of  giving  too  much  power  to  individuals,  and  the 
uhdesirability  of  substituting  uniformity  for  the  existing 
variety  of  ritual. 

Emphasizing  the  fact  that  this  was  not  a  Government 
Bill  and  that  everybody  was  free  to  express  his  individual 
opinion,  Harcourt  followed  with  a  broadside  on  his  leader— 
"  the  great  enchanter,"  to  whom  they  had  "  listened  with 
rapt  attention  as  he  poured  forth  the  wealth  of  his  incom- 
parable eloquence."  His  argument  was  that  the  law  of  a 
Church  established  by  the  law  must  be  declared  by  a  secular 
tribunal.  In  a  free  Church  the  congregation  had  a  summary 
remedy  against  a  minister  who  defied  its  creed  or  custom,  but 
in  a  national  Church  the  incumbent  was  in  possession  of  a 
freehold  and  could  defy  the  congregation.  But  he  held 


\  \ 


1874]      PLUNGES   INTO   CHURCH   LAW        275 

under  a  legal  tenure  which  defined  at  once  his  power  and  his 
duties.  The  law  was  supreme,  and  it  was  that  supremacy 
which  was  the  only  guarantee  of  the  liberty  of  the  clergy  and 
of  the  rights  of  the  people.  The  attack  was  inevitably  much 
discussed.  The  Annual  Register  says  that  "  people  said  it 
was  evident,  from  the  defiant  attitude  assumed  by  Sir 
William  Harcourt  to  his  former  Chief,  that  he  was  making 
a  bid  for  the  leadership  of  the  Liberal  Party,  whose  allegiance 
Mr.  Gladstone  might  have  done  not  a  little  to  forfeit  by  his 
present  action."  There  is  no  reason  to  look  further  than  the 
acute  difference  in  the  outlook  of  the  two  men  in  religious 
matters.  Harcourt's  Erastian  principles  were  so  marked 
as  to  wear  to  present-day  readers  an  eighteenth-century 
aspect.  The  Church  of  England  was  to  him  "  the  parlia- 
mentary state  Church  "  ;  to  Gladstone  it  was  the  mystical 
body  of  Christ. 

Writing  to  The  Times  the  next  day  to  explain  and  expand 
his  meaning,  as  his  habit  was,  Harcourt  said  : 

The  gist  of  my  argument  was  to  show  that  the  Reformation  of 
religion  was  not  effected  by  or  with  the  aid  of  Convocation  ;  that  all 
that  was  really  effectual  in  that  great  transaction  was  accomplished 
by  Royal  Commissions  of  selected  divines,  whose  work  was  imposed 
perforce  on  the  clergy  by  Act  of  Parliament.  .  .  . 

I  know  that  it  will  be  said  that  these  are  Erastian  opinions.  .  .  . 
But  they  are  the  doctrines  on  which  the  Parliamentary  State 
Church  of  England  was  founded,  and  on  which  alone  she  stands. 
She  has  never  rested  on  some  Concordat  negotiated  between  co- 
ordinate and  co-equal  powers.  She  is  a  national  Church  only 
because  she  is  the  work  of  the  nation,  acting  through  the  only 
legitimate  exponents  of  the  national  will — I  mean  the  Crown  and 
Parliament.  I  know  there  is  another  theory  which  is  the  opposite 
of  Erastianism,  and  its  name  is  Ultramontanism.  .  .  . 

I  know  that  there  are  those  to  whom  these  doctrines  are  odious, 
but  they  are  those  to  whom  the  history  of  the  Reformation  and  the 
distinctive  name  of  Protestant  are  detestable. 

The  controversy  roused  Harcourt  to  study  ecclesiastical 
authorities,  and  he  poured  out  his  learning  in  his  letters  to 
The  Times  with  very  much  the  same  zest  as  he  had  shown  in 
the  "  Historicus  "  controversy.  Meanwhile  the  battle  at 
Westminster,  which  had  become  largely  a  duel  between 
Gladstone  and  Harcourt,  waxed  more  fierce. 


276  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1874 

Disraeli  had  now  practically  made  the  passage  of  the  Bill 
a  matter  of  confidence.  Gladstone  had  withdrawn  his 
Resolutions,  but  continued  the  fight  almost  single-handed. 
He  introduced  common  law  into  the  discussion  to  the  horror 
of  Harcourt,  who  said  that  the  common  law  of  Christendom 
was  fulminated  by  the  Vatican  and  since  1533  had  been 
repudiated  as  controlling  the  authority  of  Parliament. 
Temper  was  rising  with  the  heat  of  the  August  days,  and  the 
debate  on  an  Amendment  giving  the  complainant  power  to 
carry  the  case  against  an  incumbent  straight  to  the  Ardh- 
bishop  if  the  Bishop  declined  to  take  proceedings  led  to  a 
somewhat  bitter  exchange  of  letters  between  Gladstone  and 
Harcourt.  In  the  third  of  these  missives,  all  written  on  the 
same  day,  Gladstone  wrote  : 

Gladstone  to  Harcourt. 

21,  CARLTON  HOUSE  TERRACE,  August  3. — What  you  effectually 
conveyed  to  the  House  was  that  a  minority  of  bishops  appointed 
during  the  last  five  years  would  not  put  the  law  in  force,  and  in 
support  of  this  statement  you  cited  publicly  the  act  of  a  particular 
Bishop,  without  informing  the  House  that  he  was  not  one  appointed 
within  the  last  five  years  and  privately  the  names  of  two  who  were. 
I  think  I  was  entitled  to  ask  you  for  the  foundation  of  the  heavy 
charge  you  had  in  court  language  made  against  me,  but  I  so  far 
agree  with  you  about  a  conversation  which  was  de  facto  private  that 
I  shall  leave  the  matter  where  it  is  and  rest  under  the  injustice. 

After  this  cut  and  thrust  in  private  the  disputants 
promptly  retorted  on  each  other  in  public.  On  August  5, 
Harcourt  made  a  long  and  elaborate  speech  against  Glad- 
stone's position.  If,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  asserted,  the  Church 
knew  nothing  of  courts  appointed  by  Parliament  with  the 
assent  of  the  Crown,  then,  he  said,  it  was  perfectly  idle  for 
Parliament  to  occupy  itself  with  the  discipline  of  the  Church. 
The  doctrine  of  Gladstone  might  be  the  true  doctrine,  he 
declared,  but  it  was  not  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution 
of  England  or  in  the  Church  of  England.  He  praised 
Disraeli,  "  because  he  has  long  had  the  sagacity  to 
divine  the  sentiments  and  to  execute  the  will  of  the  English 
people.  ...  He  has  seen  that  not  England  alone,  but  all 
Europe  is  divided  into  two  camps,  and  that  the  camp  on  the 


i874]     'PARLIAMENTARY   WILD   OATS"     277 

one  side  is  that  of  Ultramontanism  and  on  the  other  that  of 
Sacerdotalism."  He  urged  him  not  to  draw  back  from  the 
struggle.  Cobden  had  described  Free  Trade  as  a  question 
which  would  dislocate  many  parties  and  destroy  many 
governments.  And  this  was  a  more  important  question  than 
Free  Trade.  He  was  firmly  convinced  that  the  Church  of 
England  could  only  be  saved  by  Protestantizing  that  Church, 
and  that  could  only  be  done  by  the  power  that  originally 
made  it  Protestant,  the  State. 

Disraeli  followed  with  a  speech  that  attacked  impartially 
Gladstone  and  his  own  Secretary  for  India,  Lord  Salisbury 
But  it  was  Gladstone's  retort  on  his  late  Solicitor- General 
which  made  the  debate  memorable. 

I  confess  fairly  (he  said)  I  greatly  admire  the  manner  in  which  he 
has  used  his  time  since  Friday  night.  On  Friday  night,  he  says, 
he  was  taken  by  surprise  :  the  lawyer  was  taken  by  surprise,  and 
so  was  the  Professor  of  Law  in  the  University  of  Cambridge  :  the 
lawyer  was  taken  by  surprise,  and  in  consequence  he  had  nothing 
to  deliver  to  the  House  but  a  series  of  propositions  on  which  I  will 
not  comment. 

.  .  .  My  hon.  and  learned  friend  has  had  the  opportunity  of 
spending  four  or  five  days  in  better  informing  himself  on  the  subject, 
and  he  is  in  a  position  to  come  down  to  this  House  and  for  an  hour 
and  a  half  to  display  and  develop  the  erudition  he  has  thus  rapidly 
and  cleverly  acquired.  .  .  .  The  fact  is  my  hon.  and  learned  friend, 
who  has  spoken  of  the  youth  of  the  Bishops,  though  most  of  them 
exhibit  grey  hairs,  is  still  in  his  parliamentary  youth  ;  he  has  not 
yet  sown  his  parliamentary  wild  oats.  When  he  has  I  have  not  the 
smallest  doubt  he  will  combine  with  his  ability — which  no  one  sees 
with  greater  satisfaction  than  I  do — temper  and  wisdom,  a  due 
consideration  for  the  feelings  of  others,  strictness  in  restating  the 
arguments  of  opponents — in  fact  every  political  virtue  that  can 
distinguish  a  notability  of  Parliament,  and,  if  he  persists  in  the 
course  of  study  he  has  begun,  a  complete  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical 
law. 

In  the  end  the  Commons  did  not  insist  on  carrying  their 
amendment  in  the  face  of  the  opposition  of  the  House  of 
Lords.  Harcourt l  had  been  in  communication  with  Arch- 

1  During  the  progress  of  the  Public  Worship  Regulation  Act, 
Harcourt  took  out  of  his  son's  collection  of  coins  a  silver  ten-shilling 
piece  of  Charles  I,  struck  during  the  siege  of  Oxford,  with  a  portrait 


278  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1874 

bishop  Tait  throughout  the  controversy,  and  a  passage  from 
the  Archbishop's  diary  (August  9)  shows  how  anxious  the 
position  was  : 

.  .  .  On  Monday  night,  as  I  was  returning  from  town,  I  was  pur- 
sued by  a  messenger  from  Disraeli  to  say  that  unless  we  could  carry 
the  Commons'  amendment  the  Bill  was  lost.  .  .  .  On  Tuesday  the 
Bishops  met  by  appointment  in  the  House  of  Lords.  They  were 
bent  on  resistance  to  the  clause,  and  carried  the  day.  All  voted 
against  it  except  Carlisle,  who  did  not  vote,  the  Chancellor's  attempt 
at  a  compromise  having  broken  down.  All  seemed  very  black,  and 
I  went  home  to  bed  convinced  that  we  had  lost  our  six  months'  labour, 
and  must  prepare  for  a  frightful  year  of  agitation.  It  was  not  until 
I  had  read  The  Times  article  next  morning  that  I  had  any  hope,  and 
immediately  after  I  had  read  it,  came  a  second  note  from  Disraeli 
to  say  that  in  his  judgment  all  was  lost.  (The  note  is  as  follows, 
"  I  am  employed  in  trying  to  rally  the  ship.  I  conclude  the  Bill  is 
lost.  This  is  a  heavy  blow,  I  would  almost  say  a  fatal  one.  D.") 
I  had  my  carriage  at  the  door,  and  having  a  note  from  the  Duke  of 
Richmond  saying  that  almost  everything  depended  on  the  line 
taken  by  Sir  William  Harcourt  (who  was  supposed  to  be  the 
leader  of  the  irreconcileables),  I  started  in  pursuit  of  him  to  his  house  : 
found  him  gone  :  tracked  him  to  his  club  :  got  him  into  my  carriage 
and  urged  wiser  counsels.  ...  I  used  my  best  influence  too  with 
Holt  and  others.  .  .  .  By  two  o'clock  the  Bill  was  safe,  and  I 
wrote  in  the  House  of  Lords  to  the  Queen — "  Thank  God,  the  Bill 
has  passed." 

Among  the  many  letters  which  Harcourt  received  in 
regard  to  the  fight  over  the  Public  Worship  Act  was  one 
from  a  relative  of  Gladstone,  the  Rev.  J.  Carr  Glyn,  who 
thanked  him  for  "  so  ably  and  manfully  coming  forward  in 
the  House  and  in  your  letters  to  The  Times  on  the  cause  of 
Protestantism."  Replying  to  a  letter  from  Baron  Bram- 
well,  Harcourt  wrote  : 

Harcourt  to  Lord  Bramwell. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  August  12. — I  was  very  much  obliged  to 
you  for  your  kind  letter  and  to  know  that  there  are  some  good  judges 
who  approve  what  I  have  tried  to  do. 

of  the  King  riding  above  the  buildings  of  the  City,  which  bore  on 
its  reverse  the  following  legend  : 

Relig.  Prot. 

Leg.  Ang. 

Liber.  Par. 
and  gave  it  to  Disraeli. 


i874]  THE   PIOUS   FOUNDER  279 

I  am  and  always  have  been  and  always  shall  be  a  Whig  which 
I  take  to  be  the  faith  of  all  sensible  Englishmen.  The  great  vice 
of  Gladstone  is  that  he  has  never  understood  Whig  principles  and 
never  will.  If  the  Liberal  Party  is  ever  to  be  reconstructed  it  must 
be  on  that  platform.  If  we  can  do  nothing  else  we  can  at  least 
prevent  G.  coming  back  with  a  motley  crew  of  Home  Rulers  and 
Republicans,  and  I  for  one  am  much  more  content  to  bear  the  ills 
we  have  than  fly  to  others  which  we  know  too  well. 


Ill 

Although,  apart  from  the  battle  royal  over  ritualism, 
there  was  little  of  interest  in  the  work  of  the  Session,  Har- 
court  was  active  in  many  direction^.  He  took  a  strong  line 
on  the  Endowed  Schools  Amendment  Bill  which  he  regarded 
as  a  part  of  "a  crescendo  of  denominationalism."  "  In 
1869,"  he  said,  "  we  passed  a  Bill  respecting  the  will  of  the 
founder  ;  in  1873  we  extended  that  principle  ;  and  now,  in 
1874,  it  is  proposed  to  extend  it  still  further.  In  1869  the 
pious  founder  ;  in  1873  the  more  pious  founder  ;  in  1874  the 
most  pious  founder."  What  the  Government  meant  by  the 
pious  founder  was  "  something  that  mirrored  their  own 
prejudices  ;  something  which  enabled  them  to  treat  the 
endowed  schools  as  fortresses  and  strong  positions  against 
the  Nonconformists  :  something  which  gave  effect  to  their 
own  sectarian  passions." 

He  spoke  on  the  Land  Titles  and  Transfer  Bill,  insisting 
that  registration  should  be  accompanied  by  a  simplification 
of  title  and  tenure  ;  pressed  for  reform  of  naval  administra- 
tion, showing  the  repeated  changes  of  plan  at  the  Admiralty, 
and  interested  himself  in  the  crusade  for  saving  Epping 
Forest  to  the  people,  presiding  at  a  great  meeting  at  Shore- 
ditch  Town  Hall  on  the  subject. 

In  the  midst  of  the  Public  Worship  controversy,  Baron 
Bramwell  wrote  asking  Harcourt  to  protest  "  against  the 
Chancellor's  proposal  to  make  a  Court  of  Error  out  of  the 
Chief."  Harcourt  replied  : 

Harcourt  to  Lord  Bramwell. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  Saturday. — I  have  no  special  reverence  for 
"  Chiefs  "  of  any  description  whether  in  the  Law  or  in  politics. 


280  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1874 

But  it  is  difficult  (however  true  it  may  be  and  no  doubt  is)  to  say 
in  public  that  the  Chief  Justices  knew  less  of  law  than  other  people. 
All  barristers  are  supposed  to  be  and  are  called  "  learned,"  Judges 
"  more  learned  "  and  Chief  Justices  "  most  learned  " — such  are 
the  odious  degrees  of  comparison,  as  with  "  Very  Reverend," 
"  Right  Reverend  "  and  "  Most  Reverend  "  Archdeacons,  Bishops 
and  Archbishops  when  none  of  them  are  Reverend  at  all.  It  does 
not  do  to  let  the  public  into  these  secrets  too  much.  They  might 
think  that  none  of  the  august  were  learned  at  all.  However,  I  will 
see  what  can  be  done,  though  I  have  got  a  tough  job  in  hand  just 
now  in  trying  to  convince  the  H.  of  C.  that  Gladstone  knows  nothing 
of  the  English  Constitution  in  Church  and  in  State — which,  however, 
is  the  fact. 

In  the  autumn  Harcourt  lost  one  of  the  circle  of  his  closest 
friends  by  the  death  of  Lady  Dilke.  Writing  to  him  from 
Paris,  after  his  bereavement,  Dilke  said  : 

Dilke  to  Harcourt. 

PARIS,  Wednesday. — I  have  been  wandering  in  the  South  of 
France  ever  since — and  my  letters  were  all  kept  from  me  till  Monday 
night.  Yours  was  one  of  the  first  I  read,  and  I  addressed  an  envelope 
to  you  intending  to  answer  it,  but  I  couldn't,  and  I  don't  know 
whether  I  shall  be  able  to  finish  this  now.  You  see,  I  can  write 
to  the  people  she  didn't  know,  and  to  those  she  didn't  love,  but  it 
is  hard  to  write  to  those  she  loved.  To  think  of  your  visit  and  of  my 
letter  to  you.  It  is  awful,  and  she  loved  Loulou  too — but  above 
all  she  loved  you  for  the  tenderness  of  your  heart  which  we  know 
and  which  so  few  can  guess  the  extent  of — as  we  could.  I  am  afraid 
I  can't  go  on,  do  write  to  me.  I  don't  know  what  I  shall  do. 

Harcourt  replied  : 

Harcourt  to  Dilke. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  November  i. — I  received  your  heartbroken 
and  heartbreaking  note  last  night  on  my  return  from  Eastbourne, 
where  I  have  been  to  settle  my  dear  little  boy  at  school  for  the 
winter. 

What  shall  I — what  can  I  say  to  you  ?  I  know  how  idle  are  all 
commonplace  words  of  consolation  to  you.  Still  you  have  something 
to  look  to  in  the  affection  of  your  many  devoted  friends — and  hers — 
and  in  the  love  of  your  child,  who  will  I  trust  live  to  be  to  you  what 
mine  has  been  to  me.  Make  an  effort  to  transfer  to  it  the  wealth 
of  your  loving  heart  which  has  been  so  terribly  lacerated.  I  too 
loved  my  wife  as  you  did  yours,  and  it  is  to  me  still  after  twelve  years 
a  daily  joy  to  think  over  the  happy  days  we  spent  together  and  to 
remember  how  no  cloud  ever  arose  between  us  and  that  we  both 
made  each  others'  lives  delightful.  I  have  never  seen  two  human 


1874]  DEATH   OF   LADY   DILKE  281 

beings  more  happy  in  each  others'  love  than  you  and  she.  I  know 
how  fearful  must  be  the  return  to  the  scene  of  so  much  joy.  But 
it  must  be  done. 

Pray  don't  give  up  public  life.  It  must  be  your  sheet  anchor  ; 
and  your  child  will  make  for  you  a  home.  I  should  come  at  once  to 
see  you  and  to  try  to  be  of  use  to  you,  but  I  go  to-day  to  Cambridge 
for  my  lectures,  which  will  keep  me  all  November.  But  in  Decem- 
ber and  January  I  shall  be  free,  and  if  the  society  of  one  of  your 
most  devoted  friends  who  loves  you  for  her  sake  and  your  own 
can  be  of  any  comfort  to  you  my  time  shall  be  at  your  disposal. 

You  and  your  sorrows  are  never  out  of  my  thoughts.  Write  to 
me  when  you  feel  disposed,  but  not  otherwise  as  I  shall  quite  under- 
stand it.  I  will  write  to  you  frequently  and  try  to  make  you  think 
of  those  things  which  in  happier  days  she  and  you  and  I  enjoyed  so 
much  together. 

Your  affectionate  friend, 

W.  V.  HARCOURT. 

Loulou  has  talked  so  much  to  me  of  you,  and  was  only  waiting  to 
know  when  he  could  write  to  you. 

Three  days  later  he  wrote  again  : 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  November  4. — I  fully  meant  to  have  written 
to  you  before,  and  was  most  glad  to  receive  your  note  which  tells 
me  that  you  have  been  able  to  see  your  friends  again.  I  have  just 
done  with  Cambridge  where  all  who  knew  you  are  full  of  interest  and 
sympathy  for  you.  I  had  a  good  class  and  saw  much  of  Fawcett. 
He  is  become  such  an  out  and  out  Gladstonian  that  I  call  him 
Georgius  Glynnus  Secundus.1 

I  fear  the  great  Dizzy  is  very  shaky  and  that  his  illness  has  been 
very  serious.  I  doubt  if  we  shall  see  or  hear  much  more  of  him. 

In  spite  of  all  the  invitations  which  Liberal  orators  think  it  right 
to  address  to  Gladstone  the  best  opinion  seems  to  be  that  he  means  to 
return  less  than  ever  to  the  House  of  Commons.  .  .  . 

The  feud  between  Gladstone  and  Harcourt  smouldered 
on  after  the  passing  of  the  Act.     Gladstone  published  his  * 
pamphlet    on   the    "  Vatican   Decrees,"    and,  speaking  at 
Oxford,  Harcourt  referred  to  the  troubles  of  the  Liberal 
party,  and  remarked  that  they  would  not  restore  the  healthy 
tone  of  an  over-excited  system  by  blazing  rhetoric  and  sen-  \ 
sational  pamphleteering.     Returning  to  the  subject  later  in 
his  speech,  after  a  general  repudiation  of  extremists  and  a 
profession  of  his  faith  in  Whig  principles,  he  said  they  could 
not  expect  him  to  join  in  an  onslaught  on  his  Catholic  fellow- 

1  G.  Glyn,  Liberal  Whip,  afterwards  Lord  Wolverton. 


282  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1874 

subjects,  and  that,  as  a  politician  it  was  no  part  of  his  business 
to  undertake  the  office  of  a  controversial  theologian.  He 
fought  over  again  the  battle  of  the  Public  Worship  Bill  and 
defended  the  Establishment,  remarking  that  it  had  been  the 
good  fortune  of  their  race  that  they  had  nourished  "  a 
traditional  distrust  of  priests  and  an  instinctive  aversion 
to  philosophers."  The  Times,  in  commenting  on  this  speech, 
said  that  "  the  crotchets  of  humanitarians  and  the  dogmas 
of  advanced  thinkers  will  not  receive  any  encouragement 
from  the  Liberal  Party,  so  far  as  Sir  William  Harcourt  can 
exercise  any  influence  over  it."  With  regard  to  his  reference 
to  Mr.  Gladstone's  pamphlet,  it  remarked  that  the  passages 
"  derive  their  chief  interest  from  the  indications  they  give  of 
Sir  William  Harcourt's  probable  relations  with  Mr.  Gladstone 
during  the  coming  session." 

The  question  of  the  leadership  was  still  the  subject  of 
domestic  concern  in  the  Liberal  party,  and  writing  to  Frank 
Hill,  Harcourt  said  : 

OXFORD  &  CAMBRIDGE  CLUB,  Sunday  evening.— The  four-and- 
twenty  tailors  went  to  kill  a  snail,  but  when  they  saw  his  horns  they 
were  so  frightened  that  they  returned  to  their  bench  where  they  are 
still  sitting  cross  legged.  The  truth  is  none  of  them  dare  go  near 
G.,  and  nothing  has  been  done.  They  hope  in  a  few  days,  perhaps 
weeks,  more  probably  months,  to  dare  to  do  something.  In  the 
meantime  G.  still  sulks,  and  says  he  will  not  lead.  They  go  on 
begging  him,  but  they  have  been  so  long  like  babies  in  leading 
strings  that  they  can't  walk  alone.  In  the  meanwhile  the  disor- 
ganization is  complete.  There  is  no  whip,  no  office,  no  nothing. 
The  thing  is  ridiculous  and  disgraceful.  You  will  be  safe  in  saying 
there  is  nothing  decided,  nothing  arranged,  nothing  prepared.  The 
fate  of  the  Liberal  Party  depends  on  whether  G.  chooses  to  get  out 
of  the  sulks. 

The  hoisting  of  the  Whig  flag  had  given  satisfaction  in  one 
quarter.  In  a  Christmas  letter  to  his  brother,  Edward 
Harcourt  said  : 

HASTINGS,  December  24. — In  writing  you  a  line  to  send  you  the 
best  wishes  of  the  season,  I  must  express  to  you  my  satisfaction  at 
the  tone  of  your  last  speech  at  Oxford.  I  do  not  despair  of  seeing 
you  a  sound  Conservative  some  day,  at  any  rate  I  am  very  glad  to 
see  you  disclaim  the  Radical  affinities  of  the  Liberal  connection. 


1874]  "AN    ENGLISH   NAME'  283 

The  story  of  this  year  may  be  fittingly  rounded  off  with 
one  of  those  pieces  of  self-portraiture  which  Harcourt  had 
for  years  occasionally  indulged  in  in  writing  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby. 
In  the  course  of  a  letter  to  her  (December  23)  he  says  : 

Harcourt  to  Mrs.  Ponsonby. 

It  is  true  that  in  my  opinions  and  my  life  I  am  what  I  have  always 
been  a  good  deal  self-contained  (what  perhaps  others  would  call 
self-centred}.  But  that  I  suppose  belongs  to  those  who  have  strong 
wills  and  great  ambitions. 

As  to  the  future,  I  assure  you  that  my  objects  are  not  so  definite 
as  you  suppose.  I  have  a  passionate  love  and  admiration  for  the 
character  of  the  English  people.  Those  who  think  it  is  assumed  are 
mistaken.  If  I  can  reflect  their  best  thoughts  and  operate  in  any 
way  on  their  judgment  I  am  satisfied,  though  I  have  no  doubt  I 
share  their  weaknesses  and  have  some  tendency  to  glorify  their 
prejudices.  One  does  this  incurably  towards  the  woman  or  the  people 
one  loves. 

Whatever  other  people  may  think,  you  know  mine  is  a  really 
passionate  nature.  The  events  of  my  life  have  tended  to  chasten 
and  sadden  it,  but  its  natural  buoyancy  and  courage  is  not  destroyed. 
I  don't  say  I  have  no  wish  to  leave  an  English  name — for  I  have. 
But  as  to  official  pre-eminence  I  am  careless  of  it.  The  objects  of 
personal  ambition  in  that  sense  are  more  or  less  dead  to  me.  .  .  . 

However,  I  stick  by  the  old  Whig  motto  Che  sara  sara.  I  try  to 
understand  the  English  people  ;  perhaps  one  day  they  will  under- 
stand me.  If  they  don't  it  will  only  be  what  has  happened  to  my 
betters  before.  . 


CHAPTER  XIV 
HARCOURT  BACKS  HARTINGTON 

The  Question  of  the  Leadership — Antagonism  to  Gladstone — Forster 
or  Hartington — Hartington  Leader  of  the  Party — The  Burials 
Bill — A  Visit  to  Hughenden — The  Suez  Canal  Shares — Oxford 
speeches — The  Slave  Circular — The  Exclusiveness  of  the  "  Late 
Cabinet  " — Naval  controversy  in  The  Times — Canada  and 
Merchant  Shipping  Acts — The  Disraeli  peerage — A  Swiss 
Holiday — Second  marriage. 

FOR  the  first  time  since  he  had  become  a  member  for 
Oxford,  Harcourt  did  not  attend  the  Annual  Druids' 
Dinner  on  the  New  Year's  Day  of  1875.  His  absence 
was  attributed  to  health  reasons,  but  the  fact  was  that  the 
situation  was  not  one  which  could  tempt  a  Liberal  statesman 
to  any  public  declaration.  The  Party  was  in  dissolution. 
After  his  irruption  on  the  Public  Worship  Bill,  Gladstone  had 
subsided  into  silence.  In  spite  of  the  urgent  appeals  from  his 
immediate  circle  his  mind  steadily  moved  in  the  direction 
of  final  retirement  from  the  les/dership  of  the  Party.  Gran- 
ville,  Hartington  and  Goschen  on  the  one  side,  and  Bright 
and  Chamberlain  on  the  other  were  anxious  that  he  should 
continue  to  lead,  but  he  was  satisfied  that  neither  the  Party 
generally  nor  the  country  desired  another  period  of  active 

\reforms.  Even  if  they  did  he  was  doubtful  about  his  own 
fitness  to  conduct  them  and  shrank  from  a  rupture  in  the 
Party  which  would  leave  him  leading  one  section  against 
another.  In  the  discussion  which  was  going  on  behind  the 

N  scenes  Harcourt  was  taking  an  active  part.  His  antagonism 
to  Gladstone  had  become  temporarily  the  governing  motive 
of  his  political  activities,  and  he  was  determined  that  there 

284 


i875]         HOSTILITY  TO   GLADSTONE  285 

should  be  "no  return  from  Elba."  In  the  first  days  of  the 
New  Year  he  was  engaged  in  a  feverish  correspondence  with 
his  late  colleagues  on  the  subject.  From  the  extracts  which 
follow  it  will  be  seen  that  he  was  not  getting  much  encour- 
agement in  the  course  he  was  pursuing,  though  in  the  end 
the  object  he  sought  to  attain,  a  Hartington  leadership,^ 
was  accomplished.  It  was  accomplished,  however,  by  Glad- 
stone's own  final  resolve  to  retire,  conveyed  in  the  letter  of 
January  13  to  Granville,  rather  than  by  the  wish  of  his 
colleague  that  he  should  retire. 

Harcourt  to  Goschen. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  January  4. — .  .  .  Gladstone  having 
dismissed  seventy  Catholic  vote^  I  suppose  will  return  as  the  leader 
of  about  eighty  Radical  Disestablishmentarians.  I  wish  him  joy  of 
them.  It  is  exactly  the  position  I  wish  to  see  him  occupy.  And 
I  rather  hope  that  the  approaching  meeting  at  Birmingham  will 
make  that  clear. 

There  will  remain  about  120  moderate  Liberals  who  will  take^ 
precious  good  care  he  shall  not  be  in  the  position  to  do  any  serious 
mischief.     For  my  part  I  see  nothing    better  at  present  than  to«" 
keep  the  present  men  in  under  surveillance.     As  long  as  Dizzy  lives 
it  will  not  be  difficult.     If  he  goes  it  will  be  a  serious  matter,  as  they 
will  probably  make  themselves  impossible  by  their  follies.     But  in 
my  opinion  anything  almost  would  be  more  endurable  than  a  restora- 
tion of  the  late  regime. 

Harcourt  to  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  January  6. —  .  .  .  Everything  is  possible 
and   nothing  particularly  probable.     Gladstone's  Will-o'-the-Wisp^1'' 
genius  has  been  fatal  to  a  party  to  which  he  has  never  really  belonged 
and  whose  principles  he  does  not  now  understand. 

I  assure  you  honestly  nothing  is  further  from  my  desire  than  to 
lead  anybody.  I  find  it  difficult  enough  to  lead  myself.  .  .  . 

Whether  he  (Gladstone)  means  to  come  back  to  the  opposition 
Bench  as  leader,  I  don't  know,  and  I  doubt  if  he  does  himself.  It 
will  be  determined,  as  anything  he  does  is,  by  temper  and  passion, 
and  I  don't  see  any  use  or  possibility  of  electing  a  remplafant. 
There  is  not  agreement  enough  on  the  subject,  and  for  obvious 
reasons  it  is  not  a  matter  in  which  I  feel  disposed  to  stir.  Things 
must  slide  for  the  present. 

I  think  it  very  likely  that  Chamberlain  &  Co.  will  make  the 

/Birmingham  meeting  at  the  end  of  the  month  an  occasion  for  a 

pronunciamento  in  his  favour.     But  this  will  do  him  more  harm 


286  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1875 

_^_  than  good.  I  have  never  counted  on  James  to  oppose  Gladstone. 
He  does  not  love  G.,  but  he  fears  him,  which  I  don't.  .  .  . 

I  hear  to-day  from  the  Chancellor  that  Dizzy  is  really  all  right 

^  again.  I  am  very  glad  of  it,  for  if  he  were  to  go  there  would  be  chaos. 
It  seems  to  me  there  is  nothing  to  do  for  the  present  but  to  keep 
these  men  in,  and  without  D.  it  would  be  probably  impossible.  I 
am  going  to  meet  the  old  lot  at  Strawberry  Hill  on  Saturday.  If 
I  hear  any  news  worth  writing  I  will  send  it  to  you. 

Harcourt  to  Goschen. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  January  7. —  ...  If  Gladstone  returns 
as  leader  my  course  will  depend  on  the  policy  which  he  pursues. 

\  I  am  a  little  sick  of  what  G.  Glyn  called  "  loyalty,"  which,  as  far  as 
I  understand,  was  a  servile  abandonment  of  all  principles  to  the 
whim  of  one  individual.  That  sort  of  loyalty  I  hope  I  shall  never 

^practice.  My  loyalty  is  due  to  the  principles  of  the  Party  to  which 
I  belong.  And  I  can  neither  see  them  dragged  through  the  dirt 
not  suffer  myself  to  be  so.  If  it  be  true,  as  is  confidently  stated, 
that  Gladstone  is  to  return  in  order  to  make  a  declaration  against 
the  Church,  and  you  and  your  late  colleagues  think  that  even  if 
you  disapprove  such  a  course  you  have  not  the  right  to  say  so  :  I 
can  only  protest  that  I  do  not  so  regard  my  political  obligations,  nor 
should  I  do  so  if  the  leader  was  a  far  wiser  man  than  Gladstone  is. 
I  shall  take  on  that  subject  the  same  course  as  I  did  on  his  Resolu- 
tions. It  seems  to  me  impossible  for  any  man  who  respects  himself 
to  hold  his  political  opinions  as  a  sort  of  tenant  at  will  ready  to  be 
ejected  at  an  instant's  notice.  It  was  in  my  opinion  this  singular 
doctrine  of  "  loyalty  "  (which  I  should  call  by  another  name)  which 
deprived  the  late  Cabinet  of  that  independence  of  judgment  and  free- 
dom of  consultation  which  is  essential  to  the  dignity  and  vitality 
of  a  government. 

A  party  or  a  cabinet  or  a  government  which  only  meets  to  register 
submissively  the  varying  fancies  of  an  individual,  without  daring 
even  to  remonstrate  or  to  discuss,  is  sure  to  perish  as  the  empire  of 
bouis  Napoleon  did  and  as  the  Government  of  Gladstone  has  done. 
I  know  something  of  the  way  in  which  the  Cabinet  of  Lord  Palmer  - 
ston  was  conducted  when  Sir  C.  Lewis  was  a  member  of  it.  In 
those  days  Cabinet  Ministers  dared  to  have  an  opinion  of  their 
own,  and  frequently  made  them  prevail.  But  then  Lord  Palmerston 

\  was  not  a  theologian.     I  claim  the  right  to  act  just  as  independently 

as  Gladstone  himself  did  towards  the  Government  of  Lord  Palmerston 

from  1854  to  1859  after  he  had  been  his  colleague  and  indeed  had 

-u    r  accepted  office  under  him.     If  Gladstone  will  stick  to  the  principles 

I  of  the  Liberal  Party  I  am  very  ready  to  act  with  him  or  under  him. 
But  I  will  not  undertake  to  support  any  wild  proposals  which  his 
flighty  nature  may  at  any  moment  think  fit  to  go  in  for.  Still 
less  will  I  abandon  the  right  of  remonstrance  against  a  policy  which 


i875]    PLAIN   SPEAKING   BY   GOSCHEN      287 

I  regard  as  dangerous  or  mischievous,  like  that  for  instance  of  his 
late  pamphlet.  He  has  the  secret  unknown  to  me  of  justifying 
himself  in  doing  and  saying  one  day  the  exact  opposite  to  what  he 
did  the  day  before.  As  I  don't  understand  the  art  I  shall  not  follow 
that  course,  and  I  am  sincerely  sorry  for  those  who,  like  yourself, 
think  yourselves  bound  to  go  wherever  the  Will-o '-the- Wisp  may  lead 
you.  I  hope  you  may  not  be  choked  in  the  quagmire. 

If  Gladstone  flings  himself  into  the  arms  of  the  Radicals  he  cannot'"" 
expect  that  moderate  men  will  follow  him. 

However  we  will  talk  more  of  these  things  when  we  meet  at  Seacox 
Heath.  Meanwhile  I  go  to  sleep  more  easily  than  you  can  do,  who 
do  not  know  whether  you  may  not  see  in  any  morning's  Times 
a  manifesto  or  a  pamphlet  which  will  bind  you  like  the  Vatican 
Decrees  to  obey  your  Pope  and  declare  for  the  destruction  of  the 
Monarchy,  the  House  of  Lords,  or  the  House  of  Commons  (as  he  no 
longer  has  a  majority  there)  or  the  Church. 

Happily,  however,  as  is  the  case  of  the  Papists,  the  "  loyalty  " 
even  of  the  late  Cabinet  is  not  so  unreasonable  as  it  professes  to  be, 
and  I  firmly  believe  that  you  would  think  three  times  at  least  before 
you  killed  your  wife  and  family  even  at  the  command  of  Gladstone 
and  G.  Glyn. 

Goschen  to  Harcourt. 

SEACOX  HEATH,  January  7. — George  is  much  disappointed  at 
hearing  that  Loulou  is  not  to  appear  on  Saturday,  we  thought  it 
quite  settled  and  I  am  sorry  to  lose  your  visit.  ...  A  "  more 
convenient  season  "  is,  I  fear,  a  scriptural  phrase  for  indefinite 
postponement. 

Less  ambitious  than  you,  I  do  not  propose  to  act  any  part  myself. 
I  am  so  deficient  in  histrionic  talent  that  I  cannot  even  act  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  a  very  great  drawback  in  these  days. 

Thanks  for  your  political  letter.  You  once  paid  me  the  compli- 
ment of  saying  that  I  was  the  only  member  of  the  late  Cabinet  to 
whom  you  could  speak  your  mind  straight  out,  without  meeting 
anger  or  annoyance.  And  you  judged  rightly  that  I  like  to  hear 
both  sides,  and  of  course  I  am  glad  to  know  what  is  passing  in  your 
breast,  even  when  it  takes  the  form  of  the  strongest  antipathy  to  my 
late  Chief  and  his  colleagues,  of  whom  I  was  one.  But  it  is  difficult  to 
know  how  to  deal  with  your  frank  confidences. 

If  Gladstone  returns  as  leader,  as  I  hope  he  will,  and  if  the  breach^ 
;Xvidens  between  yourself  and  Gladstone,  as  it  must  do,  you  and  I 
must  be  in  opposite  camps,  and  you  are  supplying  information  to 
the  enemy.  Of  course  I  treat  your  letter  as  confidential ;  yet  your 
attitude  of  increasing  hostility  is  a  circumstance  which  of  course  I 
cannot  exclude  from  my  mind  in  discussions  which  may  arise,  as  to 
what  ought  to  be  done.  Don't  misconstrue  what  I  say.  My  only 
wish  is  to  be  perfectly  loyal  to  you  when  receiving  confidence,  yet 


288  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1875 

loyal   to  Gladstone  if  he  returns  to  the  House  and  maps  out  a 
campaign. 

Goschen  to  Harcourt. 

SEACOX  HEATH,  January  8. — In  denouncing  the  definition  of 
loyalty,  which  rightly  or  wrongly  you  put  into  Glyn's  mouth  (I 
admit  that  he  has  sometimes  taken  an  exaggerated  Gladstonian 
view),  you  denounce  a  kind  of  feeling  which  I  myself  entirely  re- 
pudiate and  which  most  of  my  late  colleagues  would  probably 
"equally  demur  to.  Your  definition  is  a  very  great  exaggeration. 

You  have  constantly  told  me  that  the  late  Cabinet  always  deferred 
to  Gladstone  and  you  seem  to  think  that  we  could  hardly  call  our 
"-.souls  our  own,  that  he  was  our  Pope,  in  fact.  That  is  historically 
incorrect,  but  that  is  comparatively  immaterial  at  present. 

No  one  would  hold — certainly  not  Gladstone  himself  nor  the 

^-  super-Gladstonian  Wolverton — that  if   Gladstone  were  to  return 

to-morrow  with  a  programme  of  disestablishment   loyalty  would 

require  anybody  to  follow  him.     The  result  would  be  an  honest, 

open,  and  avowed  split,  that  is  quite  certain. 

Of  course  every  member  of  the  party — and  ex-colleagues  as 
much  as  anybody — has  a  perfect  right  to  protest  publicly  and 
privately,  if  on  important  questions  a  real  divergence  of  opinion 
exists.  .  .  . 

There  is  an  immense  interval  between  the  general  feeling  of 
hostility  towards  Gladstone's  whole  course  of  action,  the  pleasure  in 
his  reverses,  and  the  determination  to  do  what  can  be  done  to  keep 
him  out  of  office,  which  you  expressed  to  me  in  the  train  coming 
from  Scotland,  and  the  state  of  mind  which  you,  most  contrary 
to  fact,  attribute  to  me,  of  being  ready  to  follow  a  will-o'-the-wisp 
into  any  quagmire  to  which  it  may  stray. 

With  the  formal  announcement  by  Gladstone  of  his  resig- 
nation of  the  leadership,  the  question  of  a  successor  occupied 
the  field  of  discussion.  The  course  of  the  public  discussion 
is  summed  up  in  Tenniel's  famous  cartoon,  "  The  Bow  of 
Ulysses,"  published  in  Punch  (February  6),  which  represented 
Hartington  engaged  in  trying  to  bend  the  bow,  and  Har- 
court, Goschen,  Lowe  and  Forster  behind  awaiting  their  turn. 
That  was  the  outside  view,  but  behind  the  scenes  the  choice 
^was  narrowed  down  to  Hartington  and  Forster.  Harcourt 
was  a  whole-hearted  Hartington  man,  and  he  put  into  the 
candidature  the  enthusiasm  which  the  candidate  himself, 
characteristically,  lacked.  Writing  to  Harcourt  on  January 
17,  Hartington  said  : 


i875]          "THE  BOW  OF  ULYSSES0  289 

Hartington  to  Harcourt. 

I  have  to  thank  you  for  your  letter  ;  the  more  because  since  last 
March  you  have  taken  a  position  in  the  House  of  Commons  which 
certainly  would  entitle  you  to  consider  yourself  a  candidate  for  the 
vacant  place. 

The  time  since  Gladstone's  retirement  is  short ;  but  I  have  already 
heard  enough  to  convince  me  that  if  leadership  of  the  Opposition  as 
a  whole  is  to  be  attempted  at  all  it  must  be  brought  about  not  by  its 
assumption  by  myself  or  by  any  one  else,  or  by  the  dictation  of  the 
late  Cabinet,  but  by  the  Party  itself  after  consultation  and  considera- 
tion of  the  many  difficulties  of  the  position.  I  do  not  myself  feel-''' 
certain  that  leadership  of  the  Opposition  as  a  whole  is  either  possible 
or  desirable,  or  that  an  arrangement  which  would  recognize  the  real 
state  of  affairs  among  us  might  not  be  preferable.  The  Opposition -"^ 
consists  of  Whigs,  Radicals  and  Home  Rulers,  and  a  recognition 
of  that  fact  would  save  us  all  from  many  embarrassments,  and  might 
possibly  enable  us  to  resist  any  really  mischievous  policy  of  the 
present  Government,  at  least  as  efficiently  as  if  we  were  nominally 
united.  .  .  . 

The  only  point  on  which  I  have  at  all  made  up  my  own  mind  is 
that  I  would  not  accept  the  nominal  leadership,  unless  the  proposal 
were  made  with  the  general  concurrence  of  the  leading  men  in  and 
out  of  the  late  Government. 

"  I  am  glad  you  think  me  '  bumptious/  "  wrote  Harcourt 
to  Argyll  (January  20)  from  Nocton  Hall,  where  he  was  stay- 
ing with  Lord  Ripon. "  It  is  the  virtue  of  the  young,  and  you 
know  I  have  not  yet  sown  my  '  Parliamentary  wild  oats.' 
.  .  .  How  dear  old  Johnny  (Russell)  must  be  chuckling 
at  Gladstone's  overthrow.  What  is  satisfactory  to  me  is  to 
think  that  it  does  not  signify  two  peas  except  that  one  sleeps 
a  little  sounder  at  night,  now  that  Gladstone  cannot  announce 
a  new  Resolution  at  breakfast."  To  Dilke  he  writes  : 

Harcourt  to  Dilke. 

NOCTON  HALL,  LINCOLN,  January  20. — I  entirely  agree  with  you 
about  Fawcett.  His  situation  in  nailing  his  colours  to  Gladstone's 
mast  just  as  he  was  going  to  the  bottom  was  ridiculous  in  the  extreme. 
The  truth  is  that  Fawcett  has  many  merits,  but  is  wholly  devoid  of 
political  judgment.  He  said  to  me  at  Cambridge  in  December, 
"  Well,  you  go  in  against  G.  and  I  for  him  ;  we  shall  see  which  will 
win."  And  we  have  seen.  Fawcett  positively  believed  that 
Vatican  pamphlet  was  a  great  coup.  Is  it  possible  to  be  more 
blind  ? 

I  am  sincerely  glad  G.  is  gone.     Whatever  happens  things  can't  be 

U 


2go  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1875 

worse  than  they  were  under  his  sudden  impulses  and  unintelligible 
policy.  What  will  happen  God  only  knows — or  perhaps  the  Devil. 
I  am  keeping  out  of  it  all.  Since  the  smash  I  have  not  been  a  day  in 
London,  and  don't  mean  to  be  till  Parliament  meets.  I  hate  club 
gossip.  It  is  so  ridiculous  and  altogether  without  influence.  It  is 
pull  devil  pull  baker  between  Hartington  and  Forster.  As  you 
know  I  prefer  the  first,  and  I  am  not  sure  you  would  not  likewise. 
^However  I  mean  to  have  no  finger  in  the  pie. 

But  having  "  no  finger  in  the  pie  "  did  not  mean  that  his 
unquiet  spirit  slumbered.  His  appetite  for  controversy  was 
insatiable,  and  he  wrote  anonymously  to  The  Times  on  the 
constitutional  doctrine  of  the  election  of  an  Opposition 
leader.  In  one  letter  (January  30)  which  he  signed  "  A 
Sheep  without  a  Shepherd,"  he  urged  that  Granville  and 
Bright  should  have  consulted  with  their  late  colleagues  and 
that  they  should  make  a  recommendation  to  the  Party.  He 
was  evidently  afraid  that  the  vote  at  the  Party  meeting 
would  go  against  Hartington,  for  to  Dilke  he  writes  : 

.  .  .  Bright  has  made  a  fiasco  at  Birmingham.     All  the  fat  is  in 

the  fire.     The  odds  which  were  on  Hartington  are  now  on  Forster — 

\Fawcett    agitating   furiously   for    F.    in   odium  swellorum.     As    at 

present  advised  I  shall  not  go  to  the  meeting. 

However,  next  day  Forster  withdrew  from  the  contest  for 
leadership,  and  when  the  meeting  of  the  Liberal  members 
was  held  on  February  3,  Hartington  was  elected  unanimously 
V  and  Harcourt  was  content.  For  a  year  he  had  been  working 
for  the  retirement  of  Gladstone  and  the  substitution  of 
Hartington,  and  both  objects  were  now  accomplished.  A 
curious  sidelight  is  thrown  on  these  proceedings  by  the 
postscript  to  a  letter  from  Lyon  Playfair  to  Granville 
(January  15),  printed  in  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice's  IMe  of 
Granville  : 

The  real  meaning  of  the  anxiety  expressed  is  the  following  : 

/Lord  Hartington  is  looked  upon  as  a  nominee  of  Harcourt  and 
James,  to  be  used  in  the  equational  proportion — Lord  George 
Bentinck  :  Disraeli :  :  Hartington  :  Harcourt.  That  is  at  the  bottom 
of  the  agitation.  But  there  is  enough  spirit  of  conciliation  for  the 
"  independents  "  to  accept  Lord  H.  or  A. B.C.  provided  it  is  done 
gently  and  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Party. 


i875]  VISIT  TO   HUGHENDEN  291 

The  Earl  of  Lytton,  writing  to  Harcourt  from  Paris,  con- 
gratulated him  on  the  course  of  events,  observing  :  "I  hope 
that  Lord  Hartington  will  be  your  temporary  leader.  A 
good  roi  faineant  is  sometimes  as  great  a  desideratum  as  a 
maire  du  palais.  You  stand  foremost  in  the  order  of  Suc- 
cession, and  whenever  the  throne  is  next  vacated  I  shall 
expect  to  see  you  ascend." 

The  Session  was  singularly  humdrum.,  and  there  was  no 
issue  like  that  of  the  Public  Worship  Bill  to  engage  Harcourt's 
love  of  battle.  He  spoke  well  and  wisely  in  support  of 
Osborne  Morgan's  resolution  that  interments  should  be  per- 
mitted in  churchyards  either  without  any  burial  service  or 
with  services  conducted  by  ministers  of  other  denominations 
than  the  Established  Church.  He  pointed  out  that  the  right 
had  been  conceded  to  Ireland  and  ought  not  to  be  withheld 
from  this  country.  He  "  declined  altogether  to  link  the 
living  body  of  the  Church  of  England  with  dead  and  decaying 
privileges,  for,  if  the  two  were  inseparable,  many  a  man 
would  be  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  the  cause  of  that 
Church  was  indefensible." 

There  was  an  amusing  echo  of  the  Ritualistic  controversy 
of  the  previous  year  after  the  Session  was  over.  Disraeli 
wrote  to  Harcourt  from  Wortley  Hall,  Sheffield,  as  follows  : 

Disraeli  to  Harcourt. 

September  13. — Where  are  you  ?  and  is  there  a  chance  of  your 
being  in  the  South  on  the  28th  of  this  month  ?  And  if  disengaged, 
could  you  give  me  the  great  pleasure  of  coming  to  Hughenden  ? 

My  new  Church  is  to  be  opened  on  the  29th,  and  the  Bishop  will 
be  with  me,  who  was  created  by  your  friend  Mr.  G.  and  is  very 
high,  and  I  hear  there  is  to  be  a  procession  of  stoled  priests,  of  great 
length. 

I  must  have  some  of  the  reformed  faith  present  to  keep  me  in 
countenance,  and  you,  being  the  grandson  of  an  Archbishop,  may 
please  all  parties.  I  hppe  the  Duchess  of  Sutherland  will  support 
me.  But  that  is  not^nough.  Women,  even  she,  may  have  aestheti- 
cal  seizures,  and  to  ensure  my  safety,  I  require  your  masculine 
Protestantism.  Pray  come  if  you  can.  It  will  recall  old  days. 

Harcourt's  reply  (September  17)  was  couched  in  the  same 
slightly  irreverent  vein  : 


292  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1875 

Harcourt  to  Disraeli. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  September  17.— An  invitation  to  Hughenden 
would  attract  me  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth,  for  there  is  no 
place  which  has  for  me  so  great  a  fascination.  I  suppose  it  was  an 
instinct  of  this  magnet  which  brought  me  back  yesterday  from  Swit- 
zerland to  find  your  letter  awaiting  my  return. 

Yes,  I  shall  come  with  the  greatest  of  pleasure.  I  was  saying  to  a 
friend  the  other  day  that  I  believe  I  ought  to  regret  for  many  reasons 
that  you  were  Minister,  but  that  in  fact  the  reason  for  which  I  most 
deplored  it  was  that  now  I  had  no  occasion  of  seeing  you. 

You  have  most  amiably  anticipated  my  wishes  and  not  deferred 
them  to  the  days,  I  fear  too  remote,  of  your  opposition. 

As  I  am  fresh  from  Geneva  and  Zermatt  and  Basle  and  Worms, 
I  shall  be  ready  to  do  battle  by  your  side  in  the  good  cause,  and  if 
need  be  to  shy  a  stool  at  the  head  of  the  mass-mongers.  I  wish  a 
round  dozen  of  Bishops  would  be  translated  in  chariots  of  fire  in 
order  that  you  might  fill  the  Bench  with  some  better  stuff  than  that 
with  which  it  has  been  recently  recruited.  Just  now  I  think  the 
material  of  that  seat  quite  as  important  as  that  of  the  Treasury 
Bench. 

Don't  you  think  it  would  have  a  good  effect  if  you  appeared  on 
this  occasion  in  your  Oxford  D.C.L.  robes,  and  I  will  bring  a  Geneva 
gown  from  Cambridge. 

Though  I  shall  be  charmed  to  take  part  in  your  ecclesiastical 
pageant,  I  can't  accept  it  in  exchange  "  for  the  happier  time  of  social 
converse  ill  exchanged  for  power."  And  some  time  or  other  I  hope 
we  may  have  another  day  alone  in  Bradenham  Chase  and  talk  over 
the  strange  things  which  have  happened  and  are  to  happen. 

You  have  made  England  dreadfully  dull,  which  I  suppose  is  the 
true  test  of  national  happiness. 

But  individually  you  owe  us  compensation. 

After  the  visit  to  Hughenden  Harcourt  returned  to  Scot- 
land, where  he  had  been  with  Henry  James  at  Millais's 
shooting-lodge.  Afterwards  he  was  at  Balcarres,  Colinsburgh, 
from  whence  he  wrote  to  his  son  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Son. 

BALCARRES,  October  14. — I  must  write  you  a  line  on  my  birth- 
day. I  think  you  know  that  in  all  the  years  of  my  life,  you,  my 
darling,  have  been  my  greatest  happiness  and  joy.  And  your  dear 
mother  left  you  to  me  as  both  a  trust  and  a  consoler.  We  have 
been  very  happy  in  each  other's  love,  and  shall  always  be  so  as  long 
as  God  is  pleased  that  we  should  live  together.  I  cannot  remember 
that  either  has  ever  given  the  other  a  moment's  sorrow  or  pain, 
and  that  will  always  be  a  happy  thing  for  both  to  remember  whatever 
may  happen  to  us  in  the  future. 


i875j  SUEZ   CANAL   SHARES  293 

The  weather  is  so  bad  here  that  I  have  determined  to  return  to 
London  to-morrow,  so  I  shall  very  soon  see  you  again,  dearest. 
I  will  send  you  a  telegram  when  I  am  coming  down. 


II 

During  the  Session  Hartington  had  justified  his  appoint- 
ment to  the  leadership  of  the  Party,  but  the  intentions  of 
Gladstone  were  still  the  subject  of  speculation.  Writing  to 
Harcourt  from  Chatsworth  (November  21)  .^Harrington  says  : 

.  .  .  Mr.  Gladstone  is  here,  and  seems  a  good  deal  interested  in 
politics.  The  position  of  Egypt  in  regard  to  the  Turkish  repudiation, 
the  Admiralty,  and  Mr/^Froude's  proceedings  at  the  Cape  are  his 
great  political  topics  at  present. 

Four  days  later  Hartington,  writing  to  Harcourt  from 
Studley  Royal,  returns  to  the  subject  of  Gladstone  : 

...  I  don't  much  think  that  Gladstone  meditates  a  return  to 
politics.     He  certainly  takes  greater  interest  in  secular  affairs  than 
I  expected  ;    but  tnen  he  is  profoundly  impressed  with  the  rotten**' 
state  of  the  Liberal  Party. 

Harcourt  went  to  Chatsworth  in  the  following  month,  and, 
writing  on  his  return  to  London  to  Lord  Houghton,  says  : 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  December  21. — .  .  .  I  was  at  Chatsworth 
last  week  where  the  governing  race  are  I  think  much  pleased  at  the 
success  of  the  young  Julius  in  his  lead.  He  gains  strength  and 
popularity  every  day.  The  truth  is  the  real  political  sentiment 
of  the  country  is  neither  Conservative  nor  Radical,  but  Whig  to  the 
backbone. 

How  Dizzy  must  curse  the  prosaic  Derby  for  having  desillusionne 
the  world  on  the  subject  of  the  Suez  Canal.  That  affair  has  almost 
blown  over. 

The  allusion  is  to  the  purchase  of  the  Suez  Canal  shares, 
which  in  the  general  poverty  of  the  ministerial  achievements 
had  been  magnified  into  a  miracle  of  Disraelian  wizardry. 
Every  one  knows  to-day  the  facts  about  that  excellent,  but 
absurdly  trumpeted  transaction,  how,  learning  that  the 
Khedive's  shares  were  in  the  market,  Frederick  Greenwood, 
then  editor  of  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette,  urged  and  induced 
Disraeli  to  buy  them,  and  with  what  oriental  magnificence 
the  simple  affair  was  invested  for  the  public  benefit.  Unfor- 


294  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1875 

i/ 

tunately  LoitLDerJiy  (tne  Stanley  of  the  Apostolic  days,  for 
whose  plain  honesty~Harcourt  always  showed  the  highest 
respect)  had,  as  Foreign  Secretary,  put  the  matter  in  its  true 
\  and  modest  light,  and  pointed  out  that  the  real  power  of 
England  in  Eastern  affairs  depended  not  on  Canal  shares,  but 
on  the  British  fleet.  Harcourt  made  great  play  with  this 
conflict  between  the  blunt  Englishman  and  the  Oriental 
magician  when  he  came  to  deal  with  the  subject  at  Oxford 
on  the  last  day  of  the  year  (December  31).  It  was  the  first 
of  three  speeches  he  had  engaged  to  deliver  to  his  constitu- 
ents. He  was  in  his  liveliest  vein,  and  greatly  shocked  The 
Times,  which  thought  that  if  he  had  been  content  with 
fifty ' '  laughs  ' '  instead  of  500 ,  he  would  better  have  consulted 
the  gravities  of  public  life.  In  fact,  the  speech  was  a  most 
damaging  criticism  of  the  actions  of  the  Government.  He 
denounced  the  Army  Regimental  Exchanges  Bill  as  instinct 
with  the  very  worst  spirit  of  exclusive  privilege,  showed  the 
inadequacy  of  the  amendment  of  the  Labour  laws,  and  spoke 
very  forcibly  on  the  maladministration  of  the  Navy  and 
on  the  Merchant  Shipping  and  Judicature  Acts.  It  was 
a  serious  speech  dressed  in  gay  apparel ;  but  it  was 
nowhere  more  gay  than  in  its  allusion  to  the  Suez 
Canal  shares  : 

Since  the  speech  of  the  Foreign  Secretary,  the  whole  aspect  of  the 
question  has  been  completely  changed,  both  at  home  and  abroad. 
Up  to  that  time  a  sort  of  glamour  had  invested  a  very  plain  business 
with  the  unnatural  haze  that  distorts  the  true  proportion  of  things. 
There  was  something  Asiatic  in  this  mysterious  melodrama.  It 
was  like  the  Thousand  and  One  Nights,  when  in  the  fumes  of  incense, 
a  shadowy  genie  astonished  the  bewildered  spectators.  The  public 
V  mind  was  dazzled,  fascinated,  mystified.  We  had  done,  we  did  not 
know  exactly  what,  we  were  not  told  precisely  why,  omne  ignotum 
pro  magnifico.  .  .  . 

England  had  at  last  resumed  her  lead  among  the  nations.  The 
Eastern  question  had  been  settled  by  a  coup  d'etat  on  the  Stock 
Exchange  and  Turkey  was  abandoned  to  her  fate.  Egypt  was 
annexed.  The  Bulls  of  England  had  vanquished  the  Bears  of 
Russia.  Moab  was  to  be  our  washpot,  and  over  Edom  we  had  cast 
our  shoe.  France  and  Mr.  Lesseps  were  confounded.  We  were  a 
very  great  people,  we  had  done  a  very  big  thing  ;  and,  to  consum- 


i876]        THANKS   FOR   HARTINGTON          295 

mate  the  achievement  a  Satrap  1  from  Shoreham,  attended  by  a 
pomp  of  financial  Janissaries,  was  despatched  to  administer  the 
subject  provinces  of  the  English  Protectorate  on  the  Nile.  .  .  . 

We,  all  of  us,  felt  some  six  inches  taller  than  before.  We  spread 
our  tails  like  peacocks  to  the  sun,  and  were  as  pleased  as  children 
at  our  soap-bubble,  iridescent  with  many  hues.  But,  all  of  a 
sudden,  this  beautiful  vision  melted  away  ;  the  Egyptian  mirage 
evaporated  ;  the  great  political  phantasmagoria  faded  like  a  dissolv- 
ing view.  .  .  .  Lord  Derby  is  a  great  master  of  prose,  and  he  has 
translated  the  Eastern  Romance  into  most  pedestrian  English. 

The  second  of  the  three  New  Year  speeches  was  devoted 
to  Oxford  subjects,  and  the  third,  to  the  local  Liberal 
Association  on  January  10,  was  a  homily  on  party  discipline. 
The  programme  makers  were  a  nuisance,  and  the  duty  of  a 
good  Liberal  was  to/trust  to  his  chiefs  and  not  to  embarrass 
them  by  wild  fligfrfts.  The  main  interest  of  the  speech  was 
as  showing  a  change  of  heart.  Indeed,  the  December  speech, 
with  its  determined  attack  on  the  Disraeli  Government,  had 
already  indicated  a  disposition  to  cease  the  "  sowing  of  wild 
oats  "  deprecated  by  Gladstone. 

Probably  the  change  and  the  enthusiasm  for  discipline 
were  due  to  the  cordiality  of  his  relations  with  the  new 
leader.  What  those  relations  were  is  indicated  in  a  letter 
from  Hartington  on  the  Oxford  speeches : 

Hartington  to  Harcourt. 

DEVONSHIRE  HOUSE,  January  n,  1876. — As  we  were  in  labour 
together,  although  I  was  in  the  most  advanced  stage,  you  must  let 
me  congratulate  you  on  the  safe  delivery  of  your  triplets.  The 
first  and  third  I  consider  very  fine  infants.  You  will  probably 
forgive  me  if  I  confess  that  I  did  not  get  far  with  the  second. 

I  think  that  you  ought  to  be  especially  pleased  with  the  wrath 
which  you  kindled  in  the  breast  of  The  Times  and  some  other  papers, 
which  I  imagine  are  beginning  to  think  that  their  raptures  over  the 
Suez  business  were  a  little  premature.  The  only  fault  I  have  to 
find  is  that  you  were  a  great  deal  too  complimentary  to  me,  and  the 
unfortunate  Party  will  begin  to  entertain  hopes  of  me  which  will 
soon  be  disappointed.  However  I  am  really  grateful  for  all  you  said. 
You  have  backed  me  up  in  the  line  which  I  took,  or  attempted  to  take, 

1  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir)  Stephen  Cave,  M.P.  for  North  Shoreham, 
was  sent  to  Egypt  in  December  1875  with  Colonel  (afterwards 
Sir)  John  Stokes,  R.E.,  to  report  on  the  financial  situation. 


296  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1876 

and  I  shall  begin  soon  to  think  that  I  have  got  a  policy  which  will 
set  the  Party  on  its  legs  again. 

If  you  should  be  in  London  the  next  two  days,  I  should  be  very 
glad  to  see  you  and  have  a  little  talk. 

A  letter  on  the  preceding  Christmas  Day  from  Henry  James 
shows  how,  in  spite  of  his  occasional  explosions,  Harcourt 
could  endear  himself  to  those  who  saw  most  of  him  and 
knew  him  best.  In  the  course  of  the  letter  James  said,  "  I 
cannot  let  the  year  close  without  saying  to  you  what  a 
pleasure  it  is  to  me  to  feel  that  our  friendship  and  the  prospect 
of  united  action  year  by  year  increase.  I  often  feel  how 
deficient  I  am  in  many  qualities  required  for  political  life, 
and  it  is  entirely  my  association  with  you  that  gives  me 
heart  to  endeavour  to  maintain  my  position." 

in 

But  the  smoother  waters  into  which  the  Liberal  Party 
had  entered  were  soon  disturbed,  and  Disraeli  retaliates  on 
Harcourt  for  his  levities  in  regard  to  the  Suez  Canal  shares. 
A  sudden  squall  appeared  from  a  wholly  unexpected 
quarter.  In  the  previous  July  the  Admiralty  had  issued 
a  circular  revising  the  General  Slave  Instructions 
issued  to  the  officers  of  the  Navy.  This  circular 
appeared  to  reverse  British  policy,  for  it  provided  that, 
though  a  captain  might  receive  fugitive  slaves  on  board  his 
ship,  he  should,  when  the  ship  entered  a  port  of  the  country 
from  which  the  slave  had  escaped,  surrender  him  on  a 
properly  authorized  demand.  This  circular  aroused  violent 
opposition  in  the  country.  It  was  denounced  by  Henry 
James  in  a  speech  at  Taunton,  and  on  November  4  "  His- 
toricus  "  published  a  letter  in  The  Times  supporting  James's 
argument  and  adducing  new  authorities.  He  made  it  clear 
that,  as  foreign  jurisdiction  did  not  run  on  a  British  warship 
even  in  territorial  waters,  the  captain  of  a  British  ship  could 
not  do  otherwise  than  administer  British  law  on  that  ship, 
and  that,  as  British  law  did  not  admit  of  slavery,  a  slave  once 
on  board  a  British  ship  could  not  be  handed  over  as  a  slave. 
The  letter  promised  a  new  instalment  for  the  next  day, 


1876]         A  DISASTROUS   DISCOVERY  297 

which  did  in  fact  appear.     But  in  the  meantime  the  offending 
circular  was  withdrawn. 

Contemporary  journalism  not  unnaturally  ascribed  the 
withdrawal  of  the  instructions  to  the  attack  of  "  Historicus," 
but  there  is  some  evidence  that  the  decision  was  not  so  sudden 
as  appeared.  The  World  commented  that  the  two  letters 
showed  what  a  great  lawyer  had  been  lost  by  Harcourt's 
choice  of  a  political  career.  "  If  a  man  could  write  those 
two  letters  after  spending  a  couple  of  days  in  a  library  with 
a  smart  and  intelligent  amanuensis,  what  might  he  not  have 
done  had  Fortune  led  him  to  make  the  law  his  serious  study." 

But  though  the  first  round  had  been  won  in  the  battle 
over  the  Slave  Circular,  the  fight  was  not  over.  The  new 
circular  issued  by  the  Admiralty  in  place  of  the  documents 
which  had  been  so  severely  criticized  proved  to  be  only  less 
unsatisfactory.  The  question  was  debated  in  Parliament 
in  January.  Harcourt  objected  to  the  new  circular  on  the 
ground  that  while  the  first  assumed  that  we  were  bound  to 
surrender  the  slaves  by  the  obligations  of  positive  law,  the 
second  directed  them  to  be  handed  over  to  their  masters^ 
except  under  special  circumstances,  while  admitting  that 
there  was  no  legal  obligation.  No  doubt  every  country  had 
a  right  to  lay  down  the  conditions  on  which  our  ships  of  war 
would  be  received  in  their  ports,  but  we  could  refuse  to  be 
bound  by  those  conditions,  and  it  was  open  to  them  to  decide 
whether  they  would  take  the  risk  of  quarrelling  with  us/ 
Disraeli  agreed  to  the  appointment  of  a  Royal  Commission 
to  consider  the  question,  but  declined  to  suspend  the  circular 
pending  the  report  of  the  Commission. 

So  far  the  struggle  had  gone  well  for  the  Opposition.  They 
had  precedent  for  them  and  public  opinion  with  them,  and  a 
formal  attack  was  to  be  made  on  February  6.  But  at  this 
moment  the  friends  of  the  Government  disinterred  a  most 
disastrous  fact.  A  similar  circular  to  that  first  issued  had 
been  promulgated  by  the  late  Government.  The  commotion 
caused  by  this  discovery  will  be  readily  understood. 

Harcourt  wrote  to  tell  Granville  that  Egerton,  the  Secre- 
tary to  the  Admiralty,  who  had  first  made  the  announcement, 


298  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1876 

had  told  him  that  he  had  referred  to  similar  instructions 
sent  out  from  the  Foreign  Office  by  Lord  Clarendon.  The 
next  day  (January  17)  he  told  Granville  he  had  received  a 
copy  of  the  circular  of  1871,  which  was  nearly  identical  in 
terms  with  the  one  against  which  he  himself  had  been  ful- 
minating. The  law  officers  of  the  Gladstone  Government, 
Coleridge  and  Collier,  he  said,  denied  all  knowledge  of  it. 
Granville  replied  that  to  be  forewarned  was  to  be  forearmed, 
and  that  he  would  ask  the  Foreign  Secretary  to  let  him  have 
a  copy  of  the  papers.  Hartington  meanwhile  had  spoken 
on  the  subject  at  Bristol,  though  without  committing  himself 
too  deeply.  "  How  lucky,"  he  wrote  to  Harcourt  (January 
19),  "  that  A.  Egerton  and  the  newspapers  let  the  cat  out 
of  the  bag,  instead  of  keeping  it  to  let  loose  on  us  in  the 
House. ' '  Two  days  later  Harcourt  wrote  to  Granville  saying 
how  deeply  disturbed  even  moderate  Liberal  opinion  was 
by  the  revelation,  and  that  it  was  obviously  impossible  for 
himself  and  James  to  recede  from  the  opinion  they  had  ex- 
pressed, not  only  because  the  whole  of  professional  opinion 
that  mattered  was  on  their  side,  but  because  the  legal  point 
at  issue,  the  immunity  of  the  Queen's  ships  in  foreign  ports, 
was  vital  to  the  maritime  supremacy  of  England.  He  went 
on  to  say : 

Harcourt  to  Granville. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  January  21. — .  .  .  Cairns  has  felt  the 
stress  on  this  part  of  the  argument,  and  has  adopted  our  view  in  the 
2nd  Circular. 

My  objection  to  the  2nd  Circular  is  one  not  of  law  (for  our  law  has 
been  incorporated  into  it),  but  of  policy. 

Of  course  the  Orders  of  1871  make  the  situation  in  a  Party  point 
of  view  very  difficult.  But  the  country  will  not  stand  either  the 
Circular  of  1871  or  those  of  1875.  I  think  they  must  all  be  thrown 
overboard  bodily,  and  the  matter  settled  on  national  grounds. 
There  is  in  my  opinion  only  one  sound  principle,  viz.  that  a  slave  once 
voluntarily  received  on  board  a  Queen's  ship  can  under  no  circumstances 
be  given  up  by  the  Queen's  officers.  I  at  least  can  support  no  other 
doctrine  in  the  H.  of  C.  .  .  . 

I  fear  that  the  scrape  of  1871  as  of  1875  is  mainly  due  to  the 
ramshackle  and  hugger-mugger  way  in  which  the  law  business  of 
the  F.O.  is  conducted,  and  against  which  I  wrote  a  memorandum 
in  my  brief  term  of  office.  Under  such  a  system  everything  is 


1876]        "HISTORICUS"    ON   SLAVERY        299 

possible.  The  mere  fact  that  the  policy  of  the  country  should  be 

left  to  the  mercy  of  such  a  wretched  incapable  as  is  enough 

to  make  one  shudder,  and  his  successor  is  if  possible  worse.  I  had 
meant  to  say  something  on  that  subject  at  Oxford,  and  regret  now 
I  did  not,  as  it  would  have  covered  our  disaster. 

This  was  the  real  history  of  the  escape  of  the  Alabama  and  of  I 
know  not  how  many  other  miscarriages. 

If  this  business  forces  a  reform  of  the  administrative  system  it 
will  not  be  altogether  without  its  use. 

In  the  debate  on  February  20  on  Whitbread's  motion  for 
the  withdrawal  of  the  circular,  the  Government  spokesman, 
while  offering  a  Royal  Commission,  made  great  play  with 
the  circular  of  1871.  Harcourt  spoke  in  the  "  Historicus  " 
vein.  He  insisted  on  the  danger  of  the  Government  policy, 
which  virtually  abandoned  the  principle  that  the  Queen's 
vessels  were  extra-territorial.  He  repeated  his  point  that 
foreign  nations  "might  decide  on  what  terms  they  would 
admit  British  men-of-war  to  their  ports,  but  England  might 
say  on  what  terms  she  accepted  that  hospitality,  and,  having 
once  made  that  declaration,  foreign  Powers,  if  they  still 
admitted  British  ships,  tacitly  admitted  the  justice  of  the 
British  standpoint.  In  the  debates  in  both  Houses  the 
view  put  forward  by  "  Historicus  "  in  The  Times  carried 
much  weight,  and  finally  after  the  Royal  Commission  had 
reported,  a  third  circular  was  issued  which  removed  the 
scandal  of  the  earlier  documents. 

But  the  episode  had  not  passed  without  one  of  those 
squalls  which  were  not  infrequent  in  Harcourt 's  tempestuous 
career.  He  and  James  had  been  invited  to  a  meeting 
of  the  late  Cabinet  for  consultation  on  the  Slave  Circular 
difficulty.  Harcourt  declined  the  invitation,  and  decided 
to  withhold  further  papers  which  he  had  prepared  in  con- 
nection with  the  Amendment  to  the  Address  until  he  and  his 
friend  had  learned  what  decisions  had  been  reached.  "  We 
cannot,"  he  wrote  wrathfully  to  Hartington  (February  4), 
"  accept  the  position  of  being  treated  with  half  confidence. 
You  must  remember  that  we  are  out  of  our  teens,  and  that 
we  cannot  (as  James  truly  says)  '  be  sent  for  like  children 
at  dessert  time.'  "  Hartington  replied  placably  that  if  they 


300  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1876 

had  attended  the  meeting  they  would  have  been  able  to  take 
part  in  the  general  discussion.  "  Of  course  you  have  a 
perfect  right  to  say  that  you  will  not  join  in  our  meetings  at 
all,  unless  you  are  invited  to  all.  But  other  members  of 
the  Party  have  a  right  to  say  the  same,  and  we  must  face  the 
difficulty  either  of  making  a  selection  which  cannot  help 
being  invidious,  or  of  forgoing  a  great  deal  of  assistance 
which  we  cannot  well  dispense  with." 

Harcourt  replied  (February  5)  heartily  dissociating  Hart- 
ington  from  any  intention  to  slight  James  and  himself,  but 
hinting  that  Granville,  "  who  has  chosen  to  place  our  present 
relations  on  the  most  distant  footing,"  had  not  been  equally 
blameless.  He  proceeded  : 

Harcourt   to   Hartington. 

.  .  .  But  all  this  is  the  fringe  of  the  thing.  The  real  matter 
\against  which  I  intended  to  protest  and  against  which  I  still  protest 
is  the  exclusive  pretensions  of  the  gentlemen  who  call  themselves 
the  "  late  Cabinet  "  to  direct  and  control  the  policy  of  the  Opposi- 
tion. That  assumption  could  not  be  put  forward  in  a  more  promin- 
ent way  than  by  distinctly  intimating  to  us  that  whilst  we  might 
be  heard  upon  one  point  we  were  to  be  turned  out  of  the  room  on 
all  others  whilst  the  "  late  Cabinet  "  at  the  commencement  of  a 
new  session  resolved  upon  the  general  policy  of  the  party. 

For  my  part  I  know  nothing  of  the  "  late  Cabinet."  They  were 
dissolved  by  the  election  of  1874  which  was  their  last  great  work. 
They  have  ceased  to  exist.  I  cannot  recognize  them  as  a  body  of 
vieux  emigres  sitting  en  permanence  on  the  banks  of  opposition 
longing  to  return,  having  "  learnt  nothing  and  forgotten  nothing." 

I  don't  think  the  sagacity  with  which  they  conducted  the  fortunes 
of  the  Liberal  Party  in  the  last  Parliament  entitles  them  to  assert 
that  their  voice  and  their  voice  alone  shall  be  heard  to  counsel  its 
leaders  in  this.     I  confess  from  my  observation  I  should  look  with 
horror  on  a  unanimous  decision  of  the  "  late  Cabinet  "  as  a  thing 
which  would  probably  herald  some  great  disaster.     Two-thirds  of 
them  are  in  the  House  of  Lords  and  know  nothing  of  the  House  of 
Commons.     The  other  third  consist  of  gentlemen  who  do  not  agree 
ton  any  single  point  of  important  public  policy.     If  you  will  keep  your 
vyears  open,  talk  to  those  you  think  fit,  and  exercise  your  own  sound 
judgment,  I  believe  you  will  come  to  much  wiser  conclusions  than 
vyou  will  ever  derive  from  this  high  and  mighty  and  exclusive  con- 
clave.    I  do  not  know  who  is  the  author  of  the  dogma  that  the 
-i  leader  of  the  Opposition  is  to  consult  only  with  ex-Cabinet  Ministers 
on  the  general  policy  of  the  Party.     That  theory  shows  a  great 


1876]   REBELS   AGAINST   "EX-CABINET'    301 

ignorance  of  political  history.  (Dizzy  always  says  that  the  worst 
thing  in  our  days  is  that  no  one  knows  anything  of  political  history.) 
There  is  no  such  rule  and  never  has  been  any  such  practice.  Men 
almost  as  great  as  Granville  acted  on  different  principles.  [Then 
follow  historical  examples.] 

This  rule  then  has  never  before  been  acted  upon.  It  is  invented 
now  for  the  first  time  to  keep  the  sole  influence  and  control  of  the 
policy  of  the  party  in  the  hands  of  a  few  gentlemen  who  think  them- 
selves entitled  to  its  monopoly.  For  my  part  I  protest  against  that 
unfounded  pretension. 

Sitting  on  the  front  bench  I  shall  always  feel  it  my  duty  as  it  is 
my  pleasure  loyally  to  support  you  as  the  leader  of  the  party  whether 
you  consult  me  or  whether  you  do  not.  I  regard  you  as  the  person 
to  whose  judgment  I  shall  look.  But  I  know  nothing,  and  I  mean 
to  know  nothing  of  the  "  late  Cabinet  "  as  a  body  to  whom  I  owe 
any  sort  of  allegiance.  And,  judging  from  the  past,  I  should  doubt 
if  you  could  have  more  unwise  guides  in  the  future.  You  will  see 
therefore  that  my  protest  goes  to  the  root  of  the  whole  matter. 

This  pretension  on  the  part  of  the  "  late  Cabinet  "  if  it  was  not  a 
nullity  would  be  an  impertinence.  It  is  a  novelty  and  a  solecism 
in  politics. 

Now  I  have  said  all  my  disagreeable  things  in  writing  in  order  that 
we  may  have,  as  we  always  have  had,  nothing  but  pleasant  things 
to  talk  about. 

Hartington,  like  the  sensible  man  he  was,  spoke  to  Gran- 
ville about  the  "  distant  footing,"  whereupon  Granville 
wrote  a  pretty  note  to  Harcourt  assuring  him  of  his  good 

feelings  : 

Granville  to  Harcourt. 

iS,  CARLTON  HOUSE  TERRACE,  February  5,  1876. —  .  .  .  We  are 
very  old  friends.  At  times  I  have  been  annoyed  at  the  strong  terms 
of  condemnation  you  have  applied  to  personal  and  political  friends, 
with  whom  we  were  both  serving,  but  you  have  always  been  friendly 
and  courteous  to  me.  I  have  as  high  an  opinion  as  any  one  of 
your  ability,  knowledge,  and  power  of  speaking  and  writing,  and 
you  have  had  proof  during  the  last  fortnight  of  my  desire  to  know 
your  opinions.  It  will  be  your  fault  and  not  mine,  if  for  the  future 
we  are  not  as  good  friends  as  we  have  ever  been. 

Harcourt,  who  had  almost  as  much  delight  in  making  up 
a  quarrel  as  in  having  one,  promptly  wrote  (February  6)  to 
Hartington  saying  that  all  personal  difficulties  were  removed, 
expressing  his  regret  if  his  absence  from  the  ex-Cabinet 
meeting  has  caused  him  inconvenience,  and  adding,  "  Please 
put  my  long  letter  to  you  of  yesterday  in  the  fire  lest  it 


302  SIR   WILLIAM    HARCOURT  [1876 

should  one  day,  fifty  years  hence,  appear  in  the  Life  and 
Times  of  the  Marquis  of  Hartington  \"  It  was  not  destroyed 
by  Hartington,  and  is  put  in  the  Life  and  Times  of  Sir  William 
Harcourt  instead  because  it  helps  to  an  understanding  of 
his  hot-tempered,  but  very  human  and  essentially  good- 
i  'natured  character. 

IV 

While  the  struggle  over  the  Fugitive  Slave  Circular  was  in 

progress,  Disraeli  brought  in  the  Royal  Titles  Bill  (February 

17).     In  doing  so  he  did  not  indicate  the  style  which  the 

Queen  proposed  to  adopt  in  connection  with  the  government 

of  India,  and  it  was  only  on  the  second  reading  that  it  was 

announced  that  Her  Majesty  was  about  to  become  Empress 

^of  India.     The  proposal  was  received  with  much  disfavour 

*-by  the  Liberals,  and  Harcourt,  who  was  always  hostile  to  the 

spirit  and  forms  of  Imperialism,  wrote  to  Hartington  : 

Harcourt  to  Hartington. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  March  n. — It  is  becoming  hourly  more 
clear  that  the  question  of  the  Royal  Titles  is  becoming  very  serious 
and  you  will  have  to  determine  what  to  do  about  it. 

To  judge  by  the  press  and  the  tone  of  all  the  people  I  have  heard, 
I^iever  knew  so  strong  a  feeling  of  dislike  and  opposition  so  rapidly 

I/developed.  As  to  the  repugnance  of  English  sentiment  to  the  change 
I  think  there  can  be  little  doubt. 

Thinking  over  the  matter  as  regards  India  I  believe  the  measure 
will  be  most  disastrous.  It  has  been  our  settled  policy  to  govern  a 
great  part  of  India  through  Princes  whom  we  have  always  treated 
with  respect  in  regard  of  their,  at  least  nominal,  independence. 

\  Subject  to  our  intervention,  when  political  necessity  obliged,  we  have 
always  carefully  avoided  any  assertion  of  absolute  sovereignty  over 
them.  The  very  argument  used  by  Sir  G.  Campbell  for  the  change 
is  to  my  mind  the  strongest  that  can  be  adduced  against  it.  Holkar, 
Scindia,  the  Nizam  and  the  Rajpoots  represent  houses  whose  proudest 
tradition  is  that  they  successfully  threw  off  the  yoke  of  the  Emperor 
of  Delhi.  To  tell  them  that  the  Queen  claims  to  revive  that  authority, 
which  for  a  century  and  a  half  they  have  repudiated,  is  a  complete 
and  most  dangerous  change  in  the  whole  scheme  of  our  Indian 
Government.  And  if  it  is  advisable  to  make  it,  this  is  certainly 
not  the  way  in  which  it  should  be  done. 

As  far  as  my  opinion  goes  I  think  we  ought  to  resist  and  that  we 
should  have  the  country  with  us.  The  question  remains  how  to  do 


1876]    FORESHADOWS   FISHER   POLICY      303 

it.     It  has  occurred  to  me  that  some  one  might  move  some  resolution 
on  going  into  Committee  to  this  effect : 

"  That  the  House  will  not  proceed  with  the  Bill  till  it  is 
furnished  with  some  information  as  to  the  sentiments  on  the 
subject  of  the  Princes  and  the  people  of  India." 
The  great  thing  to  fight  for  is  time.     I  shall  be  ready  if  you  wish 
it  to  speak  against  the  Bill  especially  on  the  Indian  argument. 

To  my  mind  it  is  the  most  un -Conservative  proposal  that  ever 
was  made. 

The  amendment  moved  by  Hartington  did  not  follow  the 
lines  suggested  in  Harcourt's  letter,  but  was  based  on  the 
ground  "  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  impair  the  ancient  and 
Royal  dignity  of  the  Crown  by  the  assumption  of  the  style 
and  title  of  Empress."  In  the  debate  that  followed  Har- 
court  supported  the  amendment  with  a  speech  in  which  he 
developed  the  line  of  argument  he  had  employed  in  his 
letter  to  Hartington. 

While  these  events  were  occupying  him  in  Parliament, 
Harcourt  was  engaged  in  a  controversy  in  The  Times  with 
E.  J.  Reed  and  W.  G.  Romaine,  on  the  subject  of  the  Navy. 
In  this  discussion  he  opposed  panic  building,  and  examined 
the  sufficiency  of  the  fleet  in  relation  to  any  conceivable 
combination  against  this  country.  Replying  to  the  argu- 
ment of  the  unprotected  colonies,  he  foreshadowed  the  naval 
policy  long  afterwards  adopted  by  Lord  Fisher,  insisting  on 
the  folly  of  "  squandering  our  fighting  fleet  about  the  world 
among  our  distant  possessions  "  : 

The  ironclad  fleets  of  the  world  (he  said)  are  in  European  waters,-/ 
and  it  is  there  that  we  must  be  prepared  to  meet  and  to  fight  them  or 
if  necessary  to  follow  them.  It  is  in  the  North  Sea,  the  Channel, 
the  Bay,  or  the  Mediterranean  that  the  mastery  of  the  seas  will  be 
decided  now  as  it  has  been  before.  To  keep  a  squadron  of  ironclads 
in  India,  Australia  or  the  Cape  in  order  to  meet  the  fleets  of  Europe 
when  they  get  there  is  a  proposal  against  which  it  is  hardly 
necessary  to  argue. 

On  another  subject  he  had  at  this  time  the  unusual  dis- 
tinction of  being  adopted  by  the  Conservative  Government 
as  the  official  spokesman  of  their  policy.  In  deference  to 
the  representations  of  Plimsoll,  the  enlightened  advocate  of 
the  merchant  seaman,  a  Merchant  Shipping  Bill  was  brought 


304  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1876 

in  which  extended  the  temporary  measure  passed  the  year 
before  for  the  safety  of  merchant  seamen,  and  brought 
Canada  within  the  orbit  of  its  regulations.  Objection  was 
raised  to  the  proposal  on  the  ground  of  Canadian  autonomy 
in  the  matter  of  merchant  shipping,  and  it  was  supported 
in  The  Times.  Harcourt  thereupon  replied  in  the  columns 
of  that  paper  with  an  analysis  of  the  Canadian  Constitution, 
the  purport  of  which  was  to  show  that  Canada  was  bound 
by  the  legislation  of  the  British  Parliament  on  shipping 
questions.  Selborne,  writing  to  Harcourt  (June  10),  promised 
to  do  what  he  could  in  the  House  of  Lords  "  to  dispel  the 
extraordinary  misapprehension,  which  some  ignorant  writer 
in  The  Times  has  done  so  much  to  create,"  and  added,  "  Your 
letter  was  very  good  ;  only  one  almost  grudged  the  expendi- 
ture of  so  much  good  powder  and  shot  upon  ignorance  so 
remarkable."  The  Colonial  Office  took  the  unusual  course 
of  issuing  the  letter  as  a  White  Paper,  and  the  Bill  was  duly 
passed  into  law.  It  was  not  the  last  occasion  on  which 
Harcourt  was  to  take  action  in  the  interests  of  the  merchant 
seaman.  When  in  1880  Plimsoll  resigned  his  seat  at  Derby 
in  order  to  make  way  for  him,  Harcourt  received  the  care 
of  the  seamen's  interests  as  a  kind  of  legacy,  and  threw 
himself  into  the  work  of  the  Merchant  Shipping  Committee 
of  that  year  with  characteristic  enthusiasm. 

At  the  close  of  the  Session  the  political  world  was  pro- 
vided with  something  of  a  sensation  by  the  announcement 
that  Disraeli  was  going  to  the  House  of  Lords  as  Earl  of 
Beaconsfield.  The  curiosity  aroused  by  the  fact  is  indicated 
in  a  letter  from  Henry  Jar^/es  to  Harcourt  : 

Sir  Henry  James  to  Harcourt. 

GLEN  TULCHAN,  Sunday  morning. — Do  write  and  tell  me  the 
gossip  about  it.  Did  you  know  of  it  ?  How  well  the  secret  was 
kept  ?  They  will  never  manage  in  the  House  without  him.  How 
relieved  we  shall  all  be  at  feeling  he  is  not  there  to  pitch  into  us. 
It  puts  you  very  nearly  at  the  top,  and  you  will  be  able  to  do  just 
as  you  like.  My  earnest  prayer  is  that  it  will  not  hasten  our  return 
to  office.  I  shall  retire  into  complete  private  life  if  it  does. 

"  The  House  of  Commons  will  be  devilish  dull  without 


1876]   ADVENTURE   ON  THE  GLACIERS     305 

the  great  Dizzy,"  wrote  Harcourt  to  Butler.  Replying  to 
a  friendly  letter  of  good  wishes  from  Harcourt,  Disraeli 
wrote  : 

Disraeli  to  Harcourt. 

August  20. — Lazy  as  one  feels  now — and  I  hope  for  the  rest  of 
August — I  must  thank  you  for  your  kind  letter,  for  I  know  it  comes 
from  your  heart. 

I  did  not  leave  the  House  of  Commons  without  a  pang,  I  assure 
you,  but,  I  think,  the  step  may  add  a  few  years  to  my  life,  and  I 
left  my  friends  there  as  free,  on  the  whole,  from  difficulties  as  one, 
in  this  age,  could  hope  for. 

If  I  had  accomplished  my  original  purpose,  I  should  have  closed 
altogether  my  public  life,  but,  though  I  did  not  contemplate  diffi- 
culties on  this  head,  my  purpose  was  found  to  be  impossible. 

We  shall  not  meet  quite  so  often  as  before,  but  we  shall  meet  more 
intimately.  That  is  the  consolation  of  your  friend  D. 

Shortly  afterwards  Harcourt  went  on  a  visit  to  Hughenden. 
"  I  am  almost  sorry  you  went  to  Dizzy's,"  wrote  James  to  him 
from  Paris.  "  Of  course  I  know  your  devotion  to  him, 
but  I  think  your  visit  is  so  likely  to  be  misunderstood  that 
I  wish  you  had  not  gone."  Instead  of  his  customary  visit  to 
Scotland  in  the  autumn,  he  went  to  Switzerland  with  his 
son,  and  at  Grindelwald  the  two  shared  in  a  tragic  episode 
on  the  glaciers.  An  English  visitor  named  Bruncker  was 
killed  by  an  avalanche  while  gathering  edelweiss,  and  the 
body  was  taken  back  to  the  hotel  by  the  Harcourts,  to  whom 
the  widow  subsequently  wrote  a  touching  letter  of  thanks 
for  their  kindness.  This  holiday  was  the  premonition  of 
a  change  in  the  Harcourt  menage  which  had  been  imminent 
for  some  time.  Harcourt  had  been  a  widower  for  thirteen 
years,  during  which  his  almost  exclusive  domestic  concern 
had  centred  in  his  son.  The  question  of  the  boy's  education 
— for  Eastbourne  was  only  a  health  interlude — had  become 
urgent.  Harcourt  had  put  him  down  for  Eton,  but  in  1875 
was  still  hesitating  whether  to  send  him  there.  Among  the 
people  he  consulted  was  Lady  Ripon,  whose  advice  on  both 
public  and  personal  affairs  had  long  exercised  much  influence 
upon  his  mind  and  whose  affectionate  interest  in  his  son  had 
deepened  the  relationship.  Harcourt  had  consulted  Cairns, 


306  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1876 

who  had  not  been  satisfied  with  his  son's  Eton  education, 
and  sent  Cairns's  letter  to  Lady  Ripon,  who  replied  : 

Lady  Ripon  to  Harcourt. 

I  return  you  Lord  Cairns's  letter.  You  will  think  me  a  very  stupid, 
obstinate  woman,  but  it  has  not  altered  my  opinion.  I  do  not 
believe  and  indeed  do  not  wish  that  you  should  send  him  to  Welling- 
ton College  or  any  similar  school,  and  I  still  think,  under  the  peculiar 
circumstances,  that  you  ought  to  make  the  trial  of  a  public  school. 
He  would  be  close  at  hand  ;  you  could,  especially  at  first,  be  in 
constant  communication  with  the  doctor,  and  very  little  would  escape 
your  observation.  I  mean  sous  le  rapport  physique. 

As  to  morals,  it  is  a  lottery  what  boys  he  associates  with  wherever 
he  may  go.  But  why  do  I  prose,  and  above  all  share  in  the  smallest 
degree  so  great  a  responsibility  ?  From  my  great  affection,  and 
fear  that  by  avoiding  this  you  will  incur  almost  certain  loss. 

V 

With  the  boy  safely  established  at  Eton,  Harcourt  now 
contemplated  a  change  in  his  condition,  and  writing  to 
Granville,  who  had  written  to  him  on  the  news  that  he  was 
about  to  remarry,  he  said,  "  I  am  fortunate  in  having  one 
whom  I  have  known  so  long  and  so  well  to  make  a  home  for 
me  and  for  him  (his  son).  She  is  a  good  Liberal,  and  I 
hope  will  do  her  duty  to  the  Party  and  its  leaders." 

The  lady  on  whom  his  affections  had  fallen  was  Elizabeth 
Cabot  Ives,  the  widow  of  Thomas  Poynton  Ives  of  Rhode 
Island,  and  daughter  of  John  Lothrop  Motley,  the  historian, 
Minister  of  the  United  States  in  London.  Harcourt  had 
long  been  acquainted  with  the  Motleys,  who  were  frequent 
visitors  at  Strawberry  Hill.  Lady  St.  Helier  in  her  Memories 
and  Recollections,  describes  Motley  as  "  one  of  the  most 
picturesque  and  remarkable  men  I  have  ever  seen.  ...  As 
he  came  into  the  room  it  seemed  almost  as  if  the  most 
magnificent  Vandyck  you  could  imagine  had  stepped  out 
of  its  frame,"  and  his  daughter  as  "an  extraordinarily 
^pretty  young  widow."  She  had  seen  much  of  the  world  and 
its  greatest  figures,  having  lived  chiefly  with  her  father  on 
the  Continent  and  at  Washington.  A  pleasant  glimpse  of 
how  the  great  news  was  received  by  one  who  was  most 


1876]  SECOND   MARRIAGE  307 

deeply  concerned  in  it  is  given  in  a  letter  from  Lady  Ripon 
to  Harcourt : 

Lady  Ripon  to  Harcourt. 

STUDLEY  ROYAL,  November  20. — I  must  tell  you  that  I  had  a 
beautiful  letter  from  Loulou  yesterday,  but  as  he  particularly  begged 
me  with  many  dashes  not  to  let  anyone  see  it,  I  destroyed  it.  I 
thought  you  would  not  mind  my  writing  to  him,  and  I  am  very  glad 
I  did,  for  he  evidently  wanted  some  one  to  speak  to. 

He  was  so  surprised  when  you  told  him  that  he  did  not  hear  the 
name,  and  begs  me  to  send  him  immediately  every  particular, 
which  I  have  done.  There  never  was,  I  am  sure,  a  child  like  him. 
"  To  please  and  help  him  is  my  aim,"  are  his  exact  words.  I  do  not 
think  he  is  unhappy.  He  says  he  should  much  like  to  talk  it  all 
over  with  me,  but  that  he  supposes  by  Christmas  that  it  will  be  all 
over. 

"  My  dear  friend,  you  know  how  from  my  heart  I  wish  you 
all  and  every  happiness,"  wrote  Henry  James  on  hearing 
the  news — "  exactly  as  much  though  only  as  you  deserve 
for  all  your  goodness  and  thoughtfulness  towards  others. 
One  word  of  warning  please  give,  that  if  I  am  not  allowed 
to  rush  into  Stratford  Place  at  unreasonable  hours  to  ask 
your  advice,  in  fact  to  do  just  as  I  did  before,  there  will  be 
broken  windows  or  something  worse." 

Owing  to  the  recent  death  of  Harcourt 's  mother,  the  mar- 
riage, which  took  place  on  December  2,  was  quite  private, 
but  there  is  a  description  of  it  in  a  letter  from  Motley  to 
Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  printed  in  the  Motley  Correspondence : 

BRIGHTON,  January  30,  1877. — I  have  three  letters,  delightful 
ones,  as  your  letters  always  are,  to  acknowledge.  The  very  last  was 
one  regarding  Lily's  marriage,  and  it  gave  her  and  her  husband 
much  pleasure.  I  wish  you  could  have  witnessed  the  marriage, 
for  to  an  imaginative,  poetical,  and  philosophical  nature  like  yours, 
the  scene  would  have  been  highly  suggestive.  It  was  strictly 
private,  on  account  of  deep  mourning  in  both  families.  It  was  in 
Westminster  Abbey,  because  Dean  Stanley  is  a  very  dear  and  intim- 
ate friend  of  ours  and  also  of  Harcourt's.  No  one  was  invited, 
except  one  or  two  nearest  relatives,  and  it  was  necessary  courteously 
to  decline  all  applications  from  representatives  of  the  Press.  The 
ceremony  was  performed  in  Henry  VI I 's  gorgeous  and  beautiful 
chapel,  dimly  lighted  by  a  rain -obscured  December  sun.  The  party 
stood  on  the  slab  covering  Edward  VI's  tomb,  and  at  the  Dean's 
back  was  the  monument  in  which  James  I  had  his  bones  placed 


SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1876 

along  with  thoee  of  Henry  VII,  the  first  Stuart  fraternizing  in  death 
with  the  first  Tudor.  The  tombs  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and  of 
Elizabeth  were  on  either  side.  As  there  were  but  very  few  people 
sprinkled  about  in  sombre  clothing,  one  could  hardly  realize  amid 
all  this  ancient  dust  and  ashes  that  a  modern  commonplace  marriage 
was  going  on.  Afterwards  the  wedding  party  went  through  the 
long-drawn  aisle  and  beneath  the  fretted  vault  to  the  Jerusalem 
Chamber,  where  Henry  IV  died  : — 

"  How  call  ye  the  chamber  where  I  first  did  swoon  ? 
'Tis  called  Jerusalem,  my  noble  lord. 
In  that  Jerusalem  will  Harry  die." 

You  remember  all  this,  and  would  have  thought  of  it  as  I  did, 
as  one  was  signing  and  witnessing  the  marriage  in  the  dim  and  dusty 
old  apartment,  now  a  kind  of  record  chamber  to  the  Abbey.  The 
business  was  soon  despatched.  The  couple  then  drove  down  to 
Strawberry  Hill,  once  the  famous  gingerbread  Gothic  castle  of  Horace 
Walpole,  and  now  the  property  of  Lady  Waldegrave,  Harcourt's 
aunt,  who  lent  it  to  them  for  a  part  of  their  honeymoon. 

The  honeymoon,  begun  at  Strawberry  Hill,  was  continued 
in  Paris,  where  Harcourt  and  his  wife  were  accompanied  by 
Loulou,  who  had  acted  as  his  father's  best  man. 


CHAPTER  XV 
ON   THE  BRINK  OF  WAR 

The  Bulgarian  Atrocities — The  Berlin  Memorandum — Gladstone's 
Bulgarian  Campaign — Cross-currents  in  the  Liberal  Party — 
Lord  Derby's  policy — Hartington's  Keighley  speech — New 
Year  Speech  (1877)  at  Oxford — The  War  Panic — The  Protocol 
of  January  15 — The  Gladstone  Resolutions — Conversations 
with  Schuvaloff — Oxford  Speech  on  the  Turkish  question — 
British  Fleet  ordered  to  the  Dardanelles — Speech  on  the  Vote 
of  Credit — Preliminaries  of  European  Conference — Employ- 
ment of  Indian  troops — The  Secret  Treaties — Cyprus — Irish 
obstruction — Select  Committee  on  Courts -Martial — Indian 
administration,  the  Fuller  case — Social  and  Political  life — 
Yachting  in  the  Western  Highlands. 

WAR  clouds  were  once  more  filling  the  European  sky. 
Twenty  years  had  passed  since  the  Crimean 
War,  and  the  harvest  of  that  mischievous  sowing 
was  due  to  be  gathered.  The  Turk  had  been  rehabilitated 
in  Europe,  and  had  enjoyed  an  uninterrupted  opportunity 
to  set  his  house  in  order.  But,  as  the  opponents  of  the 
Crimean  War  had  prophesied,  the  opportunity  was  not 
used,  and  in  the  spring  of  1876  the  Turkish  volcano,  in  Lord 
Morley's  phrase,  burst  into  flame.  There  were  revolts  in 
Bosnia-Herzegovina  and  in  Bulgaria  against  the  barbarous 
misgovernment  of  those  territories,  and  Serbia  and  Mon- 
tenegro rose  in  arms.  The  Porte  took  refuge  in  the  only 
weapon  of  government  it  understood,  and  the  Bulgarian 
atrocities,  described  by  the  British  agent  who  investigated 
them  on  the  spot  as  the  most  heinous  crimes  that  had  stained 
the  history  of  the  century,  were  the  result.  Disraeli,  who . 
had  the  Jew's  unalterable  devotion  to  the  Turk,  scoffed  at 

309 


310  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1876 

the  reports  as  "  coffee-house  babble,"  but  the  appalling  facts 
were  soon  the  common  property  of  Europe. 

Russia,  Germany  and  Austria  promptly  took  action.  In 
the  Berlin  Memorandum  of  May  13,  1876,  they  agreed  to 
impose  on  Turkey  certain  reforms  to  be  carried  out  under 
European  supervision,  and  they  invited  England,  France  and 
Italy  to  adhere  to  their  policy.  France  and  Italy  assented. 

\  Disraeli  refused,  and  the  scheme  fell  through.  From  this 
action  flowed  the  disastrous  events  of  the  following  two  years. 
The  Porte,  relying  upon  the  disruption  which  Disraeli's 
refusal  had  effected  in  European  policy,  resisted  reform. 

^Russia  was  isolated,  and  a  general  conflagration  seemed 
imminent.  As~the  summer  advanced  and  the  truth  about 
the  Bulgarian  atrocities  became  known,  public  opinion  in 
England  was  roused  to  unprecedented  intensity  of  feeling. 
Gladstone  again  emerged  from  his  retirement,  issued  early  in 
September  his  famous  pamphlet  on  "  The  Bulgarian  Horrors," 
and  addressed  a  great  meeting  at  Blackheath.  The  Govern- 
ment, alarmed  by  the  hostile  current  of  public  feeling, 

v  trimmed  their  sails,  and  powerful  influences  within  the 
Cabinet,  led  by  Derby  and  Salisbury,  began  to  dissociate 
themselves  from  the  pro-Turkish  line  of  the  Premier,  who 
at  Aylesbury  in  September  declared  that  the  agitation  on 
behalf  of  the  Bulgarians  was  as  bad  as  the  atrocities,  talked 
about  "  secret  societies,"  and  said  that  the  Serbians  were 
quite  unjustified  in  making  war.  Writing  to  Dilke,  Har- 
court  said  : 

STRATFORD  PLACE,  October  10. —  .  .  .  Dizzy's  rubbish  about 
"  secret  societies  "  should  be  translated  "  public  opinion."  I  know  you 
will  not  agree  with  me,  but  I  am  convinced  whatever  happens  the 
Turk  is  done  for,  and  I  am  glad  of  it.  His  domination  like  that  of 
the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope  is  an  anachronism,  and  will  dissolve 

*V  itself  in  spite  of  all  attempts  to  prop  it  up.  There  seem  to  me  only 
two  real  alternatives,  either  a  joint  military  and  naval  occupation 

"'"-•by  the  Powers  or  a  Russian  invasion.     The  third  thing,  which  is 

J  ji  •«£ ..  . .  *-* 

what  our  Government  want,  viz.  to  patch  things  up  and  tide  it 
over  for  a  time,  is  I  think  impracticable  and  will  break  down. 

He  was  no  more  disposed  than  Gladstone  to  see  this 
country  and  Europe  involved  in  another  Crimean  War.  His 


1876]  BAG   AND   BAGGAGE  311 

anti-Russian  feeling  had  faded,  and  his  intimacy  with 
Count  Schuvaloff,  the  Russian  Ambassador  in  London,  had 
influenced  his  reading  of  events.  The  Count  saw  much  of 
Lady  Derby,  the  wife  of  the  Foreign  Minister,  and  from  this 
source  Harcourt,  and  through  him  the  Opposition  leaders, 
were  kept  informed  of  the  progress  of  events  within  the 
Cabinet. 

But  although  Harcourt  shared  the  hostility  to  the  Dis- 
raelian  attitude  and  favoured  the  coercion  of  the  Turk,  he  S 
had  little  enthusiasm  for  the  Gladstonian  agitation.  He 
was  determined  to  keep  Hartington  in  the  Liberal  leadership 
and  Gladstone  at  Elba;''and  the  latter's  emergence  from  his 
self-imposed  exile  threatened  to  upset  the  plan  on  which 
Harcourt  had  set  his  heart.  Hartington  shared  the  dis-x 
approval  of  Disraeli's  policy,  but  he  shared  it  in  his  phleg- 
matic way  and  had  no  passion  for  the  crusading  spirit  of 
Gladstone.  While  the  latter  was  issuing  his  pamphlet  and 
delivering  his  terrific  invective  at  Blackheath,  Hartington 
was  at  Constantinople,  from  whence  in  the  course  of  a  letter 
to  Harcourt  he  writes : 

Hartington  to  Hat -court. 

CONSTANTINOPLE,  October  2. —  .  .  .  Lord  Beaconsfield's  speech 
appears  to  me  outrageous  in  tone  and  substance  ;  and  if  it  were  the 
only  ministerial  deliverance  I  should  say  that  we  cqulcL.rAot.PJ'683 
too  strongly  for  an  autumn  Session  and  protest  against  the  policy 
of  the  Government.  But  Lord  Derby's  speeches,  so  far  as  I  have/<x 
yet  seen  them  (I  have  not  seen  the  last,  reported  by  telegraph), 
seem  to  me  very  different  in  tone  ;  and  although  I  do  not  suppose' 
that  the  policy  of  the  Government  will  satisfy  you  and  others  who 
are  for  turning  out  the  Turks  without  further  delay,  I  imagine  from 
what  I  hear  here,  that  they  are  now  ready  to  go  quite  as  far  as  any 
other  Power  except  Russia.  .  .  . 

Harcourt  was  against  an  autumn  Session  to  censure  the-  " 
Government,  on  the  ground  of  the  disagreements  within  the 
Party.  Writing  to  Granville  (October  10),  he  said,  "  No 
doubt  the  Government  have  been  greatly  damaged  in  the 
last  six  weeks,  but  there  is  clearly  a  reaction  setting  in  and 
surely  Gladstone  more  swo  is  exaggerating  the  situation." 
In  a  livelier  spirit  he  writes  on  the  same  day  to  Dilke  at 
Toulon : 


312  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1876 

Harcourt  to  Dilke. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  October  10.  —  .  .  .  Things  here  are  in  the 
most  damnable  mess  that  I  think  politics  have  ever  been  in  in  my 
.time.  Gladstone  and  Dizzy  seem  to  cap  one  another  in  folly  and 
imprudence,  and  I  don't  know  which  has  made  the  greatest  ass  of 
himself.  Blessed  are  they  that  hold  their  tongues  and  wait  to  be 
after  the  event  !  To  this  sagacious  policy  you  will  see  we, 
i.e.  the  Hartington  section,  have  adhered  and  shall  adhere. 

I  had  a  long  letter  from  Hartington  from  Constantinople,  full  of 
usual  good  sense  and  caution.  I  quite  concur  with  him  that 
though  a  strong  case  can  be  made  against  the  Government  for  their 
obstinate  status  quo  policy  during  the  months  of  June,  July  and 
August  there  is  little  fault  to  be  found  with  what  they  have  been 
doing  since  Derby  has  taken  the  matter  into  his  own  hands  in 
September. 

There  is  a  decided  reaction  against  Gladstone's  agitation.  The 
Brooksite  Whigs  are  furious  with  him  and  so  are  the  commercial 
gents,  whose  pecuniary  interests  are  seriously  compromised.  The 
Bucks  election  was  a  great  snub  for  Dizzy.  All  the  Rothschild 
tenants  voted  Tory,  though  to  save  his  own  skin  Nat  went  on 
Carrington's  Committee.  Rothschild  will  never  forgive  Gladstone 

\.and  Lowe  for  the  Egyptian  business.  Chamberlain  and  Fawcett 
and  the  extreme  crew  are  using  the  opportunity  to  demand  the 
demission  of  Hartington  and  the  return  of  Gladstone.  But  you 

"^  need  not  be  alarmed  or  prepare  for  extreme  measures.  There  is  no 
fear  of  a  return  from  Elba.  He  is  played  out.  His  recent  conduct  has 
made  all  sober  people  more  than  ever  distrust  him.  He  has  done 

^  two  good  things  ;i_he  has  damaged  the  Government  much  and  him- 
self still  more.j  At  both  of  which  I  am  pleased  and  most  of  all  at 
the  last.  .  .  . 

It  will  be  apparent  that  at  this  time  Harcourt  was  torn 
between  two  contrary  motives.  He  was  determined  to  pre- 
serve the  Hartington  leadership,  but  his  views  on  the  main 
issue  brought  him,  in  spite  of  party  considerations,  into  line 
with  Gladstone's  torrential  crusade.  Already  that  crusade 
won  its  first  victory.  It  had  checked  the  pro-Turkish 
tendencies  of  the  Government,  and  turned  the  current 
\powerfully  in  the  direction  of  peace.  The  fatal  blunder  of 
May,  the  rejection  of  the  Berlin  Memorandum,  which  broke 
up  the  possibility  of  concerted  European  action  had  been 
partially  redeemed  in  September  by  Derby's  declaration  in 
favour  of  administrative  autonomy  for  the  afflicted  provinces. 
But  the  battle  was  not  over,  and  Harcourt,  while  anxious  to 


1876]       ON  BULGARIAN  ATROCITIES         313 

keep  Hartington  in  the  centre  of  the  stage,  was  no  less 
anxious  that  he  should  not  appear  hostile  to  the  Gladstonian 
campaign.  In  anticipation  of  a  speech  by  Hartington  at 
Keighley,  he  wrote  to  him  two  suggestive  letters  in  the 
course  of  which  he  said  : 

Harconrt  to  Hartington. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  October  28. —  ...  I  hope  you  will  notX 
throw  over  our  "  atrocity  friends  "  more  than  you  think  absolutely 
necessary  as  it  will  cause  a  good  deal  of  dissatisfaction.  I  think  the 
case  is  quite  clearly  made  out  that  Derby  did  change  his  policy  in 
August  owing  to  the  loud  expression  of  public  opinion.  Indeed  he 
said  to  one  of  the  deputations  "  what  has  taken  place  in  Bulgaria 
has  no  doubt  greatly  altered  the  relations  of  this  Government  and 
of  other  Governments  to  Turkey."  "which  admits  the  whole  thing. 
And  Disraeli's  assertion  at  Aylesbury  that  the  opinion  of  the  country 
was  not  in  accordance  with  the  policy  of  the  Government  is  a  proof 
that  if  it  now  is  less  in  disaccord  it  is  because  that  policy  now  is 
changed.  But  what_prQy£S^thjg  most  conclusively  is  thejstajtfiment  -^ 
of  Derby  in  September  that  he  is  now  in  favour  of  administrative 
autonomy  and  has  pressed  it  on  the  Porte.  The  only  point  James 
missed  was  in  not  bringing  out  clearly  that  this  very  thing  was 
proposed  by  Gortschakov  in  June.  It  is  inconceivable  that  Derby 
should  have  declined  this.  And  his  refusal  was  no  doubt  the  immedi-  ' 
ate  cause  of  the  Serbian  War  which  broke  out  just  ten  days  after- 
wards. I  enclose  some  extracts  in  case  you  have  not  the  book  by 
you.  As  far  as  I  can  make  out,  the  Russian  proposals  of  June  are 
precisely  those  of  Derby  in  September  ! 

What  caused  this  change  in  Derby  except  two  things,  (i)  The 
Serbian  War  ;  (2)  The  atrocity  agitation. 

The  whole  question  seems  to  have  been  from  the  first  "  can 
Turkey  reform  herself  or  is  there  any  use  obtaining  pledges  from  her 
without  further  guarantee."  I  understand  you  to  hold  there  is 
not.  If  not  then  these  guarantees  must  come  from  without.  .  .  . 

14,  STRATFORD  PL  ACE,  November  i. —  .  .  .  I  don't  know  if  you  will 
feel  disposed  to  animadvert  on  the  strange  policy  of  the  Government 
in  the  last  fortnight  in  giving  out  that  they  have  "  retired  from  all 
negotiations  and  left  Russia  face  to  face  with  Turkey  "  just  at  the 
time  when  Russia  was  pressing  the  very  proposals  which  England 
had  made.  The  demand  Of  Russia  for  a  six  weeks'  armistice  and 
the  English  terms  seems  to  have  been  a  very  fair  one.  The  altera- 
tion brought  forward  by  Turkey  of  a  six  months'  armistice  was 
evidently  a  dilatory  evasion  to  escape  the  terms.  If  the  Englislv- 
Government  had  supported  instead  of  abandoning  Russia  in  pressing 
their  proposals  all  these  last  battles  would  have  been  avoided  which 


314  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1877 

may  very  probably  "  harden  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  "  and  lead  to 
war  by  Russia.  .  .  . 

"  You  have  steered  a  splendid  course  through  the  breakers 
and  brought  the  party  into  smooth  water,"  wrote  Harcourt 
,to  Hartington  (November  6)  apropos  of  the  Keighley  speech. 
v  His  appeal  to  him  not  "  to  throw  over  our  '  atrocity  friends ' ' 
had  been  observed,  and  when  on  January  9,  1877,  Harcourt 
himself  made  a  powerful  speech  on  the  subject  to  his  con- 
v  stituents  at  Oxford  he  associated  himself  very  cordially  with 
V  the  Gladstonian  campaign.  He  was  certain  that  the  agita- 
tion of  the  previous  autumn  led  by  Gladstone  had  saved  the 
Government  from  a  dangerous  error  and  the  country  from 
an  enormous  crime.  The  language  used  by  Lord  Beacons- 
field  on  the  subject  of  the  Turkish  barbarities  had  shocked 
the  conscience  of  the  country,  and  the  country,  by  a  pro- 
found instinct,  had  perceived  that  it  was  in  danger  of  being 
committed  to  war  on  behalf  of  Turkey.  The  Government 
and  their  supporters  had  cowered  before  the  storm,  and  they 
now  denounced  the  instruments  of  their  conversion  to  a 
better  state  of  mind.  They  complained  that  "  Gladstone 
has  done  it  all."  Harcourt  replied  : 

v 

It  was  perfectly  untrue  that  Mr.  Gladstone  was  the  author  of  the 
agitation.  He  approved  it  after  it  had  spontaneously  arisen,  and 
his  spirit  could  not  but  give  it  a  gigantic  impulse.  Mr.  Gladstone, 
in  a  long  and  distinguished  life,  had  rendered  memorable  service  to 
the  State,  but  none  would  rank  higher  in  the  memory  of  the  country 
than  the  record  that  he  led  the  van  of  the  nation  while  it  dragged 
back  a  misguiding  and  misguided  administration  from  the  brink 
of  the  abyss  into  which  they  had  all  but  precipitated  the  fortunes 
and  the  reputation  cf  England. 

\  He  showed  how  the  Serbian  War  was  the  direct  outcome  of 
England's  earlier  refusal  to  act  with  the  other  Powers,  and 

x  how  the  Russian  policy  alone  had  now  resulted  in  an  armis- 
tice and  a  conference  to  which  Lord  Salisbury,  a  member  of 
the  Cabinet,  had  been  sent  to  dictate  peace  to  Turkey.  Was 
there  any  reason  why  the  armistice  arranged  in  the  last  days 
of  December  should  not  have  been  arranged  in  the  early 
days  of  June,  but  that  England  had  refused  to  take  the  step 


i877]          PROBLEM  OF  THE  TURK  315 

urged  on  her  by  all  Europe  in  May  ?  How  much  human 
misery  would  have  been  averted,  how  much  blood,  how  much 
sorrow  would  have  been  spared  ? 

We  have  been  accused  (he  said)  of  enthusiasm  for  Russia.     Sir, 
I  reserve  my  enthusiasm  for  my  own  country  alone.     But  if  Russia 
were  all  that  the  Minister  and  his  followers  denounce  her  as  being, 
the  heavier  is  the  condemnation  which  must  attach  to  that  imbecile 
policy  which  has  made  her  the  mistress  of  the  situation — a  policy 
which  has  presented  her  to  Eastern  Europe  as  the  successful  cham-    t 
pion  of  humanity,  mercy  and  civilization.     A  sagacious  and  far-/^ 
sighted  Government  would  have  defeated  the  ambition  of  Russia 
and  baffled  her  schemes  by  occupying  the  vantage  ground  which 
has  been  deliberately  surrendered. 

He  expressed  himself  as  far  from  sanguine  of  the  results 
of  the  Conference. 

One  more  attempt  is  to  be  added  to  the  innumerable  failures  of 
the  past  to  patch  up  Turkey.  The  measures  which  have  been  pro- 
posed by  Lord  Salisbury  and  his  colleagues  at  Constantinople  cor- 
respond  very  much  to  a  commission  of  lunacy  taken  out  against 
a  dangerous  imbecile,  incapable  of  managing  his  own  affairs,  and 
very  likely  to  do  great  mischief  to  his  neighbours.  ...  I  am  not 
one  of  those  who  believe  in  the  leopard  changing  his  spots  or  the 
Ethiopian  his  skin.  We  find  ourselves  face  to  face  with  this  hope- 
less dilemma — either  the  remedies  will  be  insufficient,  and  then  the 
old  story  will  recommence  or,  if  they  are  efficient,  they  will  annihilate 
Turkey.  It  is  impossible  to  put  this  kind  of  new  wine  into  the  Otto- 
man bottles  without  bursting  them  to  pieces.  The  Turk  is  what  he 
always  has  been,  and  ever  will  be.  The  ultimate  problem  which/ 
still  remains  for  European  statesmanship  is  not  how  the  Government 
of  Turkey  may  be  best  maintained,  but  how  it  may  be  most  safely 
replaced. 

The  fears  in  regard  to  the  Constantinople  Conference  were 
justified.     Beaconsfield's  threatening  words  to   Russia  at/"" 
the  Lord  Mayor's  banquet  in  the  previous  November  had 
very  effectively  defeated  the  Conference  and  Salisbury's 
attempts  to  put  Turkey  under  control.     The  Eastern  ques— -^ 
tion  was  flung  back  into  the  cauldron,  and  the  peril  of  a  war 
against  Russia  on  behalf  of  Turkey  revived.     Gladstone  at-"" 
the  St.  James's  Hall  and  Harcourt  in  the  columns  of  The 
Times  thundered  against  the  sinister  turn  of  events. 


3i6  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1877 

ii 

The  meeting  of  Parliament  approached  with  a  situation  in 

which  it  seemed  possible  that  the  Government  might  demand 

war  against  Russia  and  the  Opposition  war  against  Turkey. 

^Pro-  Russian  as  he  had  become,  Harcourt  shrank  from  the 

latter  possibility.     Writing  to  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice,  he  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice. 

\      January  25,  1877.  —  .  .  ^_You  cannot  make  war  in  this  country 

unless  you  have  with  you  a  majority  which  amounts  almost  to 
X.  unanimity^}  That  was  the  strength  of  our  position  when  we  resisted 

successfully  Disraeli's  desire  to  embark  us  in  war  on  the  side  of  the 

X.  Turk.     But  for  the  same  reason  it  would  be  our  weakness  if  the 

^/situation    were    reversed    and    we    were    the   war    party  against 

Turkey.  .  .  . 

The  question  cannot  be  treated  as  if  it  were  one  of  only  Turkey 
.    on  one  side  and  Russia  and  perhaps  England  on  the  'other.     Is  it 

possible  to  assert  that  it  is  not  a  contest  in  which  all  Europe  would 

be  engaged  ? 

I  have  had  good  reaspns  to  learn  that  at  all  events  Austria  and,  as 

far  as  she  dares,  France,  have  given  all  their  sympathies  to  the  Turks. 

What  Bismarck  means  no  one  knows,  but  could  we  engage  the 

country  in  war  in  total  ignorance  of  who  were  our  allies  and  who  our 
'""  foes  ?     Are  we  prepared  to  fight  Austria  and  Turkey  with  a  possible 

Germany  on  our  flank,  even  with  Russia  as  an  ally.     These  are  very 

grave  questions  and  we  must  be  prepared  to  answer  them. 
*X>    Gladstone  evidently  shrinks  from  speaking  the  word.    Jawrptt, 


the  difficulty  as  much  as  I  do.  He  told  me  yesterday  that  he 
was  not  prepared  (at  least  at  present)  to  vote  for  war.  What  would 
Bright  do  ?  ffirhard_  as  might  be  expected,  says  he  cannot  support 
force.  Dilke..  Wilfrid  L<a,wsoj.and,  I  understand,  Co  wen  are  against 
war,  men  Tike  Mundella  and  others  have  all  spoken  strongly  to  me 
against  any  attempt  to  force  the  hands  of  the  Government.  .  .  . 
Even  Chamberlain  takes  this  opportunity  to  discourse  on  disestab- 
lishment, which  does  not  look  as  if  he  had  the  Eastern  question 
much  at  heart. 

My  advice  is  therefore  that  we  should  wait  at  least  till  Parliament 
meets.  .  .  . 

To  Hartington  he  writes  on  the  same  day  in  the  same  vein, 
and  a  few  days  later  (February  4)  he  urges  both  Hartington 
and  Granville  to  "  look  at  the  story  of  the  great  collapse  of 
Mr.  Pitt  in  his  attempt  in  1794  to  negotiate  an  anti-  Russian 
and  pro-Turkish  alliance  aganist  Catherine  when  she  was 
making  the  grand  assault  upon  Turkey.  The  whole  thing 


i877]  URGES  STRONG  ACTION  317 

is  a  marvellous  parallel  to  the  present  state  of  affairs."     Two  * 
days  before  the  meeting  of  Parliament  (February  8),  Harcourt 
was  convinced  that  the  pro-Turks  were   "  on  the  run." 
"  Everything  seems  to  me  to  concur  in  pointing  to  the  policy 
of  your  holding  firm  and  strong  language  now,"  he  writes 
to   Hartington.     "  The   counsels   of   the   Dizzy-Pall   Mall- 
Daily  Telegraph  Party  are  in  confusion  and  they  must  be 
routed . "    The  new  factor  in  the  case  was  the  strong  line  taken  '     ' 
by  Salisbury,  who  had  come  back  from  the  Constantinople 
conference  filled  with  indignation  at  the  contumacy  of  the 
Porte  in  refusing  guarantees.     "  Neither  Gladstone  nor  P"" 
have  said  anything  stronger  as  to  the  effect  of  the  refusal  of 
the  Porte  upon  the  Treaty  of  1856."     He  adds  : 

.  .  .  Salisbury's  view  in  the  Protocol  of  January  15  sojCOSi-  ** 
pletely  meets  pur  view  that  I  should  adopt  it  en  blacy  Only  I  do  not 
see  that  the  conclusion  from  the  premisses  is  a  souna  one.  If  Europe 
was  bound  to  see  that  the  Christians  are  protected,  how  can  it  retire 
from  that  obligation  because  the  Turks  refuse  to  conform  to  it  ? 
The  conclusion  should  not  be  to  do  nothing.  .  .  . 

While  the  breach  between  the  pro-Turks  and  the  pro- 
Christians  in  the  Government  was  widening,  the  Opposition 
position  was  consolidating.  On  the  morning  of  the  opening 
of  Parliament,  Harcourt  wrote  to  Hartington  pressing  for  a 
strong  line.  He  had  seen  Dilke,  Chamberlain  and  others  of 
the  advanced  party,  and  they  had  all  agreed  that  it  was 
impossible  to  stand  still,  Chamberlain  especially  insisting  on 
,the  necessity  of  England  pressing  the  European  concert  to 
compel  the  Turks  to  yield.  On  the  previous  day  there  had 
been  a  meeting  of  the  ex-Ministers  at  Granville's  house  and 
referring  to  that  gathering  W.  E.  Forster  in  his  diary  says  : 

Harcourt,  Argyll  and  Gladstone  very  hot,  but  final  result  general 
agreement  that  Granville  and  Hartington  should  press  for  further 
general  action  of  the  Powers,  a  European  demand  from  Turkey 
'  with  a  threat  of  coercion  :  if  not  complied  with,  threat  to  be  carried 
out.  England  to  assent  to  and  even  initiate  such  action,  but  not 
to  be  committed  to  separate  action  with  Russia. 

With  this  policy  uniting  all  the  forces  of  the  Opposition, 
the  struggle  in  Parliament  opened  :  but  Harcourt's  view  that 
they  had  got  the  pro-Turks  "  on  the  run  "  soon  proved  to  be 


318  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1877 

^  baseless.     The  Protocol,  signed  in  London  in  March,  failed. 

v  and  Russia,  left  to  act  alone  in  defence  of  the  Balkan  peoples, 

x  declared  war  on  Turkey  on  April  24.     Once.  .nioje  the  Dis- 

raelian  policy  seemed  in  the  ascendant,  and  the  Government, 

.y  v^  replying  to  Gortschakov,  seized  the  opportunity  of  rebuking 

j   Russia  for  having  taken  "  an  independent  and  unwarrant- 

able course."      Harcourt,  in  the  House  (May  15),  denounced 

this  latest  provocation  of  Russia,  and  being  challenged  from 

the  Government  benches  to  say  whether  the  Opposition 

would  join  Russia  now  that  she  had  declared  war,  said  "  No," 

"•-but  retaliated  by  showing  how  the  Government  had  persis- 

tently defeated  the  efforts  for  a  common  European  policy  to 

coerce  Turkey,  and  had  so  brought  events  to  the  brink  of  a 

^        European  war. 

Meanwhile  Gladstone  had  thrown  the  Opposition  in  dis- 
order by  the  production  of  his  Resolutions,  which  Harting- 
ton  could  not  endorse.  Harcourt  was  furious.  In  sending 
"  a  few  heads  of  arguments  against  G.'s  Resolutions  "  to 
Hartington,  he  says  : 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  April  30,  1877.  —  .  .  .  There  never  was  a 
leader  of  a  Party  who  has  been  placed  in  a  more  incessant  series 
of  awkward  and  disagreeable  situations  than  it  has  been  your  lot 
to  encounter.  The  patience,  temper  and  courage  you  have  shown 
you  may  rest  assured  have  won  for  you  and  increased  every  day 
the  esteem  and  confidence  of  your  friends.  .  .  .  Depend  upon  it 
you  will  have  plenty  of  "  good  men  and  true  "  who  will  stick  by  you 
to  the  last  in  your  difficult  job.  .  .  . 

In  another  letter  to  Hartington,  written  after  seeing  the 
lady  who  had  become  the  recipient  of  Beaconsfield's  most 
intimate  thoughts,  he  says  : 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  April,  1877.  —  I  saw  Lady  Bradford  last 
night.  She  could  not  conceal  her  exultation  at  the  news  of  Glad- 
stone's motion.  Small  blame  to  her. 

I  heard  also  from  a  pretty  safe  Philo-Turk  source  that  the  civil 
war  in  the  Cabinet  is  in  full  swing.  Salisbury,  Carnarvon,  Derby 
and  Northcote  againsr  Dizzy  and  his  followers.  My  informant 
used  the  expression  "  Salisbury  &  Co.  are  such  Gladstonites  that 
Dizzy  is  thinking  of  breaking  up  the  whole  concern."  He  saw  as 
clearly  as  we  do  that  Gladstone's  move  will  give  Dizzy  a  decisive 
advantage  over  his  peaceful  colleagues.  The  thing  really  in  its 
mischievous  egotism  and  folly  is  past  endurance. 


/ 
\/ 


i877]  FIGHTS  JINGO   FRENZY  319 


The  Resolutions  were  modified.     In  the  great  debate 
followed  the  Opposition  voted  solid,  and  though  the  Govern^--'" 
ment  held  their  normal  majority  it  seemed  that  the  pro- 
Turkish  party  had  been  checked.     Gladstone   carried   the 
fiery  cross  to  Birmingham,  and  Harcourt,  still  fearful  that  the 
Opposition  might  be  swept  out  of  its  pacific  line,  writes  to 
Granville  that  he  has  a  "  great  dread  of  the  '  St.  James's  S 
Hall  '  flag  being  hung  out  again."     He  is  against  a  popular' 
frenzy,  wants  "  the  commercial  party  to  take  the  lead  in/ 
the  Peace  movement,"   a^d^with  Mundella  is  organizing  " 
representations  from  the  principal  Chambers  of  Commerce. 
Throughout  the  autumn  and  winter,  as  the  war  between 
Russia   and   Turkey    proceeded,   feeling    in    the   country 
hardened,  with  sympathy  for  the  victims  of  Turkish  mis- 
government  on  the  one  side  and  with  fear  of  Russia  on  the 
other.     "  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  early  summons  of 
Parliament  ?  "  wrote  Hartington  to  Harcourt  (December  19). 
"  I  suppose  that  Dizzy  has  at  last  had  his  way  and  we  shall 
hear  of  some  despatch,  imposing  limits  to  the  Russian  ad- 
vance, and  that  we  are  to  provide  money  for  the  conse- 
quences of  a  refusal." 


ill 

The  crisis  of  the  long  struggle  had  been  reached.  After 
five  months  of  bitter  war,  of  which  the  defence  of  Plevna  had 
been  the  crucial  incident,  the  Russian  army  had  overwhelmed 
the  Turkish  resistance.  The  advance  inflamed  the  anti-^y. 
Russian  feeling  in  England,  and  the  music  halls  rang  with 
the  Jingo  an^nem  "  The  Russians  shall  not  have  Con-stan-ti- 
no-ple."  Before  this  wave  of  mob  panic,  the  current  of 
sympathy  with  the  oppressed  Balkan  peoples  set  in  motion 
by  Gladstone  gave  way,  and  war  seemed  unavoidable. 
Harcourt,  however,  was  confident  that  the  forces  for  peace 
were  too  strong.  Writing  to  Granville  (December  24),  he 
says  that  he  learns  that  the  Government  "  have  no  policy 
but  to  stave  off  the  difficulty  from  day  to  day  and  from 
instant  to  instant,"  and  that  "  Salisbury  is  £r£s  content 


320  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1877 

and  in  great  spirits,  considering  that  he  has  got  his  own  way," 
adding  : 


I  think  therefore  that  we  may  safely  act  on  the  conclusion  that  the 
meeting  of  Parliament  Is  only  an  expedient  to  give  an  empty  satis- 
faction to  H.M.  and  her  Vizier.  .  .  .  They  (the  Government)  have 
never  recovered  the  primordial  blunder  of  the  Berlin  Mem.  rejection. 
Since  that  fatal  swagger  they  have  never  been  able  to  retrieve  their 
situation  in  the  European  Council.  ...  I  believe  two  things  will 
come  of  this  war  (i)  the  dissolution  of  the  Turkish  Empire,  and 
(2)  the  dissolution  of  this  House  of  Commons. 

Replying  next  day,  December  25,  "  or  '  the  Nativity  '  as 
Dizzy  would  date  his  letter,"  Granville  says  :  "  Your  letter 
is  a  very  sunshiny  Christmas  present.  The  only  dark  spot  is 
the  possibility  at  which  you  hint  of  an  immediate  break-up  of 
the  Ministry,  as  the  pear  is  certainly  not  yet  ripe  for  us. 
But  it  will  take  a  long  course  of  discredit  really  to  break  up 
the  Conservative  Party,  and  Dizzy  if  he  fails  in  carrying 
whatever  views  he  may  have,  will  gracefully  retreat  from 
everything  excepting  the  Treasury.  .  .  .  The  war  party 
of  the  Carlton  are  moving  and  sounding." 

"  My  conviction  is  that  the  country  will  do  anything  for 
the  Turks  except  fight  for  them,  and  everything  against  the 
Russians  except  make  war  upon  them,"  Harcourt  says  in 
reply  (December  27),  adding  that  he  has  given  a  sketch  of  an 
address  to  Mundella  for  his  Eastern  Conference.  "  Let  them 
fire  away  their  powder,  as  it  will  test  the  real  feeling  of  the 
country,  and  we  shall  know  better  where  we  are."  "  I  had 
a  long  visit  from  N.  Rothschild,  who  wanted  to  pump  me," 
he  writes  to  Hartington  the  same  day,  "  but  as  there  was 
no  water  in  my  well  it  was  a  process  that  failed.  I  think, 
however,  I  got  out  of  him  that  the  Government  and  even 
Dizzy  have  no  idea  of  war."  But  on  returning  to  London 
his  confidence  was  shaken.  To  his  wife  he  writes  (December 
31)  :  "  The  Russian  Count  (Schuvaloff)  has  just  been  with 
me  for  two  hours  and  I  have  only  just  had  time  to  scribble 
twelve  sheets  to  Granville,  and  now  I  am  off  to  post  up 
The  Times.  The  Russian  refusal  is  absolute,  and  things 
go  on  from  bad  to  worse.  Schuvaloff  is  evidently  much 
alarmed. 


1878]     CONSULTS  WITH   SCHUVALOFF       321 

The  memorandum  to  Granville  was  a  lengthy  record  of 
his  conversation  with  Schuvaloff,  who  said  that  the  Govern- 
ment's insistence  that  Russia  should  treat  with  England 
alone  as  to  the  terms  of  peace  with  Turkey  could  only  be 
intended  to  place  his  Government  in  a  false  position  as  having 
repulsed  England  in  its  endeavours  to  restore  peace.  In 
reply  to  Harcourt,  Schuvaloff  had  vehemently  repudiated 
the  idea  that  Russia  had  designs  on  Constantinople,  but 
while  she  was  prepared  to  give  a  pledge  not  to  retain  Con- 
stantinople she  would  not  undertake  to  abstain  from  at- 
tacking it  for  military  purposes  in  order  to  compel  Turkey 
to  conclude  peace — "  otherwise,"  said  the  Count,  "  the 
Turks  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  withdraw  before  the 
Russian  armies,  secure  that  at  Constantinople  they  will  find 
an  ally  in  England." 

The  next  day,  New  Year's  Day,  1878,  Harcourt  was  at 
Oxford  addressing  the  Druids.  "  The  situation  was  a 
difficult  one,"  he  wrote  to  Granville  (January  2).  "  The 
Tories  have  got  possession  of  the  Druids,  and  I  was  in  the 
presence  of  a  hostile  audience."  He  found  the  anti-Russian 
sentiment  tremendously  strong,  "  and  if  Dizzy  can  once  fire 
the  train  the  whole  thing  will  blow  up." 

Harcourt  to  Granville. 

.  .  .  We  have  but  one  anchor  to  ride  by,  and  that  is  the  moder- 
ates in  the  Cabinet — if  that  parts,  it  is  all  over,  a  dissolution  would     / 
destroy  us — as  it  did  the  Peelites  and  Cobdenites  on  the  China  vote.  * 
Nevertheless,  if  we  are  driven  to  the  position  of  the  Rockingham 
Whigs  in  the  early  days  of  the  American  War,  I  am  all  for  standing 
to  our  guns  and  resisting  the  modern  Lord  North.  ...  I  wish  it/ 
could  somehow  be  managed  that  the  Russian  terms  should  be  made 
public  so  that  we  could  refer  to  them.  .  .  .  Every  one  would  be 
surprised  at  their  moderation,  and  I  think  the  country  would  say 
it  was  impossible  to  go  to  war  against  them.  .  .  . 

He  was  convinced  from  Schuvaloff's  tone  to  him  that  Russia 
was  at  the  end  of  her  resources,  and  had  only  one  object — 
to  get  out  on  the  easiest  terms  possible — "  if  Dizzy  will  let 
•ihem."     In  a  postscript,  he  says  : 

I  forgot  to  tell  you  that  The  Times  is  "in  stays  "  and  may  go 

Y 


322  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1878 

on  the  other  tack  any  day.  I  sent  for  Chenery  [the  new  Editor)  on 
Monday  to  tell  him  of  the  Russian  reply  to  the  English  offers,  and 
the  moderating  article  of  Monday  was  the  result  of  our  conversation. 
\  He  is  with  us  in  his  own  opinion,  but  is  timid  in  his  new  post  and 
evidently  thinks  the  popular  gale  is  veering  round  to  war,  and  if 
so  he  will  bow  to  it.  ... 

During  the  first  days  of  the  New  Year  events  moved  with 
gathering  impetus,  and  in  a  long  memorandum  to  Granville 
(January  6)  Harcourt,  who  had  again  seen  Schuvaloff, 
relates  the  course  of  events  in  the  Cabinet,  England's  satis- 
faction with  the  pacific  declaration  of  Russia,  and  readiness 
to  recommend  the  Porte  to  apply  for  an  armistice.  "  So 
N-  far  as  it  went  therefore  the  Peace  party  prevailed  in  the  last 
Cabinet."  But  Russia  had  stiffened,  declining  to  treat  as 
between  Governments  and  insisting  upon  the  matter  being 
transacted  between  the  commanders  in  the  field.  "  And 
upon  that  the  whole  thing  may  break  off.  England  is  no 
longer  bound  to  recommend  the  armistice,  and  Turkey  may 
be  encouraged  to  reject  it,  and  so  after  all  Dizzy  will  have 
gained  his  point." 

You  will  have  remarked  that  the  objection  to  a  drum  head  Con- 
ference has  played  a  good  part  in  the  D.  Telegraph  for  some  days  as  a 
fatal  objection  to  the  Russian  reply.  That  of  course  comes  from 
Downing  Street.  It  would  certainly  be  lamentable  if  the  thing 
went  off  on  such  a  point,  for  of  course  the  generals  would  only  act 
by  telegraphic  communication  to  their  Courts.  However,  there  is 
another  Cabinet  to-morrow. 

This  stiffness  on  the  part  of  Russia  leads  Harcourt  to 
j  doubt  whether  Russia  desires  peace  just  now,  and  he  describes 
how  Schuvaloff  fenced  with  his  inquiry  as  to  whether  there 
was  a  danger  of  Russia's  terms  of  the  previous  June  being 
altered,  and  finally  spoke  of  a  Russian  occupation  of  Bulgaria 
until  a  Christian  governor  was  appointed.  Harcourt  pointed 
out  the  gravity  of  such  a  change,  and  Schuvaloff  replied  that 
as  England  had  refused  to  discuss  the  terms  in  June  she 
could  not  complain  if  they  were  altered  now.  "  I  have 
forwarded  your  letter,  as  full  of  meat  as  an  egg,  to  Harting- 
ton,"  replies  Granville  (January  7).  "It  confirms  one's 


1878]          A  DIPLOMAT'S   VERACITY  323 

idea  that  the  mismanagement  of  the  whole  thing  has  been 
wonderful.  Can  anything  be  more  childish  than  that  in  this 
moment  of  the  Turk's  extremity  we  should  be  standing  up 
for  him  on  a  point  of  etiquette  in  which  I  believe  the  Russians 
to  be  right.  And  why  not  hear  the  terms  of  last  June  ?  " 
Granville  adds  a  warning : 

...  Of  course  you  will  not  let  it  be  known  that  you  have  been  in 
such  close  communication  with  Schuvaloff,  and  have  suggested 
moves  to  Russia.  But  the  suggestions  have  been  most  judicious 
and  the  information  you  have  extracted  is  most  useful. 

In  this  connection,  it  may  be  well  to  recall  that  the  fact 
of  these  conversations  with  Schuvaloff  subsequently  reached 
the  ears  of  the  Government,  and  on  April  3  Derby  wrote  to 
Beaconsfield  1 : 

When  Schuvaloff  called  to  take  leave  of  me  on  Monday  he  ex- 
pressed a  wish  that  I  should  communicate  with  you  on  the  subject 
of  a  report  which  he  had  said  reached  your  ears  and  which  he 
supposed  you  believed  to  be  true.  It  was  to  the  effect  that  he 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  talking  over  official  matters  with  members 
of  the  Opposition,  especially  with  Vernon  Harcourt.  He  denies 
having  ever  held  any  private  conversations  with  them,  or  having 
talked  about  pending  negotiations  with  any  one  except  members 
of  the  Government.  I  told  him  he  had  better  address  his  denial 
direct  to  you,  but  he  preferred  doing  it  through  me,  and  I  could  not 
civilly  refuse. 

The  denial  throws  an  entertaining  light  on  diplomatic 
veracity.     It  was  through  Schuvaloff   that   Harcourt  was  / 
enabled  to  keep  the  Opposition  in  constant  touch  with  the 
movement  of  events,  and  whatever  may  be  said  as  to  the 
proprieties  of  the  matter  the  fact  exercised  a  powerful  and*" 
beneficent  influence  on  the  course  of  the  struggle. 

The  next  day  (January  8)  Harcourt  writes  again,  in  high 
spirits,  to  Granville.  "  The  news  to-day  is  good — the  best 
yet."  There  has  been  another  meeting  of  the  Cabinet  and 
Schuvaloff  has  written  to  him  that  "  the  dispositions  of  the 
Cabinet  are  good  and  even  I  who  am  not  an  optimist  in 
general  am  much  reassured  to-day."  Harcourt  continues  : 

1  The  Life  of  B.  Disraeli,  by  G.  E.  Buckle,  vol.  vi,  p.  270. 


324  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1878 

\  ...  For  the  present  the  Peace  Party  in  the  Cabinet  are  clearly 
in  the  ascendant,  and  Dizzy  has  probably  learnt  that  the  disposition 
of  the  country  would  not  support  him  in  breaking  the  windows  and 
so  has  drawn  in  his  horns.  But  sic  notus  Ulixes.  When  baffled  in 
one  direction  he  will  "  try  it  on  "  in  another,  and  he  generally  gets  his 

^  own  way.  However  we  are  over  the  first  fence  now,  viz.  the  principle 
of  separate  negotiations  between  Turkey  and  Russia.  Of  course 
the  next  big  obstacle  will  be  the  terms,  which  must  soon  transpire. 
But  alors  comme  alors.  .  .  . 

In  this  cheerful  frame  of  mind  Harcourt  went  next  day 
(January  9)  to  speak  to  the  Liberals  at  Oxford.  "  I  have 
shown  James  what  I  am  going  to  say,"  he  tells  Hartington, 
"  and  have  cut  out  some  Russianism.  I  fear  there  may  be 
still  too  much  left  to  please  you,  but  I  think  it  is  necessary 
to  protest  against  this  most  impolitic  abuse  of  those  with 

^  whom  we  must  negotiate  and  with  whom  it  is  our  interest 
to  be  friends."  In  reference  to  the  abuse,  Granville  remarks 
to  Harcourt  (January  8),  "I  suppose  it  is  true  that  the 
clamour  for  war  is  really  based  upon  enormous  Turkish 
speculations."  And,  alluding  to  Harcourt 's  suspicion  of 
January  6  that  Russia  was  stiffening,  he  asks, "  Why  should 
they  be  so  polite  to  us  when  we  snub  all  their  overtures  and 
insist  upon  treating  them  as  outlaws  ?  " 

In  his  speech'at  Oxford,  one  of  the  weightiest  of  his  career, 
Harcourt  recanted  his  support  of  the  Crimean  War  and 
asked  whether  in  the  face  of  that  blunder  England  was  to  be 

^  again  dragged  into  a  war  on  behalf  of  Turkey  ?  He  coun- 
tered the  argument  of  Russia's  aggressiveness  by  pointing 
out  that  in  recent  years  France  had  taken  Algiers  and 
annexed  Savoy,  and  yet  we  had  not  made  war  on  France. 
Prussia  had  conquered  Hanover  and  annexed  Alsace  and 

^  Lorraine,  and  yet  we  had  not  made  war  on  Prussia,  ^nd, 
in  an  eloquent  passage  he  described  the  aggrandizement  and 
greatness  of  the  British  Empire,  and  warned  the  nation  not 
to  embrace  a  doctrine  that  might  recoil  on  themselves.  He 
repudiated  the  ignorant  prejudice  that  was  aroused  by 
"  British  interests,"  and  said  the  idea  that  because  we  had 
conquered  India  we  had  the  right  to  condemn  the  rest  of 
Asia  to  remain  outside  contact  with  civilization  was  as 


1878]  A   GREAT  SPEECH  325 

ridiculous  as  the  claim  of  Spain  300  years  before  to  prohibit 
every  nation  on  earth  from  navigating  beyond  a  certain 
parallel  of  longitude  in  the  direction  of  the  Indies.  He 
discussed  the  just  terms  of  settlement,  and,  referring  to  the 
blunder  in  refusing  the  Berlin  Memorandum,  said  : 

Sir,  if  there  is  danger  of  war  at  this  moment,  it  is  because  the 
Government,  conscious  of  the  disastrous  consequences  which  their 
own  error  has  brought  about,  may  be  meditating  to  fight  their  way 
back  into  that  position  in  the  European  Concert  which,  by  their 
own  mismanagement,  they  have  lost. 

For  a  long  time  the  Government  had  been  proclaiming 
that  they  cared  only  for  British  interests.  "  A  nation  that 
paddles  its  own  canoe  cannot  expect  to  be  chosen  to  pull 
stroke  in  the  eight-oar  of  Europe.  We  ought  to  desist 
from  inducing  Turkey  to  think  that  she  could  rely  on  the 
help  of  England  ;  "  and  he  asserted  that  all  the  blood  that  had 
been  shed  since  the  fall  of  Plevna  could  be  laid  at  the  door 
of  those  false  expectations.  The  voice  of  the  provinces  was 
all  for  peace.  "  From  every  quarter,"  he  said,  "  voices  are 
pouring  forth  like  the  sound  of  many  waters,  and  the  burden 
of  their  prayer  is  the  same,  '  Scatter  Thou  the  people  that 
delight  in  war.'  " 

The  speech  was  welcomed  in  The  Times  as  the  testimony 
"  not  of  a  Liberal  leader,  but  of  an  Englishman  "  against 
"  a  disgraceful  and  useless  war,"  and  Hartington  wrote  : 

HARLESTON,  January  10,  1878. —  ...  I  think  your  speech  was 
capital  and  not  at  all  too  Russian,  even  for  me.  I  have  not  the 
least  objection  to  fairness  to  Russia,  or  to  rebuking  the  absurd 
abuse  of  Russia  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  if  too  much  sympathy  with 
Russia  and  dislike  of  the  Turks  is  shown,  it  weakens  the  effect  of 
the  argument  against  the  war  party.  ... 

That  party  was  still  powerful.  Parliament  met  on 
January  17  in  the  midst  of  an  angry  and  ignorant  panic. 
The  Russian  army  had  reached  the  Sea  of  Marmora  and 
Constantinople  lay  at  its  mercy.  The  war  was  over,  and  a 
treaty  between  victor  and  vanquished  which  might  involve 
the  future  of  the  Turkish  capital  was  under  discussion.  The 
Press  rang  with  panic-stricken  cries  against  a  menace  which 


326  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1878 

was  popularly  supposed  to  spell  the  ruin  of  the  British  Em- 
pire, and  the  pro-Turkish  element  in  the  Cabinet  once  more 
became  ascendant.  Nothing  had  been  done  by  Russia  in 
violation  of  our  terms  of  neutrality ;  but  the  Government 
asked  for  a  vote  of  six  millions,  and  a  few  days  later  the 
British  fleet  was  ordered  to  the  Dardanelles,  a  proceeding 
that  led  to  the  resignation  of  Lord  Carnarvon.  By  this 
time  the  reasonable  conditions  under  which  Russia  was 
prepared  to  make  a  settlement  were  already  in  the  hands  of 
the  Foreign  Office,  but  they  were  not  published  and  in  their 
absence  popular  excitement  increased.  In  the  House  of 
Commons  there  was  a  five  days'  debate  on  the  Vote  of  Credit, 
and  Harcourt  stated  the  views  he  had  already  urged  at 
Oxford.  He  demanded  from  the  Government  an  assurance 
that  they  were  going  into  a  European  Conference  "  to  call 
a  new  world  into  existence  to  repair  the  scandals  of  the  old," 
and  not  merely  to  save  from  the  wreck  some  fragments  of  a 
ruined  system.  He  insisted  that  nationality  was  a  stronger 
force  than  diplomatic  instruments,  and  in  a  powerful  passage 
showed  how  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  of  1815  had  been  torn  to 
shreds  because  it  denied  that  principle  : 

There  were  giants  in  the  land  in  those  days,  but  they  made  a 
gigantic  blunder  and  their  work  had  failed.  The  Treaty  of  Vienna 
was  signed  twelve  years  before  he  was  born,  and  in  his  lifetime  he 
had  seen  every  bit  of  it  torn  into  fragments.  The  chain  first  broke 
where  it  was  weakest,  for  a  chain  is  no  stronger  than  its  weakest 
link.  It  broke  in  Greece.  The  emancipation  of  Greece  under  the 
influence  of  England  was  the  first  breach  in  the  Treaty  of  Vienna. 
Then  followed  the  emancipation  of  Belgium,  then  the  emancipation 
of  Italy  ;  then  came  the  Holstein  question  ;  then  the  old  German 
Empire  was  broken  down  at  the  battle  of  Sadowa  ;  it  was  finally 
destroyed  at  the  battle  of  Sedan.  The  Treaty  of  Vienna  had  gone 
to  pieces.  Why  ?  Because  it  was  founded  upon  principles  radically 
false — upon  dynastic  arrangements,  upon  a  geographical  puzzle : 
it  was  made  to  suit  the  ambition  of  rulers,  and  it  neglected  altogether 
the  interests  and  the  sympathies  of  nationalities  and  populations. 
(Hear,  hear !)  He  did  not  wonder  that  the  negotiators  at  Vienna  made 
that  mistake,  fatal  as  it  was.  When,  after  the  deluge  of  the  French 
Revolution,  the  spires  of  ancient  institutions  began  to  appear  out 
of  the  flood,  it  was  not  unnatural  that  a  different  view  should  be 
taken  from  what  was  taken  now  ;  but  the  edifice  was  bwilt  of  un- 


1878]  LORD   DERBY   RESIGNS  327 

tempered  mortar  ;  it  had  broken  down,  and  it  now  lay  in  ruins. 
What  was  it  that  had  broken  down  that  edifice  ;  what  was  it  that 
had  worked  like  leaven  in  the  lump  ;  what  was  it  that  had  des- 
troyed the  Treaty  of  1815  ?  It  was  the  principle  of  nationalities. 
What  had  made  Prince  Bismarck  so  strong  in  Europe  ?  Not  his 
armies,  great  as  they  were  ;  but  because  he  had  the  courage  and  the 
wisdom  to  grasp  the  principle  of  nationalities,  by  which  he  had 
ground  potentates  to  powder.  What  had  made  Austria  so  weak  ? 
It  was  because  by  the  very  conditions  of  her  existence  she  was  the 
enemy  of  the  principle  of  nationality  and  autonomy.  What  had 
made  Russia  so  weak  ?  Her  treatment  of  Poland.  What  had 
made  her  so  strong  ?  Because  she  was  the  vindicator  of  oppressed 
races.  ("  Oh !  ")  Was  she  not  strong  ?  Was  she  not  the  vindica- 
tor of  oppressed  races  ?  After  all,  the  Slavs  were  a  great  nationality, 
and  they  had  rights  and  aspirations  which  ought  to  be  respected. 
If  we  acted  upon  the  old  policy,  doubtless  we  should  have  good 
reason  to  fear  Russia.  It  would  not  be  her  armies,  or  her  fortresses, 
or  her  extent  of  territory  which  would  make  her  formidable  ;  it 
would  be  the  gratitude  of  the  people  that  she  had  emancipated  which 
would  be  her  strength.  (Hear,  hear  I)  It  was  not  yet  too  late  for 
Her  Majesty's  Government  to  equal,  and  even  more  than  rival, 
Russia,  if  they  went  into  the  Conference  with  a  changed  policy. 
England  might  surpass  Russia  in  that  Conference  in  being  the 
champion,  not  of  one,  but  of  many  races. 

Throughout  February  and  March  the  issue  hung  in  the 
balance.  The  war  party  were  still  powerful  and  Derby 
followed  Carnarvon  into  retirement  as  a  protest  against  the 
calling  out  of  the  reserves.*'  Meanwhile  Austria  had  issued 
an  invitation  to  a  European  Conference  at  Vienna,  afterwards 
changed  to  Berlin,  and  the  Government  had  published  the 
Russian  terms  of  peace  of  the  previous  June.  Harcourt 
wrote  to  Granville : 

Harcourt  to  Granville. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  February  18,  1878. —  ...  At  last  the 
Government  have  given  us  (Turkey  No.  15)  the  papers  relating  to 
the  Russian  terms  of  peace  of  June  last.  These  are  the  terms  which 
in  the  letters  I  wrote  to  you  six  weeks  ago  formed  the  basis  of  my 
conversation  with  S.  (Schuvaloff ) .  They  are  of  great  importance. 
They  seem  to  me  to  show  : 

(1)  That  the  Russian  Government  did  not  act  to  us  in  a  spirit  of 
dissimulation  or  reserve  but  on  the  contrary  with  great  frankness. 

(2)  That  the  Government  and  Layard  between  them  did  all  they 
could  to  prevent  the  Turks  from  accepting  a  moderate  settlement. 

It  may  be  that  the  Turks  at  that  time,  buoyed  up  by  their  hopes  of 


J 


328  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1878 

resistance,  would  not  have  accepted  the  terms.  But  it  was  clearly 
our  business  to  have  done  what  we  could  to  bring  them  to  a  different 
frame  of  mind. 

On  the  contrary  Layard  (bottom  of  p.  10)  openly  said  "  it  has  been 
his  object  to  raise  such  hopes  " — the  hopes,  viz.,  that  if  she  did  not 
succeed  in  the  war  the  influence  of  England  would  be  used  in  her 
favour  at  the  peace. 

What  was  this  but  a  distinct  encouragement  to  the  Turk  to  fight 
on  ?  If  he  won  he  would  lose  nothing  ;  if  he  was  beaten  the  influence 
of  England  would  prevent  his  losing  much. 

Ought  not  our  language  to  have  been  exactly  the  opposite  ? — 
"  These  are  the  terms  you  can  have  now.  They  are  moderate.  If  you 
don't  take  them  it  will  be  the  worse  for  you.  And  if  you  refuse  them 
we  can  do  nothing  hereafter  to  help  you." 

It  seems  to  me  very  important  that  we  should  inquire  whether 
(as  I  believe  to  be  the  fact)  the  Government  of  Austria  and  Germany 
assented  in  June  to  these  terms.  If  so  the  sole  responsibility  of 
withholding  or  dissuading  their  adoption  by  the  Turks  rests  upon 
our  Government. 

"  I  saw  Schuvaloff  last  night,"  he  writes  to  Granville 
(March  5).  "  He  told  me  the  terms  of  peace  as  he  had  them 
yesterday  from  Ignatieff  and  as  he  communicated  them  to ' 
Derby.  They  are  simple  and  moderate,  and  correspond 
almost  to  the  terms  of  June,  except  that  Bulgaria  is  some- 
what larger."  He  then  defines  the  terms  which  proved  to  be 
the  basis  of  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano,  and  proceeds : 

...  It  is  impossible  to  cook  up  a  war  out  of  this.  Of  course 
there  will  be  a  good  deal  of  wrangling  over  the  quantity  and  quality  of 
Bulgarian  autonomy.  But  I  do  not  see  how  the  English  Government 
can  use  any  real  influence  to  cut  them  down.  .  .  . 

I  told  him  (Schuvaloff)  the  more  moderate  his  terms  were  the  more 
persuaded  the  Turkophils  would  be  that  there  was  a  secret  treaty. 
He  asked  me  rather  anxiously  whether  I  really  believed  that  the 
English  Government  would  seriously  take  up  the  Greeks  versus  the 
Slavs.  I  said  I  did  not  know,  but  I  hoped  they  would.  He  said, 
"  That  would  be  to  complete  the  destruction  of  Turkey  "  ;  to  which 
I  replied,  "  Tant  mieux,  we  do  not  want  to  leave  you  a  serviceable 
slave."  .  .  . 

The  confusion  and  disquiet  that  prevailed  were  aggravated 
at  the  end  of  April  by  the  decision  of  the  Government  without 
the  authority  of  Parliament  to  send  Indian  troops  to  Malta. 
This  proceeding  Harcourt  challenged  on  the  ground  that 
statute  law  prescribed  that  all  native  troops  employed  out  of 


1878]  THE   BERLIN   CONGRESS  329 

India  should  be  paid  for  by  the  Crown,  and  that  therefore 
a  vote  of  the  House  of  Commons  would  be  required.  Har- 
court  contended  (May  6)  that  the  action  of  the  Government 
amounted  to  a  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Crown  to  the  right 
to  move  the  whole  of  the  Indian  army  to  any  place — even  to 
England — for  any  purpose  whatever  without  the  sanction 
of  Parliament.  "  We  have  a  great  rod  in  pickle  for  North- 
cote  on  Monday,"  he  writes  to  Hartington  (May  n).  "  In 
1867  he  distinctly  admitted  that  the  sending  of  native  troops 
to  Abyssinia  and  charging  the  cost  on  the  Indian  Revenue 
in  the  first  instance  with  the  intention  of  repaying  it  was  an 
/illegal  act  and  a  violation  of  Gladstone's  clause  of  the  Act  of 
1858  for  which  he  humbly  begged  pardon."  His  indignation 
at  what  seemed  a  breach  of  the  principle  of  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
which  forbade  the  employment  of  any  troops,  native  or 
foreign,  without  the  consent  of  Parliament  overflowed  in  a 
torrent  of  precedents  which  he  discharged  in  Parliament  and 
in  letters  to  Hartington.  Meanwhile  the  Jingo  frenzy  was 
still  high,  and  Harcourt,  writing  to  Hartington,  expresses 
alarm  at  the  news  he  has  had  from  Schuvaloff  that  the 
Cabinet  may  decide  not  to  go  to  the  Berlin  Conference. 
"  It  seems  to  be  another  Berlin  Memorandum  affair  over 
again.  ...  I  find  it  very  difficult  to  understand  exactly 
the  point  on  which  they  have  split.  As  far  as  I  can  under- 
stand it  is  an  affair  of  amour  propre  on  both  sides.  Russia 
says, '  We  will  not  be  dictated  to. '  England  says, '  You  shall 
take  our  terms.' '  But  the  fear  was  unfounded.  The  two 
years'  struggle  on  the  issue  of  peace  and  war  was  over,  and 
one  day,  when  the  streets  were  still  ringing  with  the  Jingo 
refrain,  the  public  were  startled  by  the  disclosure  in  the 
Globe  of  the  fact  that  England  and  Russia  had  entered  into 
a  secret  treaty  which  practically  ratified  the  treaty  between 
Russia  and  Turkey  arranged  at  San  Stefano  in  March.  It 
was  a  strange  denouement,  and  struck  the  war  mood  dead. 
The  Berlin  Congress  followed.  It  confirmed  the  provisions 
of  the  Treaty  of  San  Stefano  in  many  respects,  but  diminished, 
with  unhappy  results  in  the  future,  the  territory  of  the  new 
Bulgaria,  leaving  Macedonia  and  Thrace  still  in  the  hands 


330  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1878 

of  the  Turk.  But  the  broad  achievement  was  great.  The 
independence  of  Montenegro,  Serbia,  Bulgaria,  and  Rumania 
was  established,  and  the  blight  of  Turkish  misrule  in  Europe 
was  reduced  almost  to  vanishing-point.  But  although  the 
policy  of  "  bag  and  baggage  "  had  largely  won  and  the  pro- 
Turkish  sympathies  of  the  Government  had  been  frustrated, 
there  were  imperfections.  It  was  discovered  that  not  only 
was  there  a  secret  treaty  with  Russia  on  the  one  side,  but 
that  the  Government  had  entered  into  a  secret  treaty  with 
Turkey  on  the  other,  by  which  we  had  become  the  sole 
guarantors  of  the  territories  of  Turkey  in  Asia,  and  that  with 
this  heavy  obligation  we  had  annexed  Cyprus. 

IV 

While  the  results  achieved  by  the  war  were  important, 
Harcourt  had  no  faith  in  the  Berlin  Convention.  In  a 
prophetic  phrase  he  declared  "  it  was  a  truce  and  not  a  settle- 
ment." The  prophecy  was  amply  fulfilled.  In  a  letter  to 
Hartington  (July  28)  commenting  on  "  Beakey's  (Beacons- 
field's)  Riding  School  speech,"  he  takes  up  Beaconsfield's 
contention  that  the  Convention  would  "  prevent  future 
Governments  from  ever  doing  what  this  Government  has 
done,  viz.,  to  keep  the  peace  whilst  Russia  attacked  Turkey." 
He  proceeds : 

Harcourt  to  Hartington. 

.  .  .  He  (Beaconsfield)  boldly  says  not  only  that  the  Crimean 
War  would  not  have  taken  place  if  there  had  been  such  a  Treaty 
but  that  the  recent  Russo-Turkish  War  would  not  have  occurred. 
But  how  so  ?  The  Treaty  of  1856  did  bind  us  then  just  as  much 
as  the  Convention  will  bind  future  Governments.  And  yet  we  had 
Ministers  hesitating,  doubting,  considering  contingencies,  and  at 
last  (as  Salisbury  says  in  his  last  despatch)  determining  that  the 
risk  and  cost  of  war  was  too  great.  Why  is  this  not  to  happen  again  ? 
If  the  Treaty  of  1856  did  not  hinder  this,  why  should  the  Convention 
of  1878  ?  .  .  . 

The  truth  is  that  no  Treaty  of  Guarantee  has  ever  compelled  a 
nation  to  go  to  war  against  its  will  or  against  the  judgment  of  the 
people  as  to  its  expediency  and  necessity — nor  ever  will.  History 
is  full  of  such  examples.  We  had  an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance 
with  Holland,  and  invoked  it  in  1780,  but  Holland  declined,  etc.,  etc. 


1878]         THE  CYPRUS  CONVENTION  331 

To  go  to  war  is  to  risk  the  existence  of  a  State,  and  self-preservation 
is  the  highest  law  which  will  always  prevail,  and  each  generation 
must  and  always  will  be  the  judge  of  circumstances  which  will 
justify  or  compel  it  to  hazard  its  all. 

It  may  or  may  not  be  a  wise  thing  to  go  to  war  to  prevent  the 
advance  of  Russia.  If  it  is  a  wise  thing  we  should  do  it  without  a 
Treaty  :  if  it  is  not  we  should  not  do  it  with  a  Treaty. 

To  say  that  Cyprus  will  aid  us  in  such  an  event  is  an  absurdity. 
If  we  go  to  war  for  Turkey  to  protect  her  Asiatic  frontier,  we  shall  not 
embark  an  army  from  Cyprus  to  march  through  Asia  Minor.  We 
should  become  the  ally  of  Turkey.  We  should  send  our  forces  to 
Constantinople  as  headquarters,  and  we  should  operate  from  thence 
with  our  fleet  and  our  transports  on  the  southern  shore  of  the  Black 
Sea.  .  .  . 

All  their  Treaties  of  Guarantee  are  simply  the  expression  of  a 
desire  that  Turkey  should  continue  to  exist.  It  is  a  desire  for  that 
which  is  an  impossibility.  They  may  delay,  but  they  cannot  avert  the 
inevitable  decay.  They  have  not  and  they  will  not  prevail  against 
the  moral  forces  which  sooner  or  later  overthrow  bad  Governments. 

The  Treaty  of  1856  guaranteed  to  Turkey  Bosnia,  Herzegovina, 
Serbia,  the  territory  now  annexed  to  Montenegro,  Bulgaria,  Batoum, 
Kars,  Ardahan.  What  has  become  of  them  ?  You  make  fresh 
guarantees  of  what  remains,  which  will  experience  the  same  fate 
from  the  same  causes. 

In  attempting  to  defend  that  which  cannot  be  defended  we  only 
prepare  for  ourselves  the  humiliation  of  deserting  that  which  we 
have  undertaken  in  vain  to  sustain.  .  .  . 

In  the  House  of  Commons  (July  30)  the  Berlin  Convention 
was  attacked  on  a  motion  by  Hartington  which  laid  special 
emphasis  on  the  mischief  of  the  Anglo-Turkish  Treaty  and 
its  far-reaching  engagements  for  the  defence  of  Turkish 
territories  in  Asia.  The  debate  was  dominated  by  Glad- 
stone's famous  speech  on  "  the  insane  Convention."  Har- 
court  took  part  in  it,  and  addressed  himself  mainly  to  an 
attack  on  the  Asiatic  policy  involved  in  the  Anglo-Turkish 
Convention.  It  was  not  a  real  policy,  because  the  East  had 
never  been  controlled  except  by  conquest.  The  civilization 
of  Asia  Minor  was  a  great  policy  worthy  of  a  great  nation. 
No  one  could  suppose  that  Turkey,  which  kad  refused  to 
carry  out  reforms  in  her  European  provinces  when  the 
Russian  army  was  at  her  gates  and  the  whole  of  Europe 
remonstrating  with  her,  would  carry  them  out  in  Asia  Minor 
on  the  mere  strength  of  this  Convention.  It  could  not  be 


332  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1878 

pretended  that  Asia  Minor  was  a  British  interest.  All  the 
spokesmen  of  the  Conservative  party  had  maintained  that 
those  interests  were  concerned  with  the  sea  route  and  not 
with  the  land  route.  He  concluded  : 

.  .  .  The  fate  which  came  to  the  Treaty  of  1856  will  come  to  the 
Convention  of  1878.  It  must  be  so.  No  guarantees  can  bind 
posterity  to  go  to  war.  What,  then,  does  this  Convention  come  to  ? 
My  belief  about  it  is  that  after  your  failure  to  induce  Russia  to  give 
up  many  of  the  things  she  had  claimed  and  obtained,  you  found  it 
necessary  to  bring  back  something,  and  that  something  was  Cyprus. 
It  would  never  have  done  to  have  bought  Cyprus  without  Cyprus 
being  wrapped  up,  and  you  wrapped  Cyprus  up  in  this  Convention. 
We  are  told  not  to  be  afraid  of  this  Convention.  It  is  said,  "  After 
all,  it  is  not  half  so  onerous  a  thing  as  you  suppose  it  to  be.  It  is  a 
conditional  agreement — an  agreement  never  to  come  into  operation. 
It  is  dependent  on  two  conditions  :  one  is  that  Russia  gives  up  the 
fortresses,  and  the  other  is  that  Turkey  is  well  governed.  Russia 
will  not  give  up  the  fortresses,  Turkey  will  not  be  well  governed." 
From  this  point  it  seems  to  me  that  if  this  Convention  were  a  serious 
thing  the  burden  would  be  intolerable.  I  am  not  so  much  afraid  of 
that.  I  do  not  complain  so  much  of  the  burdens  as  that  this  Con- 
vention is  utterly  delusive.  It  puts  forward  conditions  which  are 
not  intended  to  be  fulfilled  ;  and,  therefore,  I  regard  it  as  a  trans- 
action unworthy  of  English  statesmanship  and  beneath  the  dignity  of 
English  statesmen.  (Cheers.) 


During  the  long  suspense  that  had  hung  over  Europe, 
normal  Parliamentary  affairs  had  been  largely  in  abeyance, 
but  new  troubles  were  coming  to  birth  and  old  troubles  wei 
assuming  new  aspects.  Writing  (July  1877)  to  his  soi 
now  at  the  end  of  his  first  term  at  Eton,  Harcourt,  after 
congratulating  him  on  his  place,  and  expressing  the  pleasure 
which  the  boy's  success  gave  to  "  your  dear  old  Papa," 
says : 

I  only  write  these  few  lines  as  I  have  been  up  all  night  in  the  H. 
of  C.  and  have  been  denouncing  Biggar  &  Co.  for  more  than  twenty 
hours  in  succession.  We  sat  from  4  p.m.  on  Tuesday  afternoon  to 
2  on  Wednesday  afternoon,  then  they  gave  in  beat.  It  is  one  of 
the  most  extraordinary  events  that  ever  occurred  in  the  H.  of  C. 
I  went  to  bed  for  two  hours.  I  returned  at  10.30  and  found  the 


1878]       IRISH   OBSTRUCTION   BEGINS        333 

House  still  sitting.     I  am  very  tired  now  and  will  write  no  more 
except  to  say,  my  darling,  that  you  have  made  me  very  happy. 

The  "  extraordinary  event  "  that  had  happened  marked 
the  beginning  of  a  new  phase  of  the  ancient  struggle  with 
Ireland.  Since  the  Nationalists  had  broken  away  from  their 
association  with  the  Liberal  party,  and  especially  with  the 
advent  of  Parnell,  a  more  aggressive  policy  had  been  adopted 
by  the  Irish  members,  and  H  culminated  in  the  introduction 
of  the  weapon  of  obstruction,  with  the  quaint,  almost 
grotesque  figure  of  Biggar  in  the  leading  role.  The  scene 
referred  to  in  the  letter  to  Loulou  occurred  on  the  night  of 
July  2.  Harcourt's  parliamentary  conscience  was  outraged 
by  the  indignity  to  the  decorum  of  the  House.  Writing 
the  next  day  to  Hartington  he  says  : 

Hay court  to  Hartington. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  July  3,  1877. —  ...  I  was  there  till 
3  o'clock.  The  opposition  of  the  Home  Rulers  was  most  unreason- 
able, and  I  voted  with  the  Government  in  every  division  till  I 
went  away. 

At  1.30  I  pointed  out  to  S.  Northcote  that  it  was  idle  to  resist 
if  the  Irishmen  were  obstinate,  and  that  it  could  only  end  as  it  did. 
I  appealed  also  to  the  Irish,  but  of  course  in  vain.  Northcote  with 
singular  want  of  judgment  resolved  to  keep  up  a  hopeless  and 
undignified  fight.  I  went  on  till  3  o'clock  voting  with  him. 
The  Tories  of  course  became  very  noisy  and  the  scene  was  discredit- 
able. At  3  o'clock  I  again  suggested  to  Northcote  to  give  way, 
as  whatever  might  be  the  merits  of  the  case  the  Irish  must  win, 
that  the  House  was  placed  in  a  false  position,  and  it  was  impossible 
to  vote  money  at  that  hour. 

However,  he  still  persisted  and  appealed  to  the  Tories  to  support 
him,  which  of  course  they  did  vociferously.  I  then  retired.  .  .  . 

Altogether  it  was  as  discreditable  a  piece  of  bad  management 
on  the  part  of  Northcote  as  I  ever  witnessed.  He  got  the  Govern- 
ment and  the  House  into  a  scrape  from  which  there  was  no  escape, 
and  taught  the  Irishmen  their  power  in  a  way  they  will  not  soon 
forget.  .  .  . 

As  the  new  warfare  developed  Harcourt's  indignation 
increased.  He  wrote  to  The  Times,  and  in  the  counsels 
of  the  Opposition  declared  for  severe  measures,  as  the 
following  note  in  W.  E.  Forster's  diary  (July  31),  following 


334  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1878 

another    obstructive    night    on    the    South    African    Bill, 
indicates : 

I  went  home,  went  to  bed  about  10  a.m.  to  be  called  at  12.45, 
but  Kensington  sent  for  me  at  12.  On  coming  down  I  found  the 
seven  staggered  by  fatigue  and  a  threat  by  Northcote  of  suspension, 
but  Harcourt  very  hot  for  censure  or  suspension  after  victory  which 
would  have  been  very  foolish.  At  length  they  succumbed,  and 
about  2  the  Bill  got  through  committee. 

In  another  matter  at  this  time  Harcourt  was  called  in 
to  assist  the  Government.  Public  attention  had  been  drawn 
to  the  unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  law  relating  to  courts 
martial,  and  towards  the  end  of  the  Session  a  Select  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Commons  was  set  up  to  inquire  into 
the  subject.  Harcourt,  whose  past  experience  of  courts 
martial  gave  him  peculiar  authority,  was  asked  to  serve, 
and  he  drafted  a  report  which  was  published  in  the  next 
year.  In  this  he  aimed  at  consolidating  the  whole  existing 
law  in  a  single  statute  and  at  making  distinction  between 
the  punishment  inflicted  for  military  "  crimes  "  committed 
in  time  of  war  and  in  time  of  peace.  There  are  obviously 
faults  which  are  a  matter  of  life  and  death  in  war  which 
cannot  be  so  regarded  in  peace.  The  report  sought  to 
define  conduct  "  to  the  prejudice  of  good  order  and  military 
discipline,"  an  expression  which  had  been  made  in  some 
cases  a  reason  for  inflicting  severe  punishment  on  men  for 
making  complaints  of  their  superiors,  and  was  susceptible 
of  being  turned  to  the  uses  of  military  tyranny.  His  efforts 
to  humanize  the  law  of  courts  martial  were  naturally  not 
achieved  without  difficulty,  and  Stanley,  the  Secretary  for 
War,  writing  to  him  (June  4,  1878)  says : 

Lord  Stanley  to  Harcourt. 

H.R.H.  (the  Duke  of  Cambridge)  was  grateful  to  you  for  handling 
him  as  Isaak  Walton  recommends  the  angler  to  handle  the  worm 
— "  as  tho'  you  loved  him."  But  what  care  it  must  require  to 
drive  such  a  team  as  you  have  got ! 

Harcourt  gave  assistance  to  the  Government  in  anothc 
direction.  A  storm  had  arisen  in  India  over  the  Fulle 
case,  involving  the  position  of  judges  in  that  count 


1878]  ON   INDIAN   JUDGES  335 

Salisbury  and  the  Viceroy,  Lord  Lytton,  had  interfered 
with  a  decision  of  the  judges  and  come  into  conflict  with 
Anglo-Indian  sentiment,  and  there  was  a  move  on  the  part 
of  the  Opposition  to  attack  the  administration.  Harcourt 
stamped  on  the  proposal  energetically.  At  this  time  (June 
1877)  Salisbury  was  righting  the  battle  for  peace  within 
the  Cabinet,  and  Harcourt,  who  knew  that  the  war  party 
wished  to  "  run  him  down,"  insisted  that  in  this  matter 
it  was  the  duty  of  Liberals  "to  do  all  we  can  to  support 
him  against  Dizzy."  In  a  letter  to  Hartington  in  which 
he  put  forward  this  view,  he  discussed  with  much  sagacity 
the  position  of  judges  in  India : 

Harcourt  to  Hartington. 

14,  STRATFORD  PLACE,  June  4. —  ...  In  England  the  judges 
are  properly  removed  from  all  control  by  the  Executive,  but  they 
are  controlled  here  effectually  by  two  forces  which  are  wanting  in 
India  :  (i)  Juries  ;  (2)  Public  opinion.  Lowe's  theory  would  make 
Indian  judges  absolute  despots,  in  my  judgment  the  very  worst 
form  of  tyranny  which  could  exist. 

If  the  judges  in  this  case  had  had  to  submit  the  matter  to  a  native 
jury  the  case  would  have  been  very  different.  If  there  had  been 
any  public  opinion  to  control  them  it  would  not  have  been  necessary 
for  the  Executive  to  interfere.  But  there  is  no  public  opinion  in 
India  except  that  which  the  Civil  Service  creates  in  its  own  favour. 
And  of  this  exclusive  caste  the  judges  are  themselves  a  part. 

The  only  representatives  of  a  public  opinion  to  which  the  natives 
can  look  for  protection  are  to  be  found  in  the  instincts  of  justice 
which  are  brought  by  the  "  short  service  "  great  officials,  such  as 
those  who  mainly  constitute  the  Council  of  the  Governor-General, 
who  have  not  left  a  free  country  long  enough  to  have  parted  with 
those  traditions  which  wear  out  in  a  body  of  men  habituated  to  the 
exercise  of  an  unlimited  authority  over  subject  races.  I  therefore 
demur  to  the  fundamental  proposition  that  the  judges  in  India 
are,  can  or  ought  to  be  regarded  on  the  same  footing  in  relation  to 
the  Executive  as  those  in  England  or  any  of  the  free  Colonies. 
The  House  of  Commons  has  a  manner  of  looking  at  the  pith  of  the 
question  and  setting  aside  mere  technical  and  hair-splitting  distinc- 
tions which  delight  us  lawyers. 

They  will  ask,  Was  Salisbury  right  or  were  the  judges  right  in  the 
Fuller  case  ?  and  they  will  answer  in  favour  of  Salisbury. 

It  is  impossible  to  pretend  that  this  question  can  be  argued  as  an 
abstract  matter  of  principle.  If  Salisbury  is  condemned  it  would 
be  understood  in  India  as  a  rebuke  to  his  interposition  in  favour 


336  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          ^1878 

of  the  natives.  It  would  be  regarded,  as  the  question  is  now  re- 
garded, as  a  struggle  between  the  dominant  race  and  their  subjects 
in  which  the  House  of  Commons  had  given  the  victory  to  the 
first.  .  .  . 

In  a  letter  from  Simla  (July  30)  Lytton  conveyed  to 
Harcourt  his  gratitude  for  "  the  undeserved  kindness  of 
your  spontaneous  support  on  the  Fuller  case."  He  had 
incidentally  saved  his  party  from  stumbling  into  a  false 
position  on  a  vital  issue  of  Indian  government. 

VI 

After  his  second  marriage,  Harcourt  removed  from 
Stratford  Place  to  7,  Grafton  Street,  which  became  hence- 
forth one  of  the  chief  political  centres  of  the  time.  In 
spite  of  his  hard-hitting  in  debate,  his  range  of  personal 
friendships  was  unusually  comprehensive,  and  at  his  table 
every  shade  of  political  opinion  was  represented.  In  a 
letter  to  his  son,  for  example,  he  says : 

April  8,  1878. — We  had  a  dinner  of  sixteen  on  Saturday,  Lord 
Carlingford  and  Lady  Waldegrave,  Lord  and  Lady  Ripon,  Lord 
and  Lady  Randolph  Churchill,  Lord  and  Lady  G.  Hamilton,  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Sturgis,  Mr.  Hy.  Calcraft,  Mr.  Chamberlain  (the  Radical) 
and  R.  Brett.  It  was  very  pleasant  and  successful,  and  the  house 
looked  very  well  and  was  much  admired. 

In  the  midst  of  his  public  activities  Loulou  was  never 
far  from  his  thoughts.  To  his  wife  he  writes  from  Cam- 
bridge : 

November,  1877. —  ...  I  have  sent  L.  one  translation  of  the 
Odyssey.  But  I  wish  you  would  see  if  you  can  to-morrow  morning 
get  him  either  at  Bumpus  or  Bickers  &  Bush,  Leicester  Square, 
Cowper's  Translation  of  the  Odyssey.  I  think  there  has  been  a  modern 
edition.  Make  them  find  it  and  send  it  down  at  once  to  L.,  as  he  is 
evidently  cramming  for  some  Exam.  .  .  . 

"  I  must  try  and  give  you  a  little  help  in  the  holidays, 
so  that  you  will  be  ready  for  your  trials  at  the  end  of  the 
next  term,"  he  writes  to  the  boy.  ...  "No  father  ever 
had  a  child  he  had  more  cause  to  love,  and  who  has 
given  him  so  much  happiness  and  never  a  moment's 
pain."  ...  "I  have  written  to  Ainger  to  say  this 


1878]        THE   HARCOURT   BROTHERS          337 

(January  31,  1878)  is  the  first  birthday  I  have  been  absent 
from  you,  and  to  ask  leave  for  Saturday."  ...  "I  have 
got  your  barge  tickets  for  the  boat-race  " — this  was  the 
tenor  of  the  correspondence  he  kept  up  with  affectionate 
industry  while  his  son  was  at  school,  and  during  his  holidays 
the  boy  was  never  far  from  his  side.  A  new  claimant  to 
his  abundant  family  affections  presented  himself  on  May  7, 
1878,  when  Lady  Harcourt  gave  birth  to  a  son,  Robert. 
Meanwhile  the  political  cloud  that  had  come  between 
Harcourt  and  his  brother  at  Nuneham  had  dispersed. 
Time  had  tempered  the  shame  of  a  Radical  Harcourt  repre- 
senting Oxford,  though  the  wound  still  rankled  a  little. 
Thus,  when  Harcourt  sends  to  his  brother  a  cup  of  the 
Harcourt  family,  dated  1630,  which  has  been  presented 
to  him,  Edward  replies : 

I  am  very  glad  W.  Evelyn  has  given  you  a  family  cup.  I  shall 
by  no  means  take  it.  It  will  serve  to  remind  you  of  the  steady 
loyalty  and  unvarying  politics  of  our  family  in  Oxfordshire  for  so 
many  hundred  years.  ...  I  quite  appreciate  your  kindness  and 
delicacy  about  the  cup,  but  why  should  I  monopolize  everything  ? 

At  this  time  Edward  was  engaged  in  his  task  of  preparing 
the  Harcourt  Papers  for  the  press  for  private  circulation, 
and,  replying  to  the  offer  of  his  brother  to  deal  with  the 
life  and  letters  of  Lord  Chancellor  Harcourt,  he  says  : 

Of  course  I  should  be  very  glad  if  you  would  undertake  the 
Chancellor  and  I  could  quite  trust  you  not  to  put  any  (what  shall 
we  call  it  ?)  over  the  lustre  of  his  Toryism  ! 

Early  in  1878'  Edward  was  returned  to  Parliament  for 
Oxfordshire  in  the  Conservative  interest,  and  his  brother 
wrote  offering  to  undertake  the  formality  of  introduction, 
a  service  which  Edward  gratefully  accepted.  His  advent 
did  not  disturb  the  current  of  Parliament.  He  sat  silent 
and  introspective  while  his  brother  thumped  the  box,  and 
the  journalistic  jesters  of  the  time  declared  that  his  steady 
stare  of  wonder,  contempt,  and  sorrow  at  his  voluble  and 
erring  relative  was  causing  Harcourt  to  desert  the  House. 

A  pleasant  testimony  to  the  place  which  Harcourt  had 
now  assumed  in  the  Liberal  party  was  his  unanimous 

z 


338  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

election  in  the  summer  of  1877  to  membership  of  the 
Reform  Club  under  a  special  rule  empowering  the  Com- 
mittee "  to  elect  each  year  two  gentlemen  of  distinguished 
eminence  for  Public  Service  or  in  Science,  Literature  or 
Arts."  The  tribute  flattered  him,  although,  unlike  Bright, 
James,  and  others  of  his  political  friends,  he  never  became 
an  habitut  of  the  club,  but  limited  his  club  life  to  the 
Oxford  and  Cambridge,  of  which  he  had  become  a  member 
on  first  coming  to  London.  He  had  now  been  in  Parlia- 
ment ten  years,  and  although  the  only  office  he  had  held 
was  the  Solicitor-Generalship,  which  he  had  occupied  for  a 
few  months,  no  political  career  seemed  more  opulent  in 
prospects.  Next  to  Gladstone,  he  was  easily  the  most 
formidable  debater  in  the  House.  His  ebullient  wit,  his 
power  of  concentration,  his  wide  range  of  knowledge,  and 
his  energy  of  mind  and  manner  gave  him  a  unique  place 
in  Parliamentary  conflict.  He  had  his  defects,  the  chief 
of  which  was  that  arrogance  which  his  father  had  reproved 
when  he  was  a  boy  and  of  which  long  ago,  in  a  letter  to 
Mrs.  Ponsonby,  he  had  himself  made  frank  acknowledg- 
ment. It  was  a  defect  of  the  temper  which  did  injustice 
to  his  natural  generosity  of  heart,  but  it  made  him,  as 
Campbell-Bannerman  afterwards  said,  a  thorn  in  the  flesh 
to  his  friends  as  well  as  a  terror  to  his  enemies  and  often 
put  unnecessary  difficulties  in  his  path.  He  had  by  this 
time  definitely  committed  himself  to  a  political  rather  than 
a  legal  career,  and  in  the  judgment  of  his  contemporaries 
had  the  ultimate  leadership  of  the  Liberal  party  within 
his  grasp.  He  was  in  no  haste,  and  although  he  had  chafed 
under  the  august  leadership  of  Gladstone,  he  was  quite 
happy  as  lieutenant  to  Hartington,  whom  he  liked,  not 
merely  because  he  was  not  augus£,  but  because  of  his  high 
qualities  of  judgment  and  plain  sense.  Moreover,  he  was 
a  contemporary  with  whom  he  could  deal  on  equal  terms 
and  on  whom  he  could  press  his  point  of  view  with  some- 
thing like  equal  authority.  The  relations  of  the  two  men 
were  of  the  most  cordial  kind,  and  Hartington,  who  had 
little  taste  for  "  devilling  "  and  no  false  pride,  welcomed 


1878]  A  SCOTTISH   HOLIDAY  339 

the  fruits  of  Harcourt's  enormous  appetite  for  historical 
and  legal  research  on  any  theme  that  arose.  Harcourt 
supplied  him  at  this  time  not  only  with  precedents,  but 
with  a  private  secretary  who  afterwards  played  a  consider- 
able part  in  public  affairs.  '  You  once  mentioned  a  young 
Brett  to  me  as  a  likely  Private  Secretary,"  wrote  Harting- 
ton  to  Harcourt  (December  19,  1877).  "  Do  vou  know 
whether  he  still  wishes  for  anything  of  that  kind  ?  "  As 
the  outcome  of  the  inquiry  Reginald  Brett,  the  present 
Lord  Esher,  began  that  career  which  made  him  for  a 
generation  a  sort  of  liaison  officer  between  the  powers  and 
potentates  of  all  camps,  and  the  unofficial  smoother  of 
affairs. 

In  June  1878,  by  the  death  of  the  Duchess  of  Argyll, 
the  circle  of  Harcourt's  close  personal  friendships  was 
further  impoverished.  He  journeyed  to  Roseneath  with 
Gladstone  and  others  to  attend  the  funeral.  "  The  poor 
Duke  is  wonderfully  composed  but  looks  ill,"  he  writes  to 
Lady  Harcourt.  "  Gladstone  and  I  walked  up  to  the 
house  with  him.  Gladstone  looked  very  ill  and  did  not 
sleep  all  night." 

With  the  Session  of  1878  over  and  the  peril  of  a  European 
war  at  least  postponed,  Harcourt  went  to  Scotland  on  a 
shooting  and  yachting  holiday,  taking  Loulou  with  him. 
They  first  went  to  Glen  Quoich,  Invergarry.  "  I  was  out 
all  day  to-day  fishing  and  shooting  with  L.,"  he  writes  to 
Lady  Harcourt.  "  He  killed  his  first  grouse  to-day,  which 
is  an  event.  I  went  out  stalking  yesterday  much  against 
my  will  in  mist  and  storm  all  day  and  missed  my  stag." 
He  intended  to  go  via  Dunvegan  to  Sir  John  Fowler's  on 
Loch  Broom,  "  picking  up  the  gay  Macleods  "  on  the  way. 

She  is  a  daughter  of  Northcote,  and  I  shall  probably 
find  Northcote  there  ..."  But  the  programme  was  inter- 
rupted. Loulou  was  seized  with  the  agonies  of  toothache,  and 
he  writes  from  Inverness  to  Lady  Harcourt  in  admiration 
of  the  courage  of  the  boy  under  "  the  horrid  business  "  at 
the  dentist's.  "  He  showed  so  much  sense  and  fortitude. 
I  know  how  perfect  he  is  in  all  the  softer  qualities,  but  it 


340  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1878 

gives  me  great  hope  and  pleasure  to  see  that  he  is  not 
wanting  in  those  stronger  forces  which  he  will  want  in  the 
battle  of  life.  My  love  for  him  grows  deeper  every  day 
as  each  fresh  trial  shows  how  good  and  true  he  is."  After 
this  episode  father  and  son  set  out  on  a  tour  among  the 
Western  Islands,  in  a  yacht  of  120  tons,  steaming  9  knots. 
After  sailing  up  the  Sound  of  Sleat  to  Loch  Duich,  "  which 
is  as  lovely  as  Lugano,"  they  encountered  a  gale  and  took 
shelter  in  Kyleakin,  "  where  we  spent  many  happy  days 
in  old  times.  He  (Loulou)  was  greatly  excited  at  the  thought 
of  seeing  our  old  yacht,  but  it  turned  out  like  a  toothless 
old  woman,  very  unexciting,  being,  as  I  expected,  a  rotten 
wreck — so  we  disposed  of  its  component  parts  to  the 
inhabitants,  our  old  friends."  Proceeding  northwards  to 
Portree,  halting  to  fish  and  shoot  on  the  way,  they  en- 
countered the  heaviest  storm  that  had  been  experienced 
on  the  coast  for  twenty  years.  Writing  to  Lady  Harcourt, 
he  says : 

September  18. —  .  .  .  The  sailor  Algy  [Sheridan]  l  will  appreciate 
what  it  was  when  I  say  that  the  barometer  fell  ij  inch  in  12  hours. 
We  were  happily  in  a  very  fair  harbour  at  Portree,  but  the  squalls  off 
the  hills  were  so  tremendous  that  with  two  anchors  out  we  were  in 
momentary  fear  of  our  cables  parting,  and  we  had  steam  up  all  the 
time,  having  fixed  on  the  spot  where  we  should  run  ashore  in  case  the 
anchors  failed  us.  This  state  of  things  lasted  nearly  forty-eight 
hours,  during  all  which  time  we  were  tossing  about  within  300 
yards  of  the  shore,  but  unable  to  land.  It  was  very  unpleasant 
and  a  little  dangerous,  but  Loulou  bore  it  like  a  man  and  slept  all 
through  the  night.  .  .  . 

With  this  adventure  the  holiday  ended.  Loulou  had  to 
return,  leaving  his  father  behind.  "  I  parted  with  him 
last  night  with  a  heavy  heart,"  he  writes  to  Lady  Harcourt. 
"  I  find  now  he  has  gone  that  my  only  real  pleasure  in 
Scotland  is  to  witness  his  enjoyment.  .  .  ." 

Returning  from  his  holiday,  Harcourt  took  up  his  cus- 
tomary duties  as  Whewell  Professor  at  Cambridge.  "  I 
have  just  come  back  from  a  long  walk  with  Sir  H.  Maine 
who,  as  you  know,  is  of  the  India  Office  and  ante  damnee 
1  Lady  Harcourt' s  brother-in-law. 


1878]  TRINITY   ONCE   MORE  341 

of  Salisbury,"  he  writes  to  his  wife  (November  4).  "  He 
was  my  coach  when  I  was  an  undergraduate  thirty-one 
years  ago,  and  it  was  strange  for  us  to  meet  under  such 
altered  circumstances,  he  Master  of  Trinity  Hall  and  I  a 
Professor."  The  next  day  he  writes  :  "I  gave  my  first 
lecture  to-day  and  had  a  satisfactory  class.  There  is  a  big 
feast  in  Hall  to-day  to  entertain  the  Judge  who  is  here  on 
Circuit,  but  I  hate  banquets  and  shall  dine  in  my  own  room. 
I  generally  collect  a  dozen  men  in  my  rooms  after  Hall  and 
we  have  a  good  smoke  and  talk.  ...  I  also  send  you 
letters  from  Adam  and  Loulou.  The  latter  had  the 
impudence  to  direct  to  me  '  Professor  Harcourt.'  ..." 

But  the  quiet  interlude  at  Cambridge  was  darkened  by 
new  storms  which  heralded  the  final  break-up  of  the 
Disraelian  regime. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
DEFEAT  OF  DISRAELI 

Failure  of  Salisbury's  foreign  policy — The  Lytton  policy  in  Afghan- 
istan— Harcourt's  and  Hartington's  speeches  in  the  country — 
Gathering  clouds  in  South  Africa — Death  of  Lady  Waldegrave 
— Election  prospects — Defection  of  Lord  Derby — Harcourt's 
oratory — Radical  demand  for  Ireland — The  Liverpool  election 
— The  Gladstone  Cabinet — Defeat  at  Oxford. 

THE  pleasant  illusion  of  "  Peace  with  Honour  "  was 
short-lived,  and  the  Berlin  Treaty  began  to  show 
signs  of  disruption  while  the  ink  on  it  was  still 
hardly  dry.  It  had  served  to  shore  up  the  Government  for  a 
time,  and  to  give  them  a  new  lease  of  life.  But  events  were 
preparing  the  final  downfall  of  Disraelian  Imperialism. 
Hardly  had  the  threat  of  a  European  convulsion  passed, 
than  the  country  found  itself  with  two  new  wars  on  hand, 
one,  the  result  of  an  unwarranted  attack  on  the  Zulus,  the 
other  due  to  a  reversal  of  Indian  policy  issuing  in  hostilities 
against  the  Ameer  of  Afghanistan.  The  graver  of  these 
two  incidents  was,  in  Harcourt's  opinion,  related  to  the 
mischievous  despatch  of  Indian  troops  to  Malta  during  the 
Russo-Turkish  trouble,  against  which  he  had  protested  at 
the  time.  In  a  vigorous  and  incisive  attack  on  the  foreign 
policy  of  the  Government  which  he  delivered  at  Scarborough 
on  October  30,  1878,  he  pointed  out  that  the  Malta  incident 
had  been  intended  to  impress  Russia  with  a  sense  of  our 
Indian  resources.  If,  as  was  probable,  there  had  followed 
Russian  intrigue  in  Afghanistan  that  intrigue  was  intended 
to  create  a  situation  on  the  borders  of  India  that  would 

342 


1878]         FAILURE   OF  THE  TREATY  343 

keep  the  Sepoys  in  that  country.     This  view  was  supported 
by  Lord  Northbrook,  who  had  been  Viceroy. 

The  speech  at  Scarborough  was  followed  by  a  long 
exposure  in  The  Times  by  Harcourt  of  the  reasons  why  the 
Berlin  Treaty  was  already  disintegrating.  Again,  it  was 
the  desire  to  protect  Turkey  that  was  the  root  of  the  mis- 
chief. We  had  rejected  the  proposals  made  by  the  other 
Powers  for  the  federal  execution  of  the  treaty.  We  had 
refused  lest  Europe  should  be  invited  to  compel  Turkey 
to  fulfil  her  obligations  under  the  treaty.  But  in  leaving 
the  door  ajar  for  the  Porte  we  had,  by  an  utter  lack  of  fore- 
sight, left  it  open  for  Russia  also.  We  did  not  need  joint 
action  to  compel  Turkey  to  perform  her  undertakings,  for 
the  armed  force  of  Russia  present  on  the  spot  was  adequate 
for  the  task ;  but  we  did  need  the  collective  action  of 
Europe  in  the  case  of  Russia  herself.  This  we  might  have 
had  and  this  Lord  Salisbury  had  refused,  and  now  we  saw 
him  going  hat  in  hand  to  the  various  Ministers  of  Europe 
to  ask  a  renewal  of  the  proposal  we  had  rejected  at  Berlin. 

We  can  figure  to  ourselves  Prince  Bismarck  with  a  brutal  frank- 
ness replying  "  Tu  1'as  voulu,  Georges  Dandin,"  or,  as  he  is  a  good 
English  scholar,  he  might  answer  in  the  old  lines  : 
"  He  who  will  not  when  he  may, 
When  he  will  he  shall  have  nay  ! " 

Writing  to  Hartington,  Harcourt  says : 

November  7,  1878. —  .  .  .  My  wife  saw  M.  Corry  in  town  yester- 
day, and  says  he  told  her  he  was  at  Hatfield  when  Dizzy  and  Salis- 
bury read  my  letter  to  The  Times,  that  I  was  all  wrong  in  the  asser- 
tion that  the  Government  had  been  seeking  the  aid  of  the  Powers 
to  enforce  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  against  Russia,  and  that  he  supposed 
that  I  had  got  the  idea  at  Knowsley,  which  was  a  source  not  to  be 
trusted.  They  may  deny  it  as  they  please,  but  the  telegrams  which 
/tome  from  Vienna,  Berlin,  and  Rome  show  that  they  have  made 
such  an  attempt  and  failed,  though  luckily  they  were  cautious  in 
the  form  of  their  application. 

Whether  the  information  had  come  from  Knowsley — 
i.e.,  from  Lord  Derby — there  is  nothing  to  show,  but  the 
suspicion  was  not  without  a  certain  basis.  Derby,  for 
whom  Harcourt  had  had  a  warm  affection  dating  from  the 


344  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1878 

Apostolic  days  at  Cambridge,  had  shown  very  liberal  ten- 
dencies, and  his  wife,  who  was  understood  to  wish  him 
to  join  the  Liberal  party,  a  little  later  drove  openly  with 
Harcourt  from  Knowsley  when  he  went  to  address  a  Liberal 
meeting  in  Liverpool,  and  significantly  left  her  carriage 
standing  outside  the  Liberal  Club.  So  far  as  the  particular 
suggestion  was  concerned,  Beaconsfield  was  able  to  meet 
the  allegations  of  Harcourt  that  we  had  been  seeking  the 
aid  of  the  European  Powers  to  enforce  the  Treaty  of  Berlin 
against  Russia  with  a  reassuring  message  from  the  Tsar. 
In  the  meantime,  the  Afghan  trouble  was  assuming  grave 
proportions,  and  a  meeting  of  Parliament  was  summoned 
for  December.  Harcourt  was  hot  against  the  enterprise. 
"  For  my  part,"  he  wrote  to  Hartington  from  Cambridge 
(November  22),  "  unless  the  Government  can  give  some 
clear  evidence  of  a  Russian  alliance  with  the  Ameer  hostile 
to  us  (not  mere  surmise),  I  consider  the  war  wholly  un- 
justifiable and  should  be  prepared  to  condemn  it  in  toto." 
He  was  in  close  communication  with  Northbrook,  who 
agreed  with  him  and  Sir  Henry  Maine  that  Sir  Bartle  Frere, 
who  had  "  a  deadly  hatred  and  jealousy  of  Lawrence,"  was 
"  at  the  bottom  of  the  mischief."  But  Salisbury  and 
Lytton  were  involved,  and  it  was  at  the  latter's  instigation 
that  Fitzjames  Stephen  wrote  to  The  Times  defending  the 
Government  policy.  This  led  to  a  heated  controversy  in 
that  journal  between  the  old  rivals  of  the  Cambridge  Union. 
Stephen  had  said  explicitly,  "  I  deny  that  the  maxims  of 
European  international  law  should  be  the  measure  of  justice 
in  regard  to  Shere  Ali,"  and  had  so  placed  himself  at  the 
mercy  of  so  practised  a  controversialist  as  Harcourt,  who 
said  that  Great  Britain  had  bound  herself  by  treaty  not 
to  violate  Afghan  territory  or  to  interfere  in  the  Ameer's 
dominions.  Did  Stephen's  Asiatic  doctrine  place  a  con- 
vention of  this  kind  on  a  different  footing  from  other 
treaties  ?  Were  we  at  liberty  to  break  that  treaty  for  the 
attainment  of  the  scientific  frontier,  which  the  Prime 
Minister  had  declared  to  be  the  real  object  of  war  with 
Afghanistan  ? 


1878]  THE  AFGHAN   IMBROGLIO  345 

He  was  compelled  to  join  issue  also  with  another  old 
friend,  Lord  Lytton,  who  had  found  a  pretext  for  a  mission 
to  the  Ameer,  intended  to  discover  the  extent  of  the  Russian 
intrigues.  He  had  chosen  the  very  unhappy  course  of 
sending  Sir  Lewis  Pelly  to  announce  the  assumption  by  the 
Queen  of  the  title  of  Empress  of  India.  In  his  speech  in 
the  House  on  December  13  Harcourt  related  in  their  sequence 
the  events  that  had  followed  on  the  almost  inevitable 
rejection  of  that  mission.  The  situation  when  the  Russian 
envoys  went  to  Kabul  was,  he  admitted,  a  difficult  one, 
but  the  Indian  Government  had  made  the  circumstances 
of  their  mission  as  humiliating  as  possible  for  the  Ameer. 
The  whole  conduct  of  the  business  aimed  at  securing  a 
definite  break.  "  This  Imperial  policy  is  a  servile  copy  of 
the  imperialism  of  the  second  Empire.  They  began,  too, 
with  a  little  war,  a  Mexican  expedition,  which  was  to  exalt 
the  Latin  race  and  to  gratify  the  pride  of  the  French 
people." 

Earlier  in  the  controversy  (November  7)  Harcourt  had 
urged  Hartington  not  to  speak  in  the  country.  "It  is  all 
very  well  for  brigadiers  to  charge  the  enemy  and  keep  the 
troops  in  spirits,  but  the  Commander-in-Chief  ought  not 
to  appear  on  the  field  till  the  real  plan  of  campaign  is 
developed."  Now,  however  (December  19),  he  advised 
Hartington  to  speak  at  Leeds,  but  the  occasion  was  one 
affecting  the  domestic  affairs  of  the  party.  Joseph  Cham- 
berlain had  now  assumed  a  strong  position  as  the  leader 
of  the  left  wing  of  Liberalism,  and  was  engaged  in  a  scheme 
of  party  reorganization  in  regard  to  which  Hartington  was, 
according  to  his  nature,  somewhat  chilly.  Harcourt  urged 
him  to  go  to  the  Leeds  meeting  of  the  Liberal  Association, 
and  "  play  the  game  of  conciliation  handsomely  and  cor- 
dially." He  advised  him  when  he  met  Chamberlain  "  not 
to  thrust  the  conditions  down  his  throat,"  but  to  put 
"  more  of  the  Arabian  Nights  into  it."  He  added,  "  they 
will  care  little  for  the  head  of  your  speech  if,  like  the  rocket, 
the  force  is  in  the  tail." 


346  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1879 

Harrington's  correspondence  with  Chamberlain,  however, 

ended  in  his  deciding  not  to  go  to  Leeds,  and  in  a  letter 

to   Harcourt    (January   2,    1879)     he   expressed    his   ob- 

./jections  to  a  caucus  designed  to  influence  the  policy  of  a 

party. 

A  tobogganing  accident  to  Loulou  while  he  and  his  father 
were  staying  at  Rangemore,  Burton-on-Trent,  had  disturbed 
Harcourt's  Christmas.  '  You  know  how  it  always  fusses 
me  when  anything  is  the  matter  with  him,"  he  wrote  to 
his  wife.  But  the  broken  nose  was  mended,  and  a  week 
or  two  later  the  boy  was  at  Studley  Royal,  and  Lady  Ripon 
was  delighting  the  paternal  heart  with  accounts  of  his 
shooting  exploits  and  the  comment  of  the  keeper  that 
"  He's  a  ripper,  and  will  be  a  clinking  good  shot."  Christ- 
mas over,  Harcourt  made  his  customary  appearance  at  the 
Druids'  dinner  at  Oxford  on  New  Year's  Day,  but  reserved 
his  set  speech  for  the  Liberal  Association  at  Oxford  on 
January  14,  when  he  delivered  a  broadside  against 
Disraelian  Imperialism  : 

We  have  seen  a  new  spirit  growing  up  among  us  which  has  deteri- 
orated the  staple  fibre  of  the  public  mind — a  spirit  so  strange  to  our 
ancient  manners  and  traditions  that  it  has  been  found  necessary  to 
invent  for  it  a  name  for  which  the  English  language  has  no  equiva- 
lent. It  is  called  Jingoism.  It  has  raged  like  some  new  epidemic, 
highly  infectious  for  a  time,  though  there  are,  happily,  symptoms 
that  the  virulence  of  the  poison  is  wearing  itself  off. 

He  went  on  to  describe  the  typical  English  gentleman 
and  the  pushing,  bragging  "  smart  fellow,"  and  said  that 
"  by  a  kind  of  elective  affinity  the  vulgarian  of  private 
society  becomes  the  Jingo  of  public  life."  He  subjected 
this  gospel  to  searching  analysis  in  the  light  of  recent  events, 
described  the  insincerity  of  the  Berlin  Treaty,  declared  with 
an  emphasis  that  events  soon  justified  that  Lord  Beacons- 
field's  Eastern  Rumelia  "  is  just  one  of  those  ingenious 
pieces  of  political  clockwork  which  have  every  merit  except 
that  they  will  not  go,"  made  havoc  of  the  annexation  of 
Cyprus,  an  island  without  a  harbour  for  a  fleet,  which  was 
to  be  "a  strong  place  of  arms  for  the  defence  of  Turkey 


i879]        "CRAM'    FOR  HARTINGTON         347 

in  Asia  Minor,"  and  denounced  the  abandonment  of  the 
constitutional  tradition  that  the  Executive  should  act  with 
Parliament  as  a  coadjutor.  In  Salisbury's  denial  of  the 
Schuvaloff  agreement,  which  was  in  his  possession,  and  his 
repudiation  of  a  change  in  Indian  policy  when  Lytton's 
breach  with  the  Ameer  had  been  arranged,  Harcourt  saw 
a  sinister  purpose  of  revolutionizing  our  constitutional 
system  and  founding  government  on  the  maxim  populus 
vult  decipi  et  decipiatur.  Writing  to  Harcourt  on  this 
deliverance,  Hartington  said  : 

Hartington  to  Harcourt. 

HOLKER  HALL,  January  16. — I  congratulate  you  on  the  great 
success  of  your  speech.  It  is  the  heaviest  blow  which  has  yet  been 
delivered  against  the  Government,  and  seems  to  me  unanswerable. 
...  I  agree  with  you  that  we  ought  to  set  to  work  about  preparations 
for  the  election  ;  and  we  shall  not  have  more  than  sufficient  time, 
if  the  election  should  take  place  next  autumn. 

I  have  asked  Brett  to  show  you,  if  you  are  in  town,  the  draft  of  my 
Edinburgh  address  (as  Lord  Rector  of  the  University),  and  to  ask  you 
if  you  can  help  him  to  brush  it  up  a  little.  I  am  much  dissatisfied 
with  it,  but  I  have  never  tried  my  hand  at  literary  composition 
before,  and  hope  never  to  do  so  again.  .  .  . 

Whether  Harcourt  "  brushed  up  "  the  Edinburgh  address 
is  not  on  record,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  miss 
so  agreeable  a  task.  He  not  only  made  speeches  himself 
but  inspired  speeches  in  others,  and  was  always  ready  to 
supply  ammunition  to  anybody  who  needed  it,  and  to  no 
one  more  readily  than  to  Hartington.  He  wrote  to  him 
(February  4)  with  enthusiasm  about  the  Edinburgh  address 

"  the  topics  were  well  chosen,  the  style  simple  and  dig- 
nified, and  the  doctrine  of  the  good  old  Whig  brand  " — 
and,  referring  to  Hartington 's  approaching  speech  at  Liver- 
pool, said,  "  I  have  no  suggestions  to  offer  except  that  you 
should  put  plenty  of  powder  into  your  gun.  I  know  it  will 
always  be  held  straight."  But  by  the  time  he  has  reached 
the  end  of  his  letter  his  mind  is  bubbling  with  ideas  for  the 
Liverpool  speech,  and  he  jots  down  what  he  calls  "  a  few 
rough  notes  "  covering  the  whole  field  of  foreign  policy. 
Two  days  later  he  sends  more  notes  apropos  of  a  speech 


348  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1879 

by  R.  Bourke,  the  Under-Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
and,  always  a  little  nervous  that  Hartington  would  not 
put  enough  "  powder  into  his  gun,"  adds,  "  I  know  you 

'will  not  allow  the  enemy  to  contrast  (as  they  will  be  only 
too  eager  to  do)  your  mildness  with  our  fierceness."  When 
the  Liverpool  campaign  of  Hartington  was  over  his  satis- 
faction was  complete,  and  he  wrote,  "  Nothing  has  had 
such  a  success  in  pulling  the  Party  together,  and  they  will 
meet  on  Thursday  in  high  feather  and  spirits.  The  dismay 
of  the  Ministerialists  is  apparent  in  the  shriek  of  The  Times 
this  morning." 

While  prompting  Hartington  for  his  speeches  in  the 
country,  he  was  fertile  in  suggestions  to  Granville  for  the 
attack  in  the  House  of  Lords.  The  Afghan  war  was 
dragging  on,  and  papers  issued  by  the  Government  showed 
that  we  had  "  obligatory  engagements "  towards  Russia 
in  Central  Asia,J>ut  that  Salisbury  disputed  the  Russian 
interpretation  of  those  engagements.  What  were  they  ? 
He  writes  to  Granville : 

Harcourt  to  Granville. 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET,  February  19. — Surely  if  we  have  "  obligatory 
engagements  "  towards  Russia  in  respect  of  Afghanistan  we  ought 
to  know  exactly  what  they  are,  and  this  is  the  very  point  which 
S.  (Salisbury)  evades.  As  a  fact  I  know  that  S.  has  given  Russia 
an  assurance  that  the  English  will  not  advance  beyond  Jellalabad 
and  Kandahar  as  a  maximum,  and  the  withdrawal  of  the  British 
force  which  is  now  going  on  is  in  furtherance  of  that  undertaking. 
Ought  we  not  to  get  this  out  ?  Anyhow  it  is  very  unsatisfactory 
that  we  should  be  told  that  there  are  "  obligatory  engagements  " 
between  England  and  Russia  on  the  subject  of  Central  Asia,  and  at 
the  same  time  it  should  be  asserted  by  Salisbury  that  he  does  not 
understand  them  in  the  same  sense  as  they  are  taken  by  Russia. 
This  state  of  things  is  certain  to  lead  to  future  complications.  Ought 
we  not  to  ask  what  meaning  the  Government  attribute  to  the 
Memorandum  of  1875  and  whether  in  their  view  it  imposes  any  anc 
what  limits  to  our  annexations  in  Afghanistan  ? 

He  urges  Granville  (March  26)  to  "  eclaircir  the  positioi 
(in  Eastern  Rumelia)  and  make  the  Government  declare 
what  they  are  about,"  informing  him  that  the  Government, 
finding  that  the  piece  of  clockwork  invented  by  them  woulc 


1879]        MISCHIEF   IN   SOUTH   AFRICA        349 

not  go,  were  now  in  favour  of  a  joint  occupation,  "  an 
open  confession  that  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  will  not  work." 
But  while  Austria  and  Italy  agreed,  Germany  and  France 
now  stood  aside. 

In  the  meantime  Harcourt  was  delivering  thwacking 
blows  at  the  Government  in  the  House  of  Commons.  He 
made  two  speeches  attacking  the  Cyprus  policy,  and  in 
the  second  (March  24)  gave  a  delightful  disclosure  of  the 
genesis  of  that  policy  : 

It  has  been  asked  why  we  hold  Cyprus  at  all ;    but  as  yet  the 

Government  have  never  vouchsafed  any  satisfactory  answer.     The 

fact  is  that  the  acquisition  of  Cyprus  was  determined  upon  at  a 

much  earlier  period  than  that  covered  by  the  blue-books  on  the 

,  subject,  and  the  record  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  a  book  which  is  not 

i  exactly   official,    but    which    nevertheless    throws    a    considerable 

amount  of  light  on  the  Eastern  policy  of  the  present  Government. 

"  The  English,"  said  this  book,  "  want  Cyprus,  and  they  will  take  it 

as  compensation.     The  English  will  not  do  the  business  of  the  Turks 

jifor  nothing.     They  will  take  this  city  and  occupy  it.    They  want  a 

new  market  for  their  cotton.      England  will  never  be  satisfied  until 

the  people  of  Jerusalem  wear  calico  turbans."   The  title  of  the  book 

was  Tancred,  or  the  New  Crusade. 

II 

Among  "  the  half-dozen  scrapes  we  were  in,"  to  use 
Harcourt's  phrase  at  Sheffield  (April  n),  the  gathering 
cloud  in  South  Africa  was  not  the  least  formidable.  The 
annexation  of  the  Transvaal  carried  out  in  1877  had  lighted 
a.  fire  that  was  to  smoulder  for  a  generation  before  it  burst 
.into  flames.  The  chief  author  of  that  mischievous  policy, 
Sir  Bartle  Frere,  the  High  Commissioner,  had  since,  by  his 
tiigh-handed  conduct,  plunged  the  country  into  an  idle  and 
ndefensible  war  against  the  Zulus.  In  a  large  measure 
the  Government  were  hostile  to  Frere's  activities,  but 
:hey  showed  great  weakness  in  dealing  with  him,  and 
In  the  House  of  Commons  (March  31)  Harcourt  made  a 
levastating  attack  both  on  Frere  and  on  the  Ministers  / 
#ho  had  allowed  themselves  to  be  stampeded  by  his/ 
orovocative  and  predatory  methods.  He  followed  the 
ittack  up  in  his  speech  at  Sheffield,  in  which  he  gave 


350  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1879 

currency  to  a  phrase,  "  prancing  pro-Consuls,"  that  hit  off 
the  character  of  the  new  Imperialism,  and  became  a  part  of 
the  political  phraseology  of  Press  and  platform.  He  spoke 
of  the  war  as  one  "  the  origin  of  which  is  already  con- 
demned, and  the  object  of  which  no  man  can  discover." 
On  this  occasion  he  not  only  surveyed  the  wide-spread 
failure  of  Disraelian  foreign  policy,  but  attacked  the  financial 
poltroonery  of  a  Government  which  refused  to  pay  for  their 
adventures,  and,  having  squandered  the  surplus  left  by  their 
predecessors,  piled  up  deficits  which  they  had  not  the  honesty 
or  the  courage  to  meet,  offering  the  country  "  Peace  with 
Honour  upon  tick  "  as  their  inglorious  epitaph.  He  put 
his  finger  once  more  upon  the  cardinal  vice  of  the  Govern- 
ment policy.  It  had  failed  because  it  ran  counter  to  the 
spirit  of  the  age : 

In  the  last  half -century  (he  said)  Europe  has  been  reconstructed 
on  the  principles  of  nationality ;  and  that  principle  may  be  truly 
called  the  spirit  of  our  age,  to  which  no  wise  statesman  will  run 
counter.  Greece,  Italy,  Belgium,  Germany,  owe  their  new  birth 
to  this  omnipotent  force.  Do  you  suppose  that  this  vital  principle 
is  less  active  in  the  East  than  in  the  West  of  Europe  ?  Do  you 
think  that  by  your  paper  protocols  you  can  smother  out  this  potent, 
ever -living,  struggling  spirit  ? 

This  speech,  like  most  of  Harcourt's  formal  deliverances, 
had  been  elaborately  prepared,  while  on  a  visit  to  Ilfra- 
combe.  Writing  from  thence  to  his  wife,  he  says : 

Har court  to  his  Wife. 

ILFRACOMBE,  Saturday. — I  had  an  interview  with  the  famille 
Northcote  this  morning  who  have  been  staying  in  this  Hotel.  They 
were  as  always  amiable.  She  said,  speaking  of  the  prevalence  of 
daughters  in  families,  "  only  Ldy.  Harcourt  seems  able  to  have 
a  son."  But  I  pointed  out  to  her  that  the  credit  really  belonged 
to  the  sire  which  on  reflection  she  admitted  to  be  true. 

I  chaffed  Sir  S.  about  Naboth  and  Uriah,  and  told  him  I  should 
correct  it  in  Hansard,  so  he  would  have  to  accommodate  his  speech 
to  mine. 

I  get  on  slowly  with  the  speech,  and  cannot  form  an  opinion 
of  its  quality  yet  any  more  than  you  can  of  a  half -born  child. 

I  have  just  received  a  telegram  from  Neilson  of  The  Times  pro- 
posing to  be  down  here  to  take  my  speech  on  Monday,  but  I  ha\ 


1879]          PREPARES   HIS   SPEECHES  351 

appointed  him  to  meet  me  at  Graf  ton  Street  on  Tuesday  morning, 
as  I  shall  return  to  London  Monday.  .  .  . 

To  the  end  of  his  public  life  the  gestation  of  a  big  speech 
was  a  formidable  function  with  Harcourt.1  In  the  quiet 
of  his  room  he  walked  rapidly  to  and  fro  "  like  a  caged 
lion,"  twirling  a  button  of  his  coat  until  he  succeeded  in 
dislodging  it,  whereupon  he  started  on  another  button,  and 
woe  to  the  intruder  who  broke  in  upon  him  in  the  midst 
of  these  agonies  of  composition.  No  doubt,  from  an  argu- 
mentative and  logical  point  of  view,  his  speeches  gained 
much  from  this  elaborate  preparation ;  but  they  lost  the 
fresh  and  spontaneous  wit  and  force  that  marked  his 
impromptu  manner.  "  I  remember,"  said  Sir  George 
Trevelyan  to  me,  "  occasions  on  which,  rising  to  reply  in 
debate  to  previous  speakers,  he  overwhelmed  his  antagonist 
and  convulsed  the  House  by  the  humour  and  impetus  of 
jhis  onset,  and  having  swept  the  field  fell  back  on  his  pre- 
pared speech  and  sacrificed  much  of  the  impression  his 
impromptu  exordium  had  created."  Harcourt,  of  course, 
i  knew  this,  but  his  eye  was  not  set  on  the  audience  so  much  as 
on  the  country,  and  he  spoke  not  to  be  heard  but  to  be  read. 

A  note  from  Northcote  to  Harcourt  (May  7)  after  the 
meeting  at  Ilfracombe  indicates  the  pleasant  relations  that 
existed  between  Harcourt  and  the  amiable  leader  of  the 
Conservatives  in  the  House  of  Commons  : 

n,  DOWNING  STREET,  May  7,  1879.  Many  thanks  for  your 
;  aote  on  /corra/Jos.  Lowe  refers  me  to  a  passage  in  the  Acharnians, 

where  the  Chorus  attribute  the  Peloponnesian  war  to  an  affair 
i  it  Megara  arising  out  of  a  game,  and  ending  in  a  raid  upon  Aspasia's 

landmaidens.  .  .  . 

Among  the  multitudinous  problems  over  which  Harcourt 
•anged  with  eager  and  voluminous  energy,  none  engaged 
lis  mind  quite  so  completely  as  a  constitutional  issue,  which 

1  Dilke  said  to  me,  writes  Lord  Harcourt  in  his  Journal,  in  1885, 
'  Your  father  always  makes  his  speeches  three  times.  The  first 
ime  they  are  sublime,  the  second  they  are  very  good,  and  the  third 
ime  they  are  only  fauiy'  good.  He  makes  the  first  in  conversation 
o  one  of  his  intimate  friends  or  colleagues,  the  second  in  talk  at  a 
linner  table,  and  the  third  in  public. 


352  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1879 

involved  him  both  as  a  politician  and  a  lawyer,  and  in  the 
House  on  June  17  he  delivered  what  Henry  Fawcett,  in  a 
letter  to  him  next  day,  described  "  as  the  best  speech  I 
ever  heard  you  make."  It  dealt  with  the  encroachment  of 
personal  government  by  the  Viceroy  or  the  Secretary  for 
India  in  the  recent  affairs  of  that  country.  "  No  man  had 
yet  been  created,"  he  said,  "  who  was  fit  to  exercise  un- 
controlled power  over  two  hundred  millions  of  his  fellow- 
creatures,"  and,  with  his  acute  sense  of  the  peculiar  rela- 
tions of  this  country  to  India,  he  rebuked  the  tendency  to 
disregard  the  constitutional  checks  upon  autocratic  action 
which  had  been  lately  apparent,  notably  in  the  case  of  the 
Afghan  War,  the  Vernacular  Press  Act  and  the  reduction 
of  the  cotton  duties,  arguing  that  the  principle  of  limitation 
which  was  good  for  England  was  good  also  for  India. 

I 

The  death  of  Lady  Waldegrave  at  this  time  robbed 
Harcourt  of  the  oldest  and  most  loyal  of  his  friends.  Since 
the  now  remote  days  when,  as  the  wife  of  "  Uncle  George," 
she  was  the  mistress  of  Nuneham  she  had  taken  a  maternal 
interest  in  all  his  personal  affairs  and  his  political  activities, 
and  he,  on  his  side,  had  been  the  bright  particular  star  of 
the  week-end  gatherings  during  her  later  life  at  Strawberry 
Hill.  His  bereavement  was  shared  by  many.  "  I  dined 
at  Crawford's  last  night,"  wrote  Henry  James  to  Harcourt 
(July  9).  "  H.R.H.  (the  Prince  of  Wales)  was  very  civil 
about  Lady  Waldegrave.  When  I  said  I  had  lost  as  good 
a  friend  as  anyone  could  have,  he  said,  '  You  have  not  sus- 
tained a  greater  loss  than  I  have.'  '  James  proceeded, 
"  He  was  full  of  Hartington's  treatment  and  was  somewhat 
abusive  of  Chamberlain."  The  antagonism  of  Chamberlain 
to  Hartington  was  becoming  as  marked  as  Harcourt's 
antagonism  to  Gladstone  had  been.  The  previous  day 
there  had  been  an  unusual  demonstration  in  the  House 
J  on  behalf  of  Hartington,  but  directed  really  against  Cham- 
berlain. "  Everybody  on  both  sides  abuses  Chamberlain/ 


i879]         SIGNS   OF   COMING   DEFEAT          353 

wrote  James,  "  and  he  has  lost  immense  way  by  his 
conduct."  But  Chamberlain  was  not  easily  suppressed, 
and  in  the  debate  on  the  Army  Bill  he  made  a  scornful 
^allusion  to  Hartington  as  "  the  leader  of  a  section  of  the 
Opposition."  The  Bill  was  founded  on  the  report  of  the 
Select  Committee  drafted  by  Harcourt  in  the  previous 
year,  and  the  discussions  centred  largely  round  the  question 
of  flogging.  Harcourt,  anxious  to  save  the  Bill,  came  in 
for  some  hard  hits  from  his  own  side  for  supporting  the 
Government,  but  on  the  question  of  flogging  he  spoke 
voted  with  the  Opposition  for  its  abolition.  The 
however,  was  passed  without  that  reform  being  conceded. 
With  the  prorogation  of  Parliament,  the  thoughts  of 
politicians  turned  to  the  country  and  the  approaching 
election.  Harcourt  revelled  in  the  smell  of  battle.  "  Elec- 
tion prospects  in  Scotland  are  good,"  he  writes  to  Granville, 
"  and  James  and  I  were  in  the  thick  of  the  Elginshire 
victory  over  the  whole  territorial  influence  of  six  Earls  and 
three  Dukes  in  one  person."  1  The  likelihood  of  the  over- 
throw of  the  Government  had  penetrated  to  the  most 
august  quarters,  as  appears  from  a  significant  passage  in 
Harcourt's  letter  to  Granville  : 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET,  September  23,  1879.  —  I  came  up  last  night 
from  Scotland  and  met  at  Perth  H.  Ponsonby  en  route  from  Balmoral 
south.  He  is  charged  with  a  message  to  the  "  Chief  of  the  Opposi- 
tion "  having  regard  to  "  the  possibility  of  a  change  "  (which  it 
seems  is  now  contemplated  for  the  first  time).  The  message  is  of 
so  singular  a  character  having  regard  to  some  passages  in  Harting- 
ton's  speech  at  Newcastle  that  I  should  much  like  to  have  a  few 
words  with  you  OH  it,  before  I  speak  in  Lancashire  next  week. 
It  is  of  a  most  George  -the  -Thirdian  character  as  to  what  can  and 
cannot  be  submitted  to.  ... 


What  the  offence  at  Newcastle  was  can  only  be  surmised, 
but  probably  it  involved  Harcourt,  for  he  was  the  source 
of  much  of  Hartington's  eloquence.  "  If  you  can  supply 
any  hints  (for  his  speeches  at  Newcastle)  without  robbing 

1  On  Viscount  Macduff's  succession  to  the  earldom  of  Fife,  the 
seat  for  Elgin  and  Nairn  was  won  (September  1879)  by  Sir  Mac- 
Pherson  Grant  against  the  territorial  influence  of  the  Earl  of  Seafield. 

AA 


354  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1879 

yourself  I  shall  be  grateful,"  Hartington  had  written  to 
Harcourt  (September  7).    Forthwith  Harcourt  sent  off  a 
survey  of  the  Government's  misdemeanours  abroad     . 
^on   had  expressed  a  desire   to  attack  Parnells new 
poUcy  of  obstruction.     "  I  think  you  are  quite  right  to 
speak  out  against  Parnell,  who  is  becoming  intolerable 
replied  Harcourt ;  "  but  I  don't  knowthatl  should  make  , 
too  conspicuous  a  topic." 

mile  Hartington's  speeches  at  Newcastle  had  given 
concern  in  high  places,  they  had  created  disquiet  of  another 
Lrt  among  tl  Radicals.  Dilke,  writing  to  Harcourt  from 
Toulon,  islismayed  at  Hartington's  and  Goschen  s  speeche. 
The  Radicals  want  three  things-equalization  of  franc 
^disestablishment,  reform  of  the  land  laws : 

Dilke  to  Harcourt. 
TOULON,    September   27,   i879.-Goschen's   whole  speech _fc ^  an 

strong,  it  would  do  good  I'm  sure. 

But  Harcourt  replies  that  he  is  going  to  be  "  long  and  dull" 
"Either  things  are  unusually  flat  or  I  am  preternaturally 
stupd  but  I  feel  as  if  the  soul  of  Northcote  had  trans- 
SSed  into  me,  and  if  I  only  had  a  flaxen  beard  I  amsure 
I  should  deliver  one  of  his  Midland  (?)  speeches  to  admira- 
tion." He  defends  Hartington  and  continues 

Harcourt  to  Dilke. 

I  am  going  to  Knowsley  for  Liverpool.     Indeed  Lady  D^ 
(Derby)  w^to  Lk  me  avec  eminent  as  soon  as  she  knew  I 


i879]         ATTACKS   BERLIN   TREATY  355 

to  Hughenden.  Apropos  of  his  K.C.B.  Wolff  says  he  has  now  all 
the  letters  of  the  alphabet  except  L.S.D.,  which  are  the  only  ones 
he  cares  for.  But  I  hear  it  is  seriously  contemplated  to  give  him 
Layard's  place  at  Constantinople.  He  is  really  fit  to  be  the  Abbe 
Dubois  of  Dizzy's  Regence. 

Harcourt  kept  to  his  programme.  His  speeches  at  South- 
port  (October  3)  and  at  Liverpool  (October  6)  were  lively  and 
destructive  criticisms,  but  they  foreshadowed  no  domestic 
policy.  He  was  attacked  on  his  Southport  speech  for  "  say- 
ing the  same  thing,"  and  at  Liverpool  replied  : 

If  we  said  from  the  first  that  the  Treaty  of  Berlin  would  settle 
nothing,  and  it  has  settled  nothing — if  we  have  predicted  that 
Eastern  Rumelia  would  prove  a  delusion,  and  it  is  a  delusion — if 
we  have  affirmed  that  Cyprus  would  be  good  for  nothing,  and  it  is 
good  for  nothing — if  we  said  that  the  Anglo -Turkish  Convention 
was  a  sham,  and  it  is  a  sham — if  we  predicted  that  to  send  an  envoy 
to  Kabul  would  produce  disaster,  and  that  disaster  has  occurred — 
how  can  we  help  saying  the  same  thing  ? 

He  wrote  from  Knowsley  to  Granville  (October  9)  full  of 
confidence  as  to  the  electoral  outlook  in  Lancashire.  "  I 
have  not  yet  dropped  my  lead  into  all  the  channels  of  this 
house  (Lord  Derby's)  so  I  cannot  give  you  the  accurate 
soundings,  but  I  shall  do  so  before  I  leave  on  Saturday  for 
London."  Lord  Derby's  defection  from  the  Government 
in  1878  on  the  calling  out  of  the  reserves,  and  his  opposition 
to  the  acquisition  of  Cyprus  and  the  Afghan  policy  had  made 
the  future  of  the  "  Lancashire  Achilles '  a  matter  of  much 
political  importance.  No  one  had  done  more  to  prevent 
war  with  Russia,  and,  as  the  correspondence  between  the 
Queen  and  Beaconsfield  (Life  of  B.  Disraeli,  vol.  vi.)  shows, 
he  had  incurred  the  especial  wrath  oJ^He^  Majesty.  It  is 
possible  that  he  was  included  in  that "  George- the-Thirdian  " 
message  which  Ponsonby  had  to  deliver  to  the  "  Chief  of 
the  Opposition."  Harcourt  reverts  to  this  matter  in  his 
letter  to  Granville  from  Knowsley  : 

I  can  tell  you  then  of  H.  Ponsonby,  but  if  you  could  manage  to 
meet  him  (which  I  know  he  is  anxious  for),  I  think  it  would  be  a 
good  thing.  He  will  be  for  a  week  or  ten  days  now  at  Norman  Tower, 
Windsor,  before  he  goes  back.  It  is  difficult  without  conversation 


356  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1879 

with  him  to  understand  the  exact  nuances  of  what  he  has  to  say. 
But  it  seems  clear  to  me  that  there  is  a  large  proscriptive  list. 

It  may  be  that  Derby  was  on  the  list  of  undesirables  ;  but 
when  the  Gladstone  Government  was  formed  he  declined  a 
seat  in  the  Cabinet  as  he  did  not  wish  to  appear  to  profit  by 
his  desertion  of  his  old  party.  He,  however,  had  "  taken  the 
leap."  Before  leaving  Harcourt  wrote  to  Hartington  the 
result  of  his  "  soundings  "  : 

KNOWSLEY,  October  10. —  .  .  .  You  will  receive  by  the  same  post 
as  that  by  which  I  write  this  an  invitation  to  come  to  Knowsley 
for  your  Manchester  visit.  The  real  meaning  of  such  a  proceeding 
is  thoroughly  understood,  and  is  intended  to  have  the  signification 
which  Lancashire  and  the  rest  of  the  country  will  attach  to  it.  .  .  . 
In  my  opinion  this  step  will  go  far  to  determine  the  whole  Lancashire 
campaign.  ...  I  think  it  is  of  great  consequence  that  you  should 
if  possible  go  from  hence  to  the  Manchester  meeting.  .  .  . 

Hartington  agreed  to  go  to  Knowsley,  but  was  less  con- 
fident than  Harcourt  of  the  influence  of  Derby.  Harcourt 
was  satisfied  that  he  had  helped  to  enrol  a  most  powerful 
recruit  who  would  not  only  carry  Lancashire  but  would 
bring  in  the  "  arm-chair  "  people.  He  writes  to  Granville 
urging  him  also  to  accept  an  invitation  from  Knowsley,  and, 
not  forgetful  of  the  virtues  of  publicity,  writes  to  Frank  Hill, 
the  editor  of  the  Daily  News  : 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET,  October  15,  1879. — You  may  announce  that 
you  are  informed  on  good  authority  that  the  Earl  of  Derby  has 
invited  Lord  Hartington  to  stay  at  Knowsley  on  the  occasion  of  his 
visit  to  Lancashire  for  the  Great  Liberal  meeting  at  Manchester. 
...  You  may  comment  as  you  please  on  this.  It  means  what  it 
seems  to  mean. 

Writing  to  Harcourt  after  the  Hartington  visit,  Lady 
Derby  says : 

KNOWSLEY,  October  24,  1879. — The  great  man  duly  arrived,  had 
a  good  reception  in  L'pool,  made  himself  very  pleasant  here,  had  a 
good  deal  of  talk  with  Ld.  D.  ;  seemed  to  be  suffering  agonies  this 
morning  ;  was  occupied  from  10  till  I  with  his  notes,  refreshed 
himself  by  a  solitary  walk  and  went  off  to  Manchester  at  4.  I  think 
you  may  feel  well  pleased  with  having  been  the  means  of  getting 
him  here.  .  .  .  Please  write  to  me  the  real  truth  when  you  have 
seen  him  again  of  what  he  thought  of  all  things  here.  I  have  rarely 
seen  anybody  more  shy  than  he  was  last  night. 


i879]  IN   THE   RADICAL   CAMP  357 

Meanwhile  the  Government  was  in  its  death  throes. 
"  What  a  wretched  affair  Dizzy's  speech  (at  the  Lord  Mayor's 
banquet)  is,"  writes  Harcourt  to  his  wife  from  Cambridge 
(November  n).  "It  seems  to  me  as  if  the  Tories  were 
regularly  cowed.  They  have  not  a  stick  to  throw  at  a  dog." 

But  if  the  Government  were  in  extremis,  the  Opposition 
were  not  exactly  a  happy  family.  Victory  lay  before  them, 
but  whose  victory  would  it  be  ?  It  was  becoming  obvious,  to 
no  one  perhaps  more  than  to  Hartington,  that  his  leadership 
was  a  temporary  phase  and  that  everything  depended  on  the 
decision  at  Ha  warden,  A  wide  gulf  separated  the  Whigs 
and  the  Radicals,  and  even  among  the  Radicals  all  was  not 
brotherly  love.  Harcourt,  writing  to  his  wife  from  Cambridge 
in  November,  says  : 

TRINITY  COLLEGE,  Thursday  evening. —  ...  I  saw  the  Fawcetts 
yesterday.  She  very  eager  that  Chamberlain  should  lose  his  seat  for 
Birmingham.  He  did  n&Ssay,  but  thought  the  same  and  said  it 
"  would  do  him  good."  I  dissented  strongly.  How  these  Radicals 
hate  one  another.  I  suppose  Dilke,  Chamberlain  and  Fawcett 
are  mutually  very  jealous  and  think  that  they  will  have  to  jostle 
one  another  for  the  next  Cabinet.  Happily  I  am  on  good  terms 
with  them  all.  .  .  . 

Harcourt's  eighteenth-century  mind  cultivated  no  illusions 
about  his  fellows  or  about  himself,  and  Dilke  records  that 
when,  a  little  later,  he  remarked  to  Harcourt  "  I  believe  I  am 
the  only  English  politician  who  is  not  jealous,"  Harcourt 
laughed  very  much  and  replied,  "  We  all  think  that  of  our- 
selves," to  which  Dilke  said,  "  I  mean  it."  In  the  general 
uncertainty,  Harcourt  had  a  detachment  which  at  once 
allied  him  with  and  separated  him  from  both  wings.  He  was 
"  a  Whig  who  talked  Radicalism."  He  had  been  the  chief 
backer  of  the  Hartington  leadership,  but  his  closest  political 
friendships  were  with  the  Radicals,  and  Chamberlain  obvi- 
ously believed  that  his  movement  would  be  to  the  Left.  He 
wrote  to  him  (November  2)  urging  him  to  speak  at  a  banquet 
in  the  Birmingham  Town  Hall  to  celebrate  the  opening  of 
the  Birmingham  Liberal  Club.  Harcourt  declined,  but 
Chamberlain  was  urgent,  and  pressed  him  to  reconsider 
his  decision  as  an  answer  to  those  who  were  labouring  to 


358  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1879 

exaggerate  the  differences  between  the  two  sections  of  the 
Liberal  Party. 

With  the  election  now  imminent,  the  floodgates  were 
opened  in  the  country.  Gladstone  had  taken  the  field  in 
Midlothian  in  December,  and  had  roused  public  feeling  by 
the  passion  and  energy  of  his  eloquence.  Next  to  him, 
Harcourt's  speeches  caught  the  ear  of  the  country  most 
effectually.  Indeed  in  the  Life  of  Sir  Charles  Dilke,  the 
biographers  express  the  view  that  "  Harcourt's  brilliant 
speeches  at  Oxford  and  elsewhere,  full  of  epigrams,  had 

ore  effect  on  the  electorate  than  any  others,  not  even 
excepting  Mr.  Gladstone's  speeches  in  his  Midlothian  cam- 
paign." 

This  is  an  exaggeration.  Neither  Harcourt  nor  any 
other  contemporary  could  draw  the  bow  of  Ulysses.  They 
lacked  the  moral  elevation  that  Gladstone  communicated  to 
the  secular  affairs  of  life  and  by  which  he  touched  the  emo- 
tions of  men  to  finer  issues.  But  if  this  note  of  inspiration 
was  absent  from  Harcourt's  armoury,  his  oratory  had  other 
qualities  which  made  him  the  delight  of  those  who  read  him 
as  much  as  of  those  who  heard  him.  The  breadth  and 
sweep  of  his  survey,  the  clarity  of  his  style,  the  fertility  of 
his  illustrations,  his  journalistic  art  of  weaving  his  abundant 
knowledge  into  the  large  pattern  of  his  theme,  above  all  the 
boisterous  humour  that  filled  the  spacious  sails  of  his 
rhetoric  gave  him  a  peculiar  place  in  the  public  affections, 
and  in  the  campaign  that  wrought  the  overthrow  of  the 
Disraelian Government  he  supplied  the  thunder  to  Gladstone's 
lightnings. 

He  spoke  as  usual  at  the  New  Year's  Day  dinner  of  the 
Druids  at  Oxford,  confining  himself  to  agricultural  depression 
and  reform  and  a  repudiation  of  the  argument  that  the 
depression  was  due  to  Free  Trade  and  American  competition. 
When  wheat  fell  to  365.  in  the  thirties  it  was  not  due  to 
Free  Trade,  for  there  was  no  Free  Trade,  nor  to  American 
wheat,  for  there  was  no  American  competition.  The  remedy 
was  not  to  be  found  in  the  quack  specifics  of  Protection,  but 
in  freedom  for  the  farmer  and  security  for  the  capital  he 


A88o]  /  EULOGY  OF  BRIGHT  359 

employeH.  and  freedom  for  the  disposition  of  his  estates  to 
the  owner\  of  land.  At  Birmingham  (January  20),  when 
Bright  also  spoke,  he  introduced  himself  as  "  one  of  those 
miserable  Whiffs  who  lead  an  abject  life  under  the  tyranny 
of  Mr.  Chamberlain,"  who  by  "  a  sort  of  apostolic  succession ' ' 
had  succeeded,  as  the  archbogy  of  the  Tory  party,  Mr. 
Bright — "  a  statesman  who,  after  forty  years  of  public 
service  unsurpassed,  unequalled,  is  still  left  to  us  with  eye 
undimmed,  wisdom  unclouded,  eloquence  unquenched." 
Replying  to  the  theory  that  the  foreign  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment ought  not  to  be  attacked  by  the  Opposition,  he  pointed 
to  the  example  of  Disraeli  in  Opposition,  and  offered  as  the 
revised  canon  of  conduct  the  formula,  "  It  is  the  duty  of  a 
Conservative  Opposition  to  resist  a  Liberal  Government  that 
seeks  to  keep  the  country  at  peace,  but  it  is  the  duty  of  a 
Liberal  Opposition  to  support  a  Conservative  Government 
which  embarks  the  country  on  war."  It  was  in  this  speech 
that,  surveying  the  widespread  failure  abroad,  he  dubbed 
Salisbury  "  a  Bismarck  manque."  Of  the  reception  of 
the  speech  Henry  James  wrote  to  Lady  Harcourt  next 
day  : 

Henry  James  to  Lady  Harcourt. 

NEW  COURT,  Wednesday. — I  have  been  in  consultation  to-day 
with  a  very  shrewd  solicitor  from  Birmingham — Mr.  Beale.  He 
was  present  at  the  dinner  last  night.  He  says  the  speech  was  a 
wonderful  performance,  and  sounded  even  better  than  it  reads. 
'Twas  received  with  one  shriek  of  laughter  from  beginning  to  end 
— and  Bright  and  Chamberlain  were  tame  and  flat  to  a  degree  by 
virtue  of  the  contrast.  It  certainly  seems  to  me  that  the  speech  is 
the  most  telling  our  Master  has  yet  delivered.  .  .  . 

Chamberlain  wrote  to  Harcourt  warmly  of  the  wit  and 
wisdom  of  the  speech,  and  of  the  service  he  had  done  in 
promoting  union.  "  It  is  a  bore  having  no  roof  over  your 
head,"  writes  Harcourt  in  reply,  apropos  of  the  fact  that  a 
fire  at  7  Graf  ton  Street  had  just  burned  out  his  top  story. 
The  incident  brought  him  compensation.  The  first  visit 
of  condolence  was  from  Stafford  Northcote,  who  came  "  to 
assure  me  that  the  Government  were  not  the  incendiaries. 


360  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1880 

The  next  was  Gladstone,  who  came  to  offer  us  the  use  of  his 
house,  the  amiability  of  which  overwhelmed  me."  His 
brother  Edward  was  less  sympathetic.  "  My  dear  Willie," 
he  said,  "  this  comes  of  your  carrying  fireworks  in  your  top 
story." 

In  choosing  an  issue  for  the  coming  election,  Beaconsfield 
naturally  wished  to  avoid  foreign  policy,  and  events  pointed 
to  his  choice  of  Ireland  as  the  one  on  which  he  would  most 
effectively  break  up  the  Opposition  attack.  A  by-election 
at  Liverpool  encouraged  the  idea.  Harcourt  had  introduced 
Lord  Ramsay  (Earl  of  Dalhousie)  as  the  Liberal  candidate, 
and  Ramsay  had  pledged  himself  to  vote  for  "  the  amplest 
and  promptest  investigation  into  the  demand  for  self-govern- 
ment." The  Irish  electors,  however,  were  dissatisfied. 
They  wanted  an  inquiry  into  the  demand  of  the  Irish  people 
"  for  the  restoration  to  Ireland  of  an  Irish  Parliament,"  and 
this  the  Liverpool  Liberals  would  not  concede.  The  differ- 
e  was  a  discussion  of  local  self-government  or  a  discussion 
of  Home  Rule.  The  situation  disclosed  the  vulnerable 
heel  of  the  Opposition.  Chamberlain,  representing  the 
Radical  view  on  Ireland,  in  a  letter  to  Harcourt  (January  25) 
expressed  a  desire  to  recognize  the  nature  of  the  Irish  demand, 
and  to  hint  that  if  the  proposed  changes  did  not  satisfy  the 
reasonable  claim  of  the  Irish  people,  after  a  fair  trial,  some- 
thing more  would  have  to  be  attempted.  But  this  modest 
attitude  was  too  much  for  the  Whig  section,  and  Hartington, 
writing  to  Harcourt  (January  27),  rejoices  that  Ramsay  had 
declined  to  pledge  himself  to  anything  which  would  be  under- 
stood as  a  Home  Rule  promise  and  adds  : 

Chamberlain  in  a  good  humour  appears  to  me  more  dangerous 
.than  in  a  bad  one,  and   I   hope  he  will  not  induce  anyone  else  to 
•/recognize  the  nature  of  the  Irish  demand,  and  hint  that  if  they  are 
not  satisfied  something  more  will  have  to  be  attempted.  .   .  . 

The  hostility  of  the  Irish  element  at  Liverpool  led  the 

Liberals  to  consider  the  withdrawal  of  Ramsay's  candidature, 

and  Harcourt  was  summoned  to  save  the  situation  if  possible. 

In   his   speech   (February   6)   he   associated   himself   with 

A ylHartington's  views  on  Ireland,  but  defended  the  right  of  an 


i88o]        THE   LIVERPOOL  ELECTION          361 

independent  candidate  to  a  private  judgment.  Replying  to 
the  charge  of  the  Tories  that  the  Liberal  party  were  making 
Home  Rule  "  an  open  question,"  he  denned  an  open  question 
as  one  that  was  left  open  between  the  members  of  a  Govern- 
ment, but  urged  that  open  questions  did  not  exist  for  an 
independent  candidate,  pointing  out  that  King-Harman- 
from  the  Ministerial  side  of  the  House  had  supported  a 
motion  for  an  inquiry  into  the  question  of  Home  Rule,  and 
not  only  had  not  been  ostracized  by  his  party,  but  had  been 
made  Lord-Lieutenant  for  Roscommon.  Having  met  the 
Conservative  attack,  he  proceeded  to  placate  the  Irish  by 
pointing  out  that  it  was  the  Liberal  party  which  had  re- 
dressed the  wrongs  of  Ireland,  and  that  Gladstone  and 
Bright  had  been  pursued  with  virulence  by  the  Tories  on 
that  ground. 

IV 

It  was  in  vain.  Ramsay  was  beaten  by  a  majority  of 
2,22iXThe  victory,  coupled  with  the  return  about  the  same 
time  of  the  Conservative  candidate  in  a  by-election  at 
Southwark,  decided.  Beaconsfield  to  go  to  the  country  and 
to  go  on  the  question  of  Ireland.  In  his  letter  to  the  Lord- 
Lieutenant  of  Ireland  he  called  on  "  all  men  of  light  and 
leading  to  resist  the  destructive  doctrine  "  of  Home  Rule, 
and  with  that  war-cry  summoned  his  supporters  to  his  last 
political  battlefield.  But  the  current  was  flowing  too  strong 
to  be  diverted  by  so  transparent  an  expedient,  and  as  the 
election  progressed  it  was  obvious  that  the  Government  were 
in  the  presence  of  an  overwhelming  disaster.  At  Oxford 
Harcourt  entered  the  field  with  J.  W.  Chitty,  the  Conser- 
vatives being  represented  by  the  junior  sitting  member 
A.  W.  Hall,  who  had  approached  Harcourt  some  monthsbefore 
with  trie  purpose  of  avoiding  a  contest,  a  proposal  that 
Harcourt  declined  to  entertain.  In  his  address  Harcourt 
dismissed  with  scorn  the  suggestion  of  the  "  complicity  " 
of  the  Liberal  party  in  a  scheme  for  the  dissolution  of 
the  Union,  while  insisting  on  the  right  of  the  Irish  to 
equal  justice  and  equal  laws.  The  result  of  the  poll  was 


362  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1880 

surprisingly  close,  but  the  Liberals  carried  the  two  seats, 
the  figures  being : 

Harcourt     .          ......     2,771 

Chitty 2, 

Hall  .  . 

In  the  country  generally  the  tide  of  victory  was  mounting 
high,  and  Harcourt's  forecasts  were  more  than  fulfilled. 
"  The  smash  of  Jingoism  is  delicious  and  maketh  glad  the 
heart,"  he  wrote  to  Dilke.  '  You  will  have  such  a  majority 
as  you  will  not  know  what  to  do  with,"  he  told  Hartington. 
"  I  am  posting  a  cock-a-doodle-doo  address  to  my  con- 
stituents." "  I  always  knew  the  country  hated  these  chaps, 
and  only  wanted  the  chance  to  throw  them  out,"  he  writes 
to  Spencer  Butler  (April  6),  while  to  Granville  he  rejoices 
that  the  victory  leaves  them  independent  of  the  Irish. 
"  What  an  excellent  prophet  you  have  proved,"  wrote  Lord 
Spencer  in  a  letter  rejoicing  that  the  country  had  repudiated 
the  "  swaggering  policy  of  Dizzy  "  in  favour  of  the  sober, 
sound  and  strong  principles  "  such  as  Hartington  and 
you  and  other  leaders  have  preached."  Chamberlain 
wrote  to  him  (April  10),  indicating  the  share  of  the 
Caucus  in  the  victory,  and  remarked  that  the  Liberal 
lions  would  demand  a  solid  meal — and  he  straightway 
writes  out  the  menu,  land  legislation,-  electoral  reform,  and 
so  on. 

But  the  "  Liberal  lions  "  of  the  Caucus  demanded  some- 
thing more  than  a  legislative  feast.  They  wanted  a  share 
in  the  preparation  of  the  meal.  As  to  the  chef,  there  could 
be  no  question.  The  election  had  swept  away  the  Govern- 
ment, but  it  had  also  swept  away  the  Hartington  leadership. 
The  dominion  of  Gladstone  over  the  mind  of  the  country  had 
y/  never  been  more  unchallenged,  and  his  resumption  of  office 
was  a  matter  of  course.  No  one  was  more  sensible  of  this 
than  Hartington,  and  after  a  few  perfunctory  inquiries  he 
^recommended  the  Queen  to  send  for  Gladstone,  who  there- 
^  upon  set  about  the  formation  of  a  Cabinet,  with  Granville 
at  the  Foreign  Office  and  Hartington  at  the  India  Office. 
Harcourt  was  offered  the  Home  Secretaryship,  "  a  heavy 


i88o]       BECOMES  HOME  SECRETARY         363 

task,  of  the  highest  rank,"  said  Gladstone  in  the  letter 
making  the  offer,  "...  in  which  your  legal  knowledge 
will  be  of  the  greatest  use,  and  you  will  find  ample  scope  for 
all  your  powers."  It  was  not  the  office  of  his  wish.  De- 
scribing a  talk  with  him  on  April  6,  Dilke  says,  "  I  found 
his  ambition  to  be  to  ...  succeed  Lord  Selborne  as  Lord 
ChanceUer,"  and  in  order  to  reach  that  goal  to  have  the 
Attorney-Generalship.  This,  however,  went  naturally  to 
James,  and  Harcourt  became  Home  Secretary.  But  what 
of  the  "  Liberal  lions  "  ?  The  Whigs  had  got  the  plums,  but 
the  Radicals  had  to  be  satisfied,  and  Jesse  Collings,  the 
faithful  voice  of  Chamberlain,  indicated  in  a  letter  to  Harcourt 
(April  12)  that  the  country  would  expect  both  Dilke  and 
Chamberlain  to  be  in  the  Cabinet.  With  these  two  men  in 
the  Cabinet,  all  would  be  well.  With  these  two  men  outside 
— well,  there  would  be  trouble.  Harcourt  himself  was  in 
favour  of  both  being  in.  They  were  his  close  personal  friends, 
and,  though  he  believed  himself  to  be  a  Whig,  he  had  far 
more  in  common  with  them  than  with  the  right  wing  of  the 
party.  For  Dilke  he  had  a  deep  affection,  which  he  had 
shown  in  1875  when,  as  Dilke  records,  Harcourt  had  taken 
him,  while  he  was  suffering  from  a  slight  attack  of  smallpox, 
to  his  own  house  in  order  to  nurse  him  and  provide  him 
with  companionship,  Loulou  being  sent  away  to  escape  the 
danger  of  infection. 

But  there  were  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  inclusion  of 
the  two  formidable  Radicals  in  the  Government.  Gladstone 
had  objections  to  giving  Cabinet  rank  to  men  who  had  not 
been  in  inferior  office,  and  Dilke  himself  was  on  the  proscrip- 
ion  list  of  the  Queen,  not  only  because  he  had  pronounced 
in  reply  to  a  question  at  a  meeting  a  more  or  less  academic 
view  in  favour  of  republicanism,  but  also  because  of  his 
attitude  in  regard  to  the  Civil  List.  Chamberlain  had  pro- 
posed a  compact  with  Dilke  that  they  were  both  to  be  in  the 
Cabinet  or  both  stay  out,  but  Dilke  had  persuaded  him  to 
agree  to  one  being  in  the  Cabinet  and  one  having  a  place  of 
influence  outside.  Harcourt  was  delegated  to  sound  Dilke 
with  a  view  to  taking  the  Under-Secretaryship  for  Foreign 


364  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1880 

Affairs,  but  when,  later,  Gladstone  offered  him  the  position 
he  asked  whether  Chamberlain  was  to  be  in  the  Cabinet,  and, 
finding  he  was  not,  declined  office.  The  position  was  serious, 
and  in  the  negotiations  that  followed  Harcourt  pressed  the 
view  that  one  of  the  two  must  be  in  the  Cabinet.  In  the 
end  Chamberlain  was  sent  for,  and  was  offered  and  accepted 
the  Board  of  Trade,  whereupon  Dilke  took  the  Under- 
Secretaryship  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

Meanwhile  Harcourt  had  had  an  unlooked-for  check  in 
the  midst  of  the  general  victory.  It  was  often  his  fate  to 
be  the  victim  of  his  own  principles,  as  in  the  case  of  his 
famous  Budget.  His  first  speech  in  Parliament  had  been  a 
defence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  vacation  of  seats  by  Ministers, 
under  the  Statute  of  Queen  Anne,  and  now  he  was  called  upon 
to  face  the  application  of  the  doctrine  to  himself.  His  re- 
election was  opposed,  and  he  went  down  to  Oxford  on 
April  29  to  meet  the  electors  once  more.  Ten  days  later  he 
telegraphed  to  Lady  Harcourt,  "  It  has  gone  wrong  here. 
I  am  quite  well  and  shall  be  home  to-night."  He  had  been 
defeated  by  fifty-four  votes.  He  took  his  beating  hand- 
somely, remarking  on  the  declaration  of  the  poll  that  he  had 
received  too  much  kindness  from  Oxford  in  the  past  to  have 
any  sense  of  bitterness  now.  The  incident  aroused  much 
indignation  owing  to  the  corrupt  methods  employed. 
Among  the  letters  of  sympathy  which  Harcourt  received 
were  notes  from  the  Speaker  (Brand)"  deploring  the  mishap," 
while  Chitty,  his  late  colleague  in  the  representation  of 
Oxford,  wrote  : 

/.  W.  Chitty  to  Harcourt. 

33,  QUEEN'S  GATE  GARDENS,  S.W.,  May  10,  1880. — I  can- 
not express  to  you  how  deeply  I  feel  Saturday's  defeat  with 
which  I  seem,  without  any  fault  that  I  can  discern  on  my  part, 
to  be  most  unfortunately  connected.  .  .  .  You  may  remember 
what  I  said  at  Gloster  Green  that  I  would  willingly  jump 
overboard  to  save  you.  These  were  not  idle  words,  uttered 
in  the  excitement  of  the  moment.  So  far  as  I  am  personally 
concerned  you  may  consider  my  seat  at  Oxford  at  your  disposal. 
The  circumstances  are  so  peculiar  that  you  may  accept  this  offer 
without  laying  yourself  under  the  slightest  obligation  to  me.  .  .  . 


i88o]  RESCUED   BY   PLIMSOLL  365 

But  Harcourt  had  closed  his  account  with  his  old  con- 
stituency, and  henceforth  his  brother  Edward  could  look  out 
from  the  lawns  of  Nuneham  to  the  towers  of  Oxford  without 
the  humiliating  thought  that  a  Radical  Harcourt  stained 
the  horizon.  Immediately  this  defeat  was  known  Samuel 
Plimsoll  called  his  supporters  at  Derby  together  and,  recalling 
the  help  received  in  the  past  in  his  work  for  the  seamen 
from  Harcourt,  and  pointing  out  that  as  Home  Secretary 
Sir  William  would  be  able  to  do  much  more  for  the  cause  he 
had  at  heart  than  he  could  do  as  a  private  member,  induced 
them  to  accept  his  resignation.  Harcourt  was  adopted  as 
candidate,  and  went  to  Derby  for  his  third  election  campaign 
on  May  21.  He  carried  his  gaiety  with  him.  Speaking  at 
the  Drill  Hall  he  told  his  audience  that  he  had  in  the  train 
seen  a  copy  of  Punch,who  had  seized  the  situation  with  regard 
to  himself.  There  was  a  picture  of  a  steamer  labouring  in  a 
choppy  sea,  which  was  carrying  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
and  "  beneath,  just  emerging  dripping  from  the  waves,  was 
an  unfortunate  being  in  whom — although  not  altogether 
complimentary — I  could  not  help  seeing  a  likeness.  I 
thought  to  myself,  '  Why,  the  draughtsman  in  Punch  must 
have  guessed  Mr.  Plimsoll's  secret,  for  if  a  distressed  seaman 
overboard  is  to  look  for  assistance  anywhere  I  am  sure  he 
would  look  for  it  at  the  hands  of  Mr.  Samuel  Plimsoll.'  " 
The  rescue  was  very  thoroughly  accomplished,  for  Harcourt 
was  returned  without  opposition,and  thus  began  a  connection 
with  the  borough  of  Derby  which  lasted  until  1895. 

Meanwhile,  the  friends  Harcourt  had  left  behind  in  Oxford 
were  preparing  their  revenge.  An  election  petitjpn^was 
entered,  and  at  the  subsequent  inquiry  the  election  was 
annulled  by  Justices  Lush  and  Manisty,  who  passed  the 
severest  strictures  upon  the  corruption  employed.  The 
revelations  were  extraordinary  even  for  so  politically  mal- 
odorous a  constituency  as  Oxford.  Bribery  had  been  carried 
out  on  an  astonishing  scale,  and  Hall's  expenses,  returned 
as  £3,610,  were  found  to  have  been  in  reality  £5,661,  with 
outstanding  claims  for  another  £1,896.  To  complete  the 
scandal,  a  remarkable  letter,  purporting  to  be  from  the 


SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1880 

Chichele  Professor  to  the  Public  Orator  of  the  University, 
was  picked  up  in  the  street,  and  came  into  the  hands  of  the 
Mayor.  We  are  sure  to  win,  said  the  letter,  but  only  on 
condition  that  another  £500  can  be  provided  over  and  above 
the  Carlton  £3,000.  Three  hundred  had  been  raised,  he 
himself  was  good  for  £50,  and  could  the  Public  Orator 
produce  £10  ? 

The  case  was  so  glaring  that  it  was  largely  responsible  for 
the  subsequent  appointment  of  a  Royal  Commission  to 
inquire  into  the  election  scandals,  as  the  result  of  which 
Oxford  was  partially  disfranchised,  the  vacant  seat  being 
left  unfilled.  If  Harcourt  desired  revenge  he  had  it  in  over- 
flowing measure. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
THE  NEW  GOVERNMENT 

Legacy  of  trouble  from  the  Disraeli  Government — Two  Parties 
within  the  Cabinet — Temperamental  differences  with  Glad- 
stone— The  Bradlaugh  episode — The  Ground  Game  Bill — 
Merchant  Shipping  Committee — Yachting  among  the  Western 
Isles — The  Dulcigno  demonstration — Majuba  and  the  sequel 
— London  Water  Companies — The  Miles  Platting  case — 
Society  at  7,  Grafton  Street — Mr.  Lewis  Harcourt  becomes  his 
father's  Secretary — A  Diary. 


TE  nas  a  difficult  team  to  drive  "  was  the  comment 
of  Speaker  Brand,  surveying  the  new  House  of 

JL  JL  Commons  and  its  leader  from  the  detachment  of 
the  Speaker's  Chair.  Superficially,  the  omens  were  good. 
Gladstone,  now  well  past  seventy  but  with  his  intellectual 
powers  still  unabated,  had  returned  to  supreme  office  as  the 
unchallenged  choice  of  the  party.  In  the  last  pitched 
battle  he  was  to  fight  against  the  great  antagonist  with 
whom  he  had  divided  the  stage  for  so  many  years,  he  had 
won  a  victory  as  decisive  as  any  in  parliamentary  annals. 
Disraelian  Imperialism  had  been  swept  from  the  field,  and 
the  country,  weary  of  wars  and  panics  and  adventures,  had 
turned  with  overwhelming  emphasis  to  a  leader  from  whom 
it  expected  less  romance  and  more  peace  of  mind.  The 
Parliamentary  position  had  been  almost  exactly  reversed  by 
the  election.  The  preceding  House  of  Commons  contained 
348  Conservatives,  250  Liberals,  and  54  Home  Rulers. 
The  House  that  met  on  April  29  contained  353  Liberals, 
238  Conservatives,  and  61  Home  Rulers. 

With  so  formidable  a  backing,  the  prospects  of  the  new 
Government  seemed  cheerful  enough.  The  omens,  how- 
ever, were  deceptive.  A  new  Government  is  not  called  on 

367 


368  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1880 

to  start  a  new  business,  but  to  carry  on  an  old  one,  with 
all  its  liabilities,  commitments,  and  unsettled  problems. 
These  alone  were  heavy  enough  to  try  the  wisdom  and 
solidarity  of  the  new  Administration.  The  waters  of  con- 
tinental diplomacy  were  still  heaving  with  the  backwash  of 
the  storm  that  had  passed  and  with  the  problems  left  by  the 
Berlin  settlement ;  the  discontents  aroused  in  South  Africa 
by  the  activities  of  Bartle  Frere,  and  especially  by  the  ill- 
advised  annexation  of  the  Transvaal,  were  beginning  to 
assume  menacing  shape  ;  Ireland,  under  the  bold  and  master- 
ful leadership  of  Parnell,  had  developed  a  new  strategy  of 
revolt  that  threatened  to  make  government  impossible ;  in 
Egypt,  the  understanding  which  France  and  England  had 
arrived  at  in  the  last  year  of  Disraeli's  Government  had 
committed  us  to  a  policy  of  intervention  which  was  soon  to 
blaze  up  in  unforeseen  troubles.  The  new  Ministry  had 
succeeded  to  as  disturbed  an  inheritance  as  any  Govern- 
ment were  ever  set  to  administer. 

Nor  were  the  dangers  that  enveloped  it  limited  to  events. 

stormy  crew  were  set  to  navigate  a  stormy  sea.  The  „ 
Gladstone  Government  of  1868-74  had  been  homogeneous  / 
and  manageable.  In  spite  of  the  inclusion  of  men  like  ' 
Bright  and  Forster  it  had  represented  the  moderate  traditions 
of  the  old  Whig  school,  with  the  dominating  and  fervid 
genius  of  Gladstone  as  its  sole  inspiration.  But  the  new 
Government  was  composed  of  frankly  hostile  elements.  The 
victory  at  the  polls  had  been  the  victory  of  Gladstone  plus 
the  Caucus,  and  though  the  Whigs  had  taken  the  lion's  share 
of  office  the  Radicals  knew  their  power  in  the  country, 
and  under  the  leadership  of  Chamberlain  were  determined 
to  make  their  views  operative  in  affairs.  Gladstone  was 
no  longer  the  lawgiver  of  an  obedient  Cabinet,  but  the 
moderator  between  two  forces  that  clashed  violently  on 
nearly  every  cardinal  issue  of  politics.  And  his  difficulties 
were  not  confined  to  his  own  parliamentary  household. 
Across  the  floor  of  the  House  there  loomed  the  promise  of 
afflictions  new  to  the  experience  of  Governments.  In  the 
past  the  theory  of  Opposition  had  been  that  its  function  was 


i88o]       HARCOURT  AND  GLADSTONE        369 

to  set  up  a  rival  policy  for  the  well-being  of  the  Common- 
•'wealth.  Parnell  had  fashioned  an  instrument  of  opposition 
that  aimed  at  making  government  not  better,  but  impossible. 
He  had  served  his  apprenticeship  in  the  art  of  guerilla 
warfare,  and  now,  the  acknowledged  chief  of  the  Irish 
phalanx,  prepared  to  put  his  theories  of  frankly  destructive 
opposition  into  ruthless  practice.  Moreover  in  the  Fourth 
Party,  with  Randolph  Churchill  as  its  head,  the  formal 
opposition  of  the  Conservative  party  developed  a  ferocity 
oLattack  that  disregarded  all  the  accepted  rules  of  parlia- 
^jnentary  conflict. 

The  troubled  story  of  the  second  Gladstone  Administra- 
tion, however,  does  not  belong  to  the  theme  of  this  book, 
and  it  will  be  referred  to  only  in  so  far  as  it  touches 
Harcourt's  activities.  He  had  come  into  the  control  of  a 
department  that  engaged  all  his  energies,  and  for  the  next 
five  years  his  history  is  not  mainly  concerned  with  those 
world  affairs  that  had  chiefly  occupied  his  mind  in  the  past, 
but  with  the  internal  problems  of  justice  and  social  order 
and  with  the  struggle  in  Ireland.  In  the  Cabinet,  of  course, 
he  took  his  part  in  shaping  the  general  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  in  his  speeches  in  the  country  he  revelled  as  of 
old  in  the  joy  of  battle,  but  in  Parliament  he  kept  to  his 
own  abundant  tasks.  With  closer  intercourse,  the  ascen- 
dancy which  Gladstone  had  exercised  over  his  mind  in 
the  sixties,  and  which  had  been  interrupted  by  the  conflict 
over  the  Public  Worship  Act,  began  to  resume  its  sway. 
The  temperamental  clash  of  the  mystic  and  the  Erastian, 
of  a  spirit  that  dwelt  in  the  sanctuary  and  of  a  spirit  that 
lived  in  the  statute  book,  remained,  and  on  the  plane  of 
fellowship  of  feeling  they  never  shared  that  comradeship 
which  marked  the  relations  of  Harcourt  and  Chamberlain. 
Gladstone  had  no  levity  in  his  equipment,  and  never  for- 
gave levity  in  others.  He  did  not  understand  that  one 
could  jest  and  be  serious,  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
he  would  have  survived  a  single  meeting  of  Lincoln's 
Cabinet.  Harcourt's  sense  of  humour  did  not  indulge  in 
the  licence  which  Lincoln's  enjoyed,  but  it  coloured  all  he 

BB 


370  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1880 

said  and  did.  It  was  the  atmosphere  in  which  his  per- 
sonality clothed  itself,  and  laughter  was  his  authentic 
weapon  of  attack  as  much  as  moral  passion  was  Gladstone's. 
The  conflict  of  outlook  had  its  counterpart  in  difference 
of  tastes.  Both  had  an  enormous  appetite  for  work,  but 
while  Gladstone  went  for  his  recreation  to  the  classics, 
Harcourt,  though  he  preserved  his  love  of  the  classics, 
found  his  chief  joy  in  blue-books  and  statutes,  and  was 
an  omnivorous  reader  of  history,  memoirs,  biography,  and 
poetry.  Gladstone  had  no  interest  in  sport  and  was  much 
of  an  ascetic,  while  Harcourt  delighted  in  yachting  and 
deer-stalking  and  had  a  hearty  appetite  for  the  pleasures 
of  life.  Gladstone  loathed  tobacco,  while  Harcourt  was 
one  of  the  most  industrious  smokers  of  his  generation, 
consuming  something  like  sixteen  cigars  a  day,  good,  bad, 
and  indifferent,  for  in  these  matters  he  was  no  connoisseur. 
Sir  Algernon  West  records  that  when  acting  as  secretary 
to  Gladstone  at  the  Treasury  his  chief  once  accused  him  of 
smelling  strongly  of  tobacco.  "  I  don't  wonder,"  replied 
West,  "  for  I  have  been  sitting  for  half  an  hour  in  Sir 
William  Harcourt's  room."  "  Does  Harcourt  smoke  ?  " 
Basked  Gladstone  in  a  voice  of  horror ;  "  if  so,  he  must  be 
very  careful  to  change  his  clothes  before  he  comes  to  me." 
But  in  spite  of  these  and  many  other  points  of  disagree- 
ment, and  in  spite  of  their  conflicts  in  the  past,  the  relations 
between  the  two  men  from  1880,  if  not  undisturbed,  became 
increasingly  cordial.  Gladstone  was  sensible  of  the  un- 
rivalled pile-driving  power  of  his  lieutenant,  and  Harcourt, 
having  sown  those  "  wild  oats  "  with  which  his  senior  had 
taunted  him  in  years  gone  by,  came  eventually  under  the 
dominion  of  Gladstone's  influence  more  completely  than 
under  that  of  any  personal  relation  in  his  career,  except 
that  of  Cornewall  Lewis. 

Before  the  new  Parliament  had  been  sworn  in  the  storm 
burst  over  it  with  almost  unprecedented  intensity.  It  is 
not  necessary  here  to  recall  the  incidents  of  the  Bradlaugh 
episode.  In  these  more  tolerant  days  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  the  passion  of  that  prolonged  and  discreditable 


i88o]        EXCLUSION   OF  BRADLAUGH          371 

conflict,  the  result  of  which  was  the  exclusion  of  the  member 
for  Northampton  from  the  House.  In  the  fierce  debates  on 
the  subject  Harcourt  took  some  part.  Writing  to  Glad- 
stone, Harcourt  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  June  25. — I  had  a  long  talk  with  Labouchere 
last  night.  He  will  try  to  persuade  Bradlaugh  not  to  present 
himself  to-day  so  that  if  the  motion  to  rescind  the  Resolution  is 
brought  on  there  may  be  behind  it  the^ear  of  the  scandal  of  his 
reappearance,  which  would  actuate  many  in  their  vote. 

The  more  I  think  of  it  the  more  convinced  I  feel  it  would  be  most 
disastrous  if  you  were  driven  into  taking  the  initiative  against 
Bradlaugh.  Your  situation  hitherto  has  been  impregnable,  and 
I  cannot  see  what  further  right  or  power  the  Opposition  have  now 
than  before  of  casting  on  you  the  responsibility  of  action.  If  the 
motion  is  made  that  he  shall  be  excluded  from  the  precincts  of  the 
House  he  will  be  finally  done  for.  There  will  no  longer  be  any 
method  by  which  he  can  vindicate  his  right,  for  as  I  said  last  night 
there  is  no  legal  remedy.  His  only  chance  is  in  the  appeal  to  public 
opinion  involved  in  his  imprisonment.  If  he  is  snuffed  out  in  the 
other  way  I  do  not  see  what  further  resource  remains  to  him. 

If  the  Tories  are  once  assured  that  Bradlaugh  can  no  longer  intrude 
himself  on  the  House  they  will  never  rescind  the  Resolution — in 
fact  the  situation  will  be  exactly  what  they  would  most  desire,  and 
they  will  certainly  not  help  us  out  of  the  scrape. 

The  prolonged  and  unseemly  struggle  which  followed 
closed  with  the  election  of  a  new  Parliament,  when 
Bradlaugh,  returned  once  more  by  Northampton,  took 
his  seat,  the  Speaker  declining  to  take  cognizance  of  what 
had  gone  before.  He  became  one  of  the  most  useful  and 
respected  members  of  the  House,  and  when  he  lay  on 
his  death-bed  the  House  of  Commons  formally  removed 
from  its  records  the  resolution  of  exclusion  thaj^had  been 
carried  with  such  tumultuous  enthusiasm  ten  years  before. 

Owing  to  the  brevity  of  the  Session,  the  legislative 
programme  of  the  Government  was  necessarily  slight,  but 
Harcourt  had  a  substantial  part  of  it  allotted  to  him.  The 
devastation  by  hares  and  rabbits  had  long  been  a  standing 
grievance  of  the  farmers,  and  in  the  closing  days  of  the 
late  Government,  P.  A.  Taylor  had  moved  the  abolition 
of  the  Game  Laws.  Another  member  proposed  that  it 


372  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1880 

"  is  not  now  expedient  to  deal  with  the  question,"  where- 
upon Harcourt  had  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  by 
leaving  out  the  word  "  not."  In  the  result  Harcourt  was 
beaten  by  only  18  votes.  With  his  accession  to  office  he 
i/promptly  set  about  the  preparation  of  a  Bill  to  give  "  more 
effectual  protection  to  occupiers  of  land  against  injury 
from  ground  game."  In  a  formal  letter  to  the  Queen, 
describing  the  purport  of  the  measure,  he  said  : 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  May  31. — The  object  of  this  Bill  is  to  remove 
a  grievance  which  has  long  been  felt  and  which  has  led  to  much 
ill- will  between  landlords  and  tenants,  particularly  in  Scotland. 
The  special  feature  of  this  Bill  is  section  3,  which  makes  that  right 
inalienable  and  invalidates  all  contracts  in  contravention  of  the 
right  of  the  tenant  to  kill  the  ground  game  so  that  he  cannot  be 
/  forced  by  his  landlord  to  contract  himself  out  of  it.  This  has  become 
necessary  in  consequence  of  the  inveterate  habit  of  reserving  the 
game  in  leases  and  the  practice  of  letting  the  game  to  third  persons 
over  the  head  of  the  tenant. 

Through  Sir  H.  Ponsonby,  the  Queen  replied  that,  while 
lamenting  the  evils  caused  by  over-preservation,  she  "  does 
not  like  the  prohibition  of  amicable  contracts  between 
landlord  and  tenant,  and  fears  that  the  intervention  of 
law  between  persons  who  have  hitherto  been  on  friendly 
terms  will  lead  to  the  creation  of  a  bad  feeling  between 
/  these  classes."  Her  Majesty  was  also  concerned  to  know 
"  whether  the  cancelling  of  all  contracts  of  this  nature 
will  not  involve  great  hardship  in  many  cases  and  be  a 
novel  and  serious  interference  with  the  rights  of  property  ?  " 
In  his  reply  Harcourt  stated  with  great  clearness  the  case 
for  interference  with  the  liberty  of  making  contracts  "  in 
cases  where  a  practical  monopoly  in  the  hands  of  one  of 
the  parties  to  the  contract  does  in  effect  limit  the  freedom 
of  the  other  in  the  bargain  " : 

Harcourt  to  Queen  Victoria. 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  June  5. —  ...  Thus  in  the  Merchant 
Shipping  Acts  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  protect  sailors  against 
contracts  which  the  shipowners  would  have  power  to  force  upon 
them  to  their  detriment.  So  in  the  case  of  Railways  which  have 
a  virtual  monopoly  of  transport  the  Companies  are  not  allowed  to 


i88o]         HARES  AND   RABBITS  BILL          373 

make  stipulations,  even  if  agreed  to  by  their  customers,  which  would 
relieve  them  from  the  liability  to  compensation  for  loss  or  damage. 
The  same  thing  is  done  in  the  Truck  Acts  when  employers  of  labour 
are  forbidden  to  make  agreements  with  their  workmen  to  take  their 
wages  in  goods  supplied  by  the  master.  A  cabman  is  not  allowed 
to  make  what  bargain  he  likes  for  the  conveyance  of  a  passenger. 
The  law  is  full  of  such  examples,  founded  on  the  principle  that  when 
one  party  has  what  amounts  to  a  monopoly  giving  to  him  an  over- 
whelming advantage  in  the  bargain  the  power  of  contracting  on  the 
other  side  is  not  really  free.  If  all  the  landlords,  as  a  class,  insist  on 
reserving  the  ground  game,  the  tenants,  though  nominally  free  to 
contract  on  the  subject,  have  no  real  power  to  make  their  own  terms. 
If  they  had,  the  evils  so  much  complained  of  would  not  exist.  .  .  . 
The  tenants  are  comparatively  content  that  the  landlord  should 
enjoy  his  sport  even  if  they  suffer  somewhat  by  it,  it  is  part  of  the 
friendly  social  relation  which  exists  between  them.  On  one  estate  1 
with  which  Sir  William  Harcourt  is  personally  connected,  and 
where  it  has  always  been  the  practice  to  let  the  tenants  have  the 
game,  they  voluntarily  abstain  from  shooting  until  the  landlord 
his  friends  have  taken  the  first  day's  sport.  But  what  the 
farmers  cannot  endure  is  that  a  stranger  of  whom  they  know  nothing 
and  for  whom  they  care  nothing  should  keep  up  a  large  head  of  game 
at  their  expense. 

He  pointed  out  that,  without  the  clause  preventing  land- 
lords from  contracting  out  of  the  Bill,  the  measure  would 
be  a  mere  empty  declaration  of  principle,  and  by  way  of 
illustration  referred  to  the  experience  in  the  case  of  the 
Agricultural  Holdings  Act,  the  purpose  of  which  had  been 
defeated  by  the  landlords  contracting  out. 

Writing  on  the  subject  to  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  he  says  : 

HOME  OFFICE,  June  4,  1880. —  .  .  .  The  drafting  of  the  Bill 
gave  me  immense  trouble  before  it  was  got  into  what  is  I  think 
now  a  tolerably  clear  and  simple  form. 

The  Squires  ground  their  teeth  over  it  dreadfully,  especially  on 
our  side,  but  they  dare  not  bite  at  it  for  fear  of  their  constituents. 
But  I  go  about  in  bodily  fear  for  my  life,  as  I  believe  that  all  the 
best  shots  in  England  have  marked  me  down  as  a  dead  man.  .  .  . 

The  Bill,  under  its  original  title  of  the  Hares  and  Rabbits 
Bill,  was  introduced  by  Harcourt  in  a  reasonable  and 
moderate  speech  on  May  27,  the  day  on  which  he  took  his 
seat  as  member  for  Derby.  He  proposed  that  every  occupier 
of  land  should,  as  an  incident  of  and  during  his  occupation. 


374  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1880 

have  a  right  by  himself  and  by  any  person  properly  employed 
by  him  to  destroy  ground  game  on  the  land,  such  person  not 
to  be  entitled  to  divest  himself  of  that  right  or  to  delegate 
it,  and  to  exercise  the  right  concurrently  with  and  not 
excluding  any  person  entitled  to  kill  such  game,  that  is 
to  say,  that  if  the  landlord  reserved  the  right  to  kill  game 
he  should  still  keep  it,  but  concurrently  with  the  tenant, 
who  would  also  have  the  right  to  kill  ground  game.  The 
Bill  excited  very  great  alarm  in  some  quarters.  Mr.  Henry 
Chaplin  was  especially  disturbed,  and  at  every  stage  of  the 
Bill  found  that  some  desperate  results  must  follow  so 
deplorable  an  interference  with  the  rights  of  landlords  to 
make  what  covenants  they  pleased  with  their  tenants. 
He  talked  at  great  length  on  the  dangers  of  "  confiscatory 
legislation."  Persons  wrote  to  The  Times  about  "an  in- 
alienable concurrent  right  to  slaughter  the  unfortunate 
bunnies  and  pussies."  Where,  asked  one,  was  such  legisla- 
tion to  stop  ?  Were  deer  forests  to  be  turned  into  sheep- 
walks,  parks  to  be  ploughed  up  for  turnips,  flower  gardens 
to  grow  cabbages  ? 

In  Committee  a  vast  number  of  amendments  were  put 
on  the  paper.  They  were  indeed  so  numerous  as  to  give 
colour  to  the  allegation  of  deliberate  obstruction.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Bill  did  not  go  far  enough  to  please  the 
Radical  members,  who  would  have  liked  to  see  a  measure 
dealing  drastically  with  the  whole  question  of  the  Game 
Laws,  but  Harcourt's  best  ally  was  Bright,  who  pointed 
out  that  at  common  law  the  right  of  killing  game  on  his 
holding  belongs  to  the  tenant  in  the  absence  of  a  definite 
contract  to  the  contrary,  and  that  all  that  the  Bill  pro- 
posed  to  do  was  to  give  him  a  moiety  of  his  original  right. 
The  Bill  emerged  from  Committee  on  August  28  with  its 
principle  intact.  Although  serious  opposition  was  antici- 
pated in  the  Lords  it  was  eventually  returned  to  the 
Commons  without  radical  amendment,  and  the  Lords  did 
not  persist  in  those  changes  which  Harcourt  was  not  pre- 
pared to  accept.  Beaconsfield  had  given  the  wise  advice 
not  to  quarrel  with  the  other  House  except  on  the  gravest 


i88o]        A   LEGACY   FROM   PLIMSOLL          375 

matters,  and,  as  he  pointed  out,  these  graver  matters  were 
likely  to  be  the  foreign  policy  and  the  Irish  policy  of  the 
Government.  It  came  in  time  to  be  recognized  that  the 
Act  had  not  only  done  justice  to  the  farmers,  but  had  saved 
winged  game  and  the  Game  Laws  themselves  from  extinc- 
tion. ^ 

With  this  modest  triumph  Harcourt  began  his  legislative 
career.  The  feeling  which  his  success  aroused  among  certain 
of  the  landowning  class  was  reflected  in  the  following  letter 
(September  6)  which  he  received  from  Sir  Rainald  Knightley, 
M.P.  :  * 

FAWSLEY,  September  6. — I  send  the  enclosed  in  payment  of  the 
debt  to  which  you  are  technically  entitled — as  you  have  passed  a 
wretched  remnant  of  the  revolutionary  rubbish  which  you  originally 
introduced.  I  am  aware  that  postage  stamps  are  not  required 
while  you  are  in  office — but  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  they 
will  again  be  available,  and  I  cannot  pay  you  in  the  way  you  propose, 
as  I  do  not  know  where  to  look  for  a  hare  on  this  property,  and  my 
tenants  have  so  effectually  kept  down  the  rabbits  (without  the 
concurrent  right  to  the  use  of  a  gun)  that  I  do  not  feel  justified  in 
depriving  the  poor  foxes  of  even  three  of  the  few  that  are  left. 

II 

While  Harcourt  was  piloting  his  Hares  and  Rabbits  Bill 
through  Parliament  he  was  promoting  another  cause  in 
which  he  had  always  been  deeply  interested,  and  which 
his  succession  to  PHmsoll  at  Derby  had  imposed  on  him 
as  a  personal  trust.  He  served  on  a  Select  Committee, 
presided  over  by  Chamberlain,  which  was  appointed  to 
inquire  into  the  losses  at  sea  sustained  by  British  merchant 
shipping.  He  brought  all  the  skill  he  had  acquired  at  the 
Parliamentary  Bar  to  bear  on  the  cross-examination  of 
witnesses.  Commenting  on  the  inquiry  The  Times  made 
playful  allusion  to  the  conflict  between  Harcourt  and  Cham- 
berlain. "  If  the  Home  Secretary,"  it  said,  "  appeared  to 

1  It  was  this  correspondent  who  was  the  subject  of  one  of  the 
happiest  and  most  familiar  of  Harcourt's  bans  mots.  Sir  Rainald 
was  discoursing  on  the  splendour  of  his  ancestry  when  Harcourt, 
who  was  of  the  company,  was  heard  to  murmur  : 

"  And  Knightley  to  the  listening  earth 
Repeats  the  story  of  his  birth." 


376  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1880 

demolish  a  witness  by  a  shower  of  incisive  questions,  the 
President  of  the  Board  of  Trade  came  to  the  rescue  with 
no  less  acuteness.  Powers  and  principalities  were  arrayed 
against  each  other,  and  Mr.  Chamberlain's  influence  balanced 
Sir  William  Harcourt's."  When  the  Committee  reported 
in  July  they  made  useful  recommendations  on  the  better 
stowing  of  grain  to  avoid  "  shifting  "  and  the  resulting 
danger  to  the  ship.  These  recommendations  were  incor- 
porated in  the  Merchant  Shipping  Bill  of  the  following 
year. 

"  Thank  God  Parliament  is  over  at  last,"  Harcourt  wrote 
to  Lord  Derby  (September  5)  in  the  course  of  a  letter  in 
which,  referring  to  one  of  the  opponents  of  the  Hares  and 
Rabbits  Bill,  he  asked  :  "  Why  don't  you  '  name  '  Redes- 
dale  to  your  House  and  have  him  suspended  or  he  might 
be  locked  up  in  the  Victoria  Tower  chained  to  Denman. 
What  a  perverse  wrong-headed  old  animal  it  is."  To 
Ponsonby  he  writes  (September  7)  :  "  And  on  the  i6th  I 
hope  to  be  at  Oban  where  I  mean  to  wash  the  taste  of 
Parliament  out  in  the  waters  of  the  Hebrides."  He  had 
telegraphed  to  some  yacht  agents  at  Glasgow  for  a  yacht, 
and  received  a  reply  from  the  Lord  Provost  of  Glasgow 
(William  Collins),  one  of  his  political  admirers,  to  whom 
the  telegram  had  been  shown,  and  who  offered  him  the  use 
of  his  own  yacht  Fingal,  165  tons,  and  the  services  of  his 
own  captain  and  crew.  Harcourt  was  accompanied  on  the 
cruise  by  Lady  Harcourt  and  their  infant  son,  and  writing 
from  Glen  Quoich,  Invergarry  (September  24),  he  sent 
"  Dearest  Lou  "  a  record  of  the  tour.  At  "  dear  old  Kyle- 
akin,"  he  said,  "  the  folk  flocked  round,  very  glad  to  see 
me  again."  All  traces  of  the  old  yacht  Loulou  had 
disappeared,  but  he  had  seen  one  of  the  old  crew  and  given 
him  £5,  which  "  rejoiced  his  old  heart." 

.  .  .  Yesterday,  we  spent  the  morning  wandering  about  Kyle- 
akin,  and  up  to  the  Castle,  then  to  Balmacarra  to  get  telegraphic 
news  of  Bobby  who  went  up  on  Monday  for  an  excursion  with  his 
three  female  attendants  in  the  lona  to  Ballachulish.  Then  we  sailed 
up  Loch  Duich  which  looked  more  lovely  than  ever.  In  the  evening 


i88o]          THE   EUROPEAN   CONCERT  377 

we  dropped  anchor  at  the  top  of  Loch  Hourn  just  opposite  the  little 
cottages  where  you  and  I  stayed  the  first  time  we  were  there.  It 
was  a  delicious  night  and  we  were  surrounded  as  you  and  I  were  by 
herring  boats — the  loch  was  full  of  fish  and  they  could  hardly 
carry  the  quantity  they  caught.  I  landed  and  sent  up  a  note  by 
Campbell  to  Glen  Quoich  and  found  a  letter  from  Mrs.  Arthur 
Bass  in  the  morning  to  say  the  wagonette  would  be  at  the  Loch 
at  8,  so  I  drove  up  here  only  for  two  hours.  .  .  . 

The  only  fly  in  the  ointment  is  the  absence  of  Loulou. 
"  As  I  visit  each  of  our  old  haunts  the  first  thought  in  my 
mind  is  '  Oh,  if  only  Loulou  were  here  how  much  more  I 
could  enjoy  it.' '  He  was  expecting  "  Jimmy  "  (Henry 
James),  and  on  his  arrival  proposed  to  sail  the  yacht  down 
Loch  Hourn. 

But  a  few  days  later  he  was  back  in  London,  summoned 
thither  to  a  Cabinet  meeting.  The  troubles,  which  were  to 
engulf  the  new  Ministry,  were  becoming  more  grave,  in 
Ireland,  in  South  Africa  and  in  the  Near  East.  At  the 
moment  the  chief  anxiety  centred  in  the  non-fulfilment  by 
Turkey  of  the  provisions  of  the  Berlin  Treaty  relating  to 
Montenegro  and  Greece,  and  the  naval  demonstration  off 
Dulcigno  had  taken  place  on  September  14.  It  had,  how- 
ever, only  revealed  that  the  European  concert  was,  in 
Gladstone's  phrase,  "  a  farce,"  for  Austria  and  Germany 
were  cold  supporters  of  Gladstone's  move,  and  France  was 
not  warm.  The  situation  was  critical.  Scenting  disagree- 
ment between  the  Powers,  the  Sultan  was  obdurate,  and 
a  grave  decision  confronted  the  Cabinet.  They  could  rely 
on  Russia  and  Italy  to  support  them  in  a  policy  of  coercion, 
but  what  of  the  reactions  of  that  policy  elsewhere  ?  Writing 
to  Granville  (September  30),  Harcourt  said  :  "  What  you 
said  to-night  is  quite  enough  to  determine  me  not  to  leave 
the  deck  or  to  return  as  I  intended  to  Scotland  to-morrow. 
The  only  thing  I  have  to  consider  is  whether  I  can  be  of 
the  smallest  service  to  you  now."  He  recalled  his  relations 
with  Schuvaloff  in  Opposition  days,  and  the  valuable 
information  he  received.  Should  he  see  his  successor, 
Bartolomei,  who  might  tell  him  things  which  he  might 
not  think  it  politic  to  tell  the  Foreign  Secretary  ?  But  he 


378  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1880 

could  not  take  this  demarche  without  Granville's  concur- 
rence. "  When  I  was  a  free  lance  I  did  what  I  liked.  It 
is  different  now."  On  October  4  came  the  Sultan's  refusal 
to  fulfil  the  conditions,  and  Harcourt  wrote  (October  5)  a 
long  memorandum  to  Granville  urging  a  circular  letter  to 
the  Powers,  pointing  out  the  obduracy  of  Turkey,  the 
assent  of  the  Powers  to  the  Dulcigno  demonstration,  the 
implication  of  that  assent  that  they  were  prepared  to 
coerce  Turkey,  and  suggesting  that  they  should  jointly 
occupy  Smyrna.  If  this  were  not  done  independent  action 
with  all  its  consequences  would  follow,  and  the  securities 
for  peace  which  the  Concert  of  Europe  had  designed  to 
establish  would  go.  He  concluded  : 

...  I  think  something  of  this  kind  would  place  us  rectus  in  curia 
both  in  Europe  and  in  England.  It  would  show  that  it  was  not 
we  who  shrink  back  at  the  critical  moment.  If  we  are  to  fall  we 
should  at  least  fall  with  dignity.  We  shall  have  recommended  to 
Europe  the  course  she  ought  to  pursue.  If  she  will  not  tant  pis 
pour  elle.  Austria  will  be  the  first  and  the  greatest  sufferer.  As 
for  us  disengaged  from  all  our  obligations  we  can  always  defend  our 
real  interests  with  our  fleet  if  they  were  attacked.  And  so  we  may 
bid  good-bye  to  the  Turk  if  not  with  glory  at  least  without  dishonour. 

This  course  was  adopted,  and  the  Government  prepared 
to  proceed  with  Russia  and  Italy.  But  the  Sultan  was 
bluffing.  Dulcigno  and  the  appeal  of  Great  Britain  to  the 
Powers  to  coerce  had  done  their  work.  Harcourt,  who  had 
returned  to  Oban,  wrote  (October  10)  to  Lord  Derby, 
saying  he  had  lost  a  week  of  his  month's  holiday  by  a 
Cabinet  meeting,  and  was  dreading  a  telegram  announcing 
another.  Instead  came  a  letter  from  Granville  : 

Granville  to  Harcourt. 

FOREIGN  OFFICE,  October  12. — Thanks  for  note.  Happy  man  to 
have  escaped  all  we  have  gone  through.  We  were  low  on  Saturday, 
frightfully  elated  on  Sunday,  when  the  news  came  that  the  Turks 
had  verbally  promised  cession.  We  countermanded  Cabinet — 
desiring  the  first  telegram  to  be  sent  to  Oban.  All  Monday  we 
were  plunged  in  despair  again,  Goschen  [special  ambassador  at 
Constantinople]  firing  off  at  intervals  that  no  note  was  come. 

This  morning  a  telegram  arrived,  ''  Note  is  to  come,  but  is  to  be 
evacuation,  not  cession,  only  the  old  proposal." 


i88o]  THE   BOER   REPUBLIC  379 

I  found  Gladstone  simply  furious,  suggesting  all  sorts  of  fanciful 
messages,  but  he  calmed  down.  I  went  home  and  found  a  second 
telegram  "  all  right " — returned  to  No.  10  (Downing  Street),  and 
before  speaking  executed  a  pas  seul  to  his  intense  indignation  at  my 
intemperate  gaiety. 

It  is  an  intense  relief.  They  will  probably  do  us  out  of  a  bit  of 
frontier,  but  I  don't  mind.  Do  you  ? 

The  note  that  had  set  Granville  dancing  before  the  out- 
,/faged  majesty  of  his  Chief  was,  so  far  as  Montenegro  was 
concerned,  a  complete  surrender.  There  had  not  been  so 
striking  a  success  in  British  foreign  policy  for  many  a  long 
day,  and  in  far-away  Oban  it  may  be  assumed  that  Gran- 
ville's  pas  seul  was  imitated  a  trifle  ponderously  on  the 
deck  of  the  Fingal. 

But  the  troubles  were  not  at  an  end :  they  had  only 
changed  their  scene.  Parnell  had  made  his  famous  Ennis 
speech  in  September,  and  there  had  immediately  followed 
the  "  boycotting  "  of  Captain  Boycott  and,  later,  the  arrest 
of  the  Irish  leaders,  including  Parnell.  With  the  new  phase 
of  the  Irish  struggle,  which  all  this  foreshadowed,  I  must 
deal  later.  An  even  more  disquieting  conflagration  had 
broken  out  far  away.  The  murmurs  of  discontent  from 
the  Transvaal  had  grown  in  volume  during  the  summer 
and  autumn,  and  on  December  16  the  Boers  declared  for 
a  Republican  Government.  The  situation  confronted  the 
Cabinet  with  grave  peril  of  disruption.  It  had  come  into 
office  with  a  tolerably  unanimous  conviction  that  the 
.nnexation  was  morally  wrong  and  politically  unwise. 

That  had  been  Harcourt's  position,  and  he  had  reaffirmed 
it  in  a  memorandum  to  Gladstone  since  he  had  taken  office. 
But  now  that  the  issue  was  raised  in  this  challenging  form 
the  course  of  action  was  infinitely  complicated,  and  the 
conflict  of  voices  within  the  Cabinet  was  acute.  Harcourt, 
writing  to  Chamberlain,  said  his  advice  to  all  was  to  stick 
to  the  ship,  keep  her  head  to  the  wind  and  cram  her  at  it. 
'  There  is  no  danger  in  facing  a  difficulty,  but  much  in 

nning  away  from  it."  How  the  Government  sought  to 
avert  a  war,  the  idea  of  which  they  loathed,  and  how  events 
drifted  them  into  it ;  how  the  unfortunate  General  Colley 


J 


380  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1881 

misapprehended  the  situation,  floundered  in  policy  and 
failed  in  the  field ;  how  the  check  at  Laing's  Nek  was 
followed  by  the  disaster  of  Majuba  Hill,  and  how,  following 
the  disaster,  the  Government  restored  the  independence  of 
the  Transvaal — all  this  is  familiar  and  does  not  belong  to 
my  subject.  Harcourt's  own  view  of  the  episode  was  given 
later  in  the  year,  when  (October  25,  1881)  he  went  to 
Glasgow  to  receive  the  freedom  of  the  city  and  afterwards 
addressed  a  meeting  in  St.  Andrew's  Hall.  When  the 
annexation  was  found  to  have  been  carried  without  the 
consent  of  the  people,  its  continuance  would  have  been  an 
act  of  aggression.  But  the  charge  against  the  Government 
was  not  that  they  had  conceded  unfair  terms  to  the  Boers, 
but  that  they  had  conceded  them  after  defeat.  To  this 
attack  he  replied  : 

Now  that  is  a  perfectly  intelligible  issue  and  I  meet  it  front  to 
front.  It  is  not  a  question  of  political  expediency,  it  is  a  fundamental 
question  of  political  ethics.  It  is  a  question  of  the  justice  or  injustice 
of  bloodshed.  We  were  not  responsible  for  the  defeat  of  Majuba 
Hill.  It  was  the  unfortunate  tactical  error  of  a  gallant  man.  But 
what  the  Government  were  responsible  for  was  the  conduct  of  the 
English  nation  after  the  disaster.  Were  we  to  say  "  There  were 
terms  which  we  would  have  given  to  these  men  before  the  battle 
/  was  fought  or  if  the  battle  had  resulted  in  a  victory.  We  will  not 
give  them  now  until  we  have  wiped  out  that  repulse  in  blood  "  ? 
That  is  the  policy  of  Lord  Salisbury.  .  .  .  He  says  our  conduct 
was  a  stain  upon  the  escutcheon  of  England,  and  these  were  his 
words  :  "In  every  contest  which  the  Government  have  to  wage — 
military,  diplomatic  and  domestic — the  stain  of  that  defeat  will  be 
upon  them,  and  they  will  feel  that  they  are  fighting  under  the 
shadow  of  Majuba  Hill."  That  is  the  language  of  Lord  Salisbury. 
It  is  the  language  which,  in  my  opinion,  the  better  sort  of  pagans 
would  have  been  ashamed  of.  ...  Lord  Salisbury's  doctrine  is 
that  the  honour  of  a  nation  consists  in  the  vengeance  which  it 
exacts.  We  believe  that  what  was  right  before  the  defeat  of  Majuba 
Hill  was  equally  right  just  after  it.  Such  vengeance  is  not  a  pre- 
liminary right,  and  we  did  not  think  it  right  either  before  God  or 
Jman  to  shed  innocent  blood  when  we  could  make  the  same  peace 
before  a  battle  which  we  could  have  made  after  it.  I  am  not  for 
peace  at  any  price.  I  hold  the  opinion  that  nations,  like  individuals, 
may  assert  their  just  rights  and  defend  them  by  force,  but  I  regard 
it  as  a  crime  of  the  most  heinous  dye  to  continue  war  when  all  the 
effects  may  be  produced  by  peace,  and  to  take  men's  lives  merely 


i88o]  LONDON   WATER   SUPPLY  381 

for  the  glory  of  victory  is  in  my  judgment  the  policy  of  savages  and 
heathens,  and  would  be  a  foul  dishonour  to  the  Government  of  a 
civilized  nation. 

Ill 

But  while  these  events  were  occupying  the  centre  of  the 
stage,  Harcourt  was  more  intimately  engaged  in  a  subject 
of  another  sort  much  nearer  home.  It  was  the  question  of 
London's  water  supply.  This  troublesome  problem,  which 
raised  the  whole  subject  of  the  anomalies  existing  in  the  local 
government  of  London,  was  an  inheritance  from  the  late 
Government.  Indeed,  their  conduct  of  this  business  was 
one  of  the  immediate  causes  of  the  entire  discredit  into 
which  the  Government  felly  They  were  said  to  have  "  come 
in  on  beer  and  gone  out  on  water."  Cross,  the  Home 
Secretary,  had  brought  forward  a  Metropolitan  Water 
Works  Purchase  Bill  at  the  beginning  of  March  1880 
proposing  to  create  a  central  body  to  which  all  the  existing 
companies  should  transfer  their  property  and  surrender 
their  powers.  The  stock  to  be  transferred  was  estimated 
by  Cross  at  between  twenty-seven  and  twenty-eight  millions 
sterling,  and  the  companies  were  to  take  the  new  3^  per 
cent,  stock  to  be  issued  by  the  new  body  in  payment. 

This  Bill  was  not  discussed  in  the  House,  but  raised 
violent  criticism  throughout  London.  The  Government 
estimate  of  the  value  of  the  companies'  stock  was  held  to 
be  outrageously  high,  and  it  was  alleged  in  support  of  this 
contention  that  the  shares  of  the  companies  had  risen 
enormously  on  the  market  in  expectation  of  the  purchase. 
The  Standard  said  that  in  the  course  of  a  year  an  addition 
had  been  made  to  the  selling  price  of  the  shares,  which, 
in  the  case  of  the  Lambeth  Company,  was  more  than  £100 
per  share,  while  the  Kent  Company  had  an  addition  of 
£126,  and  the  Southwark  Company  as  much  as  £170. 

Perhaps  the  best  comment  on  the  Government  figures  is 
the  published  statement  of  accounts  of  the  companies  for 
the  year  1879,  which  gave  the  total  share,  loan  and  debenture 
capital  of  all  the  companies  as/£i2,256,43<5) 

At  a  very  early  stage  in  his  administration  of  the  Home 


382  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1880 

Office  Harcourt  had  to  define  his  attitude  on  this  matter. 
He  told  a  deputation  from  the  Metropolitan  Board  of 
Works  that  it  was  essential  to  consider  not  only  whether 
the  companies'  terms  were  reasonable,  but  whether  the 
supply  was  sufficiently  good  to  be  worth  purchasing  at  all. 
On  June  4  he  proposed  the  appointment  of  a  Select  Com- 
mittee, to  which  the  provisional  agreements  drawn  under 
Cross's  proposals  were  referred,  but  the  primary  business 
of  the  Committee  was  to  consider  the  expediency  of  buying 
on  behalf  of  the  people  of  London  the  undertakings  of  the 
companies.  This  left  the  question  of  securing  a  fresh 
supply  open.  Within  a  week  the  Committee  had  com- 
menced their  sittings,  and  they  elected  Harcourt  as  their 
chairman.  There  is  an  excellent,  if  hostile,  picture  of 
Harcourt's  attitude  on  this  Committee  in  Lord  George 
Hamilton's  Reminiscences  and  Reflections  : 

.  .  .  Harcourt,  instead  of  acang  in  a  judicial  capacity,  led  the 
opposition  to  the  agreement^>y  a  merciless  cross-examination  of 
Smith  [E.  J.  Smith,  who  had  made  the  agreement  on  behalf  of  Cross], 
and  brought  all  his  great  legal  attainments  to  bear  in  breaking  down 
the  statements  made  by  that  gentleman.  The  Metropolitan  Water 
Board  and  the  City  of  London  were  both  hostile  to  the  Bill,  so  the 
able  counsel  that  were  employed  by  these  two  bodies  harried  on 
both  flanks  the  unfortunate  Smith.  Sir  Richard  Cross  was  somewhat 
dazed  by  the  late  defeat  of  the  Government,  and  we  could  not  get 
him  in  any  way  to  exercise  his  faculties  or  to  stand  up  against  the 
onslaught  rflade  upon  his  agreement.  The  Committee  were  obviously 
appointed  to  kill  the  agreement,  which  they  did.  Harcourt,  with 
great  skill,  fastened  upon  the  one  weak  point  in  the  general  agree- 
ment made  with  the  Water  Companies.  It  was  very  essential 
to  bring  in  all  the  companies,  and  the  weakest  company,  namely, 
the  Chelsea  Water  Company,  held  out  and  only  could  be  induced  to 
come  in  by  an  offer  of  exceptionally  good  terms.  Upon  these  good 
terms  Harcourt  and  the  counsel  concentrated  their  attention,  and 
practically  they  never  went  outside  this  one  particular  point  of 
the  agreement.  The  Committee  reported  against  the  whole  Agree- 
ment. 

When  the  report  was  under  consideration  I  was  obliged  to  be 
away,  but  neither  Sclater  Booth  nor  I  could  induce  Cross  to  draw 
up  a  separate  report  or  to  move  the  amendments  which  would  have 
vindicated  our  position.  The  agreement  was  therefore  repudiated. 

"  The  sequel  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Committee  was 


i88oj        THE   COMPANIES'   DEMANDS          383 

sad,"  continues  Lord  George  Hamilton.  "  Smith,  who  was 
in  bad  health  at  the  time  of  his  examination,  suddenly 
died.  Harcourt,  who  was  a  very  kind  man  at  heart,  was 
frightfully  perturbed  at  the  result  of  his  unfair  treatment 
of  Smith.  He  came  over  to  us  in  the  Opposition  in  the 
House  of  Commons  almost  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  and  stated 
he  had  only  wished  he  had  known  that  Smith  was  in  bad 
health  when  he  was  under  cross-examination.  '£/ 

Harcourt  himself  drew  up  the  Report,  which  contained 
some  very  plain  speaking  on  the  financial  proposals  of  the 
companies.  They  had  asserted  their  right  to  escape  from 
limitations  of  their  charges  under  the  title  of  back  dividends, 
estimated  at  twenty  million  sterling.  The  New  River  Com- 
pany had  given  the  astounding  figure  of  £15,000,000  as  back 
dividend.  If  these  contentions  could  be  maintained  the 
four  millions  of  Londoners  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  the 
trading  companies  who  would  be  able  to  raise  the  price 
of  one  of  the  prime  necessaries  of  life  practically  without 
limit.  If  the  purchase  of  the  undertakings  at  any  price 
the  companies  might  like  to  fix  were  the  only  remedy  the 
consequences  to  the  consumer  of  the  improvident  legislation 
of  the  past  would  be  indeed  intolerable,  but  Parliament 
had  powers  to  redress  such  grievances. 

The  Committee  recommended  that  the  water  supply 
should  be  placed  under  the  control  of  a  single  public  body 
with  statutory  powers,  which  should  have  the  confidence 
of  the  ratepayers,  and  which  should  be  empowered  to 
acquire  existing  sources  of  supply  or  to  have  recourse  to 
others.  This  ad  hoc  body  should  represent  the  Corporation 
of  the  City  of  London,  the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works 
and,  in  addition,  the  districts  lying  outside  the  jurisdiction 
of  these  authorities  which  were  supplied  by  the  companies. 
They  declined  to  recommend  the  confirmation  of  the  agree- 
ments negotiated  with  the  companies  by  E.  J.  Smith  on 
behalf  of  Cross,  which  seemed  to  them  to  be  founded  on 
assumptions  which  could  not  be  substantiated  on  the  future 
growth  of  the  receipts  and  on  the  amount  of  new  capital 
expenditure  which  might  be  required  to  meet  the  increased 


384  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1881 

demands.  These  agreements  would  have  involved  an  ex- 
penditure, the  Committee  estimated,  of  £33,000,000.  The 
price  actually  paid  when  the  water  companies'  stock  was 
purchased  in  1902  was  £46,000,000,  inclusive  of  legal  costs. 
This  question  of  the  water  supply  became  involved  in 
the  proposed  legislation  for  the  reform  of  London  govern- 
ment. The  draft  of  the  measure  was  prepared  by  Harcourt 
in  1 88 1,  but  a  dispute  arose  between  Gladstone  and  Harcourt 
over  the  control  of  the  Metropolitan  Police,  and  the  actual 
Bill  was  not  brought  forward  until  1884,  when,  with  other 
measures,  it  was  jettisoned  to  clear  the  decks  for  the 
settlement  of  the  dispute  with  the  House  of  Lords  over  the 
Franchise  proposals. 

IV 

Such  differences  as  occurred  between  Gladstone  and 
Harcourt  were  marked  on  both  sides  by  an  increasing 
friendliness.  That  was  so  even  in  ecclesiastical  matters. 
In  connection  with  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Sidney  Green,  the 
rector  of  Miles  Platting  in  the  diocese  of  Manchester,  who 
was  sentenced  on  March  19,  1881,  and  sent  to  Lancaster 
Gaol  for  offences  against  the  Public  Worship  Regulation 
Act,  Gladstone  was  profoundly  troubled.  He  was  a  High 
Anglican  himself,  and  Church  scandals  always  pained  him. 
Harcourt's  frame  of  mind  on  the  subject  was  much  more 
jovial,  and  he  held  firmly  to  his  view  that  in  the  affairs  of 
the  Church,  Parliament  was  the  constitutional  authority. 
The  question  of  Green's  release  assumed  the  magnitude  of 
a  national  controversy,  and  in  July  the  Lower  House  of 
Convocation  asked  the  Bishops  to  use  their  influence  to 
secure  the  rector's  release.  But  the  Bishops  would  not 
move.  There  was  nothing  to  be  done  except  for  Mr.  Green 
to  obey  "  the  godly  admonition  of  his  Bishop,"  and  this 
Mr.  Green  could  not  be  prevailed  on  to  do.  The  imprison- 
ment of  a  priest  was  a  source  of  acute  distress  to  Gladstone, 
who  sought  to  prevail  on  Harcourt  to  release  Green  on 
medical  grounds.  "  I  think  all  parties  would  be  much 
pleased,"  he  wrote  to  Harcourt  (September  9),  "if  there 


i88i]  A   CLERICAL   MARTYR  385 

were  a  sufficient  case  of  health  to  get  Mr.  Green  out  of  his 
quandary  and  many  others  out  of  serious  embarrassment." 
But  Harcourt  was  genially  adamant.  He  had  no  love  for 
the  Ritualist  and  a  great  deal  of  love  for  the  law.  Replying 
to  Gladstone  (September  10)  from  Loch  Alsh,  where  he  was 
"  living  an  amphibian  life,  partly  on  our  steam  yacht, 
partly  on  shore  in  a  country  which  pleases  me  more  than 
any  I  know,"  he  says : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

.  .  .  And  now  to  business.  The  Rev.  Green  is  the  most  embarrass* 
ing  of  martyrs.  Immediately  on  receipt  of  your  letter  enclosing 
Mr.  Belcher's  first  communication,  I  wrote  to  the  Prison  Com- 
missioners for  a  report  on  Mr.  G.'s  health  with  a  significant  hint 
that  I  should  be  very  glad  of  an  excuse  to  release  him  on  medical 
grounds  if  there  was  a  decent  pretext.  In  return  to  this  invitation 
I  have  received  the  report  I  enclose  which  is  very  disappointing. 
What  is  one  to  do  with  a  martyr  who  gains  9  Ibs.  in  weight  in  his 
bondage  ?  It  shows  the  prison  fare  is  very  good  or  that  like  Daniel 
he  thrives  on  the  pulse.  I  suppose  he  is  denied  the  opportunities 
of  emaciation  which  he  enjoys  when  at  large.  It  is  very  puzzling 
to  know  what  to  do  now  my  attempts  at  a  "  pious  fraud  "  have  been 
defeated.  My  prisoners  will  grow  so  fat.  Davittadds  pounds  to  his 
scale  every  week.  It  seems  a  positive  cruelty  to  release  them  from 
a  life  which  agrees  with  them  so  well.  The  difficulty  I  feel  is  to 
find  a  decent  excuse  to  let  out  a  man  who  has  been  imprisoned 
for  his  refusal  to  obey  the  law  whilst  he  still  insists  on  his  right  to 
disobey  it.  It  is  not  like  the  accrued  penalty  for  an  isolated  act. 
Mr.  G.  can  walk  out  of  prison  any  day  that  he  chooses  to  purge  his 
contempt.  .  .  . 

In  a  later  letter  (October  22)  written  to  Gladstone  from  Bal- 
moral Castle,  where  he  was  in  attendance,  Harcourt  pointed 
out  that  the  folly  of  Green's  friends  made  it  more  difficult 
to  do  anything  for  him.  The  Puseyites  were  defying 
Parliament  and  repudiating  all  lay  authority  on  ecclesias- 
i  tical  affairs.  "  This  is  pretty  strong  considering  that  the 
\Prayer  Book  was  established  and  enacted  by  Parliament 
in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  against  the  votes  of  the  whole 
spiritualty,  and  that  the  Anglican  Church  owed  its  existence 
to  the  laity  turning  out  all  the  Bishops."  The  struggle 
over  the  resolute  Mr.  Green  continued  for  many  months, 

cc 


386  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1881 

but  Harcourt  at  last  shifts  his  "  old  man  of  the  sea  "  on 
to  the  shoulders  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  (Lord  Selborne). 
Writing  to  Granville,  he  advises  him  to  leave  the  answer  to 
Salisbury  to  Selborne  : 

HOME  OFFICE,  October  26,  1882. —  .  .  .  He  is  an  ecclesiastically- 
minded  man  (far  more  than  I  have  inherited  from  my  ancestors) 
and  if  he  cannot  defend  a  good  case  can  at  all  events  gloss  over  a 
bad  one.  I  remember  Bob  Lowe  said,  "  If  I  had  a  very  good  case 
I  should  choose  Cairns  as  my  counsel  because  he  would  make  every 
one  understand  how  good  a  case  I  had  ;  if  I  had  a  bad  case  I  should 
\J  select  fteiborne  because  he  would  conceal  from  every  one  how  bad 
my  case  was.  .  .  . 

In  the  end  towards  the  close  of  November  Green  was 
released  on  the  application  of  Dr.  Fraser,  Bishop  of  Man- 
chester, to  the  Court  of  Arches,  and  so,  after  eighteen 
months,  the  issue  was  amicably  arranged. 

During  his  official  life  Harcourt  continued  the  custom 
of  entertaining  which  he  had  begun  after  his  second  marriage, 
and  the  dinners  at  7,  Grafton  Street  assumed  considerable 
political  significance,  owing  to  the  very  catholic  company 
that  used  to  be  brought  together.  One  of  them  (March  6, 
1881)  had  a  double  interest.  It  was  the  last  dinner  that 
Beaconsfield  attended  (he  died  on  April _i£  following),  and 
it  was  the  occasion  of  the  reconciliation  of  Lord  Lytton 
and  Lord  Hartington,  who  up  to  that  time  had  not  met 
since  their  difference  over  the  former's  Indian  policy.  At 
these  dinners  the  most  various  social  and  political  currents 
were  present,  and  it  was  no  uncommon  thing  to  see  that 
stern  and  unbending  Tory,  Mr.  (now  Lord)  Chaplin  side 
by  side  with  Dilke  or  Chamberlain,  or  Bright  and  the  Prince 
and  Princess  of  Wales,  or  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Gladstone  in  com- 
pany with  the  American  Ambassador  or  the  Dean  of  West- 
minster. The  records  of  these  gatherings  were  kept  by 
the  late  Lord  Harcourt.  He  had  now  begun  to  assume  a 
new  relation  to  his  father.  Always  delicate,  he  was  in 
1881  threatened  with  lung  trouble,  and  the  two  succeeding 
winters  were  in  consequence  spent  at  Madeira.  This  fact 
interfered  with  the  idea  of  a  Cambridge  career,  and  marked 
out  another  course  for  him,  which  the  deep  attachment  that 


i88i]      LEWIS   HARCOURT'S   JOURNAL       387 

existed  between  father  and  son  encouraged.  At  the 
suggestion  of  Mr.  Justice  Hawkins,  Lewis  Harcourt 
went  on  circuit  as  Marshal  to  that  formidable  judge, 
dined  at  the  Bar  mess,  wrote  jocular  letters  of  his  experi- 
ences to  his  father  whom  he  addressed  as  "  My  dearest 
H.S."  (Home  Secretary),  and  won  the  encomiums  of  his 
Chief.  From  these  adventures  he  drifted  into  that  associa- 
tion with  his  father  as  his  constant  companion  and  private 
secretary  which  continued  to  the  end  of  Harcourt 's  career, 
and  became  a  tradition  of  the  political  world.  To  this 
association  we  owe  a  journal  kept  by  the  younger  Harcourt 
which  throws  many  sidelights  or/  Harcourt's  official  life. 
For  the  most  part  it  refers  only  to  the  years  in  which  Har- 
court was  in  office.  It  was  written  day  by  day,  sometimes 
hour  by  hour,  and  was  placed  by  Lord  Harcourt  at  my 
disposal.  In  quoting  from  it,  I  shall  indicate  the  source 
by  appending  the  letter  "  H  "  in  brackets.  This  chapter 
may  be  appropriately  closed  with  some  notes  from  this 
diary  of  a  visit  by  Harcourt  and  his  son  to  the  Gladstones 
at  Hawarden  Castle  under  date  November  3,  1881  : 

There  was  some  discussion  about  the  telegraph  system  in  England, 
and  both  Gladstone  and  W.V.H.  agreed  that  when  they  were 
bought  by  the  Post  Office  in  1870  the  price  which  F.  T.  Scudamore 
(the  Secretary  to  the  G.P.O.)  gave  for  them  was  unnecessarily 
large  as  it  was  twenty  years'  purchase  on  their  then  income  and 
an  allowance  for  the  prospective  increase  in  the  next  ten  years. 
W.V.H.  was  himself  counsel  for  the  submarine  lines  a  short  time 
afterwards,  and  in  order  to  get  as  large  a  price  as  possible  for  his 
clients  went  minutely  into  the  former  transaction  and  threatened 
to  show  up  Scudamore  if  he  did  not  deal  with  the  submarine  com- 
panies on  the  same  scale  as  he  had  done  with  the  others.  This 
so  alarmed  Scudamore  that  he  immediately  gave  in,  and  so  one 
bad  bargain  unintentionally  let  him  in  for  another.  .  .  . 

Apropos  of  Gladstone  being  unpopular  in  Court  circles,  I  asked 
if  it  were  ever  known  why  he  was  not  invited  to  the  Duke  of  Con- 
naught's  wedding.  W.V.H.  said  that  whilst  at  Balmoral  this 
year  Henry  Ponsonby  told  him  that  the  Queen  said  that  it  was  the 
custom  to  ask  only  the  Leader  of  the  Opposition,  and  as  Gladstone 
had  voluntarily  given  up  that  post  the  invitation  must  go  to  Lord 
J  Hartington. 

Last  night  Gladstone  told  W.V.H.  that  he  had  taken  the  Premier- 
ship for  a  special  purpose,  which  was  to  introduce  the  Irish  Land 


388  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1881 

I  Bill,  and  since  that  had  been  accomplished  he  does  not  wish  to 
retain  office,  at  least  after  Ireland  has  been  pacified. 

Walking  to  the  Rectory  this  morning  I  had  some  conversation 
with  Mrs.  Gladstone.  She  said  that  Mr.  Gladstone  has  really  been 
thinking  seriously  of  retiring  and  gave  as  his  chief  reason  that  he 
felt  he  was  keeping  Hartington  and  Granville — who  have  had  all 

ythe  hard  work  of  opposition — out  of  the  place  which  they  had  a 
right  to  expect,  and  Mrs.  Gladstone  herself  was  rather  in  favour 
of  his  abdication. 

W.V.H.  was  rather  mischievously  complaining  of  the  obstinacy 
and  stinginess  of  the  Treasury,  and  when  Mr.  Gladstone  said,  "  I  do 
not  think  they  ought  to  be  accused  of  that,"  W.V.H.  replied, 
"  Ah,  you  have  never  suffered  under  the  Treasury  as  we  do.  I 
think  the  national  expenditure  ought  to  increase  in  proportion  to 
the  spread  of  wealth.  Why  don't  you  let  the  country  live  like  a 
gentleman  ?  "  "  Because,"  said  Mr.  Gladstone,  "  living  like  a  gentle- 
v  man  means  paying  five  times  its  value  for  everything  you  buy.' ' 
[H-] 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


Multifarious  duties — Sir  E.  Ruggles-Brise's  recollections  of  the 
Home  Secretary  —  Under-Secretaries  —  Juvenile  Offenders — 
Capital  Punishment  —  Correspondence  with  the  Queen  on 
remission  of  sentences  —  The  Queen  on  wife-murder  —  The 
Most  case  —  The  Queen's  Safety  —  Lord  Rosebery  and 
Scottish  business — Conflict  over  the  Queen's  Speech — Residence 
at  Balmoral — The  domestic  circle. 

LEAVING  the  larger  issues  that  occupied  the  mind 
of  the  Government  aside  and  reserving  to  a  later 
chapter  the  story  of  the  developments  in  Ireland, 
in  regard  to  which  Harcourt  was  playing  a  conspicuous 
part,  I  propose  in  this  chapter  to  bring  together  the  out- 
standing features  and  incidents  of  his  administration  of  the 
Home  Office.  It  was  not,  as  we  have  seen,  the  task  which 
he  would  have  chosen,  but  it  was  congenial  enough  to  his 
tastes  and  sympathies.  It  touched  life  at  many  points, 
and  it  engaged  him  both  as  a  lawyer  interested  in  the  prob- 
lems of  justice  and  social  order,  and  as  a  man  of  generous 
impulses  endowed  with  a  large  appetite  for  the  everyday 
affairs  of  the  world.  He  himself  described  the  abundance 
and  variety  of  his  duties  when,  in  his  speech  at  Glasgow 
(October  26,  1881),  in  acknowledging  the  freedom  of  the 
City,  he  said  : 

.  .  .  There  is  the  criminal  business  of  the  whole  country  ;  all  the 
magistrates,  all  the  judges,  for  England  and  Scotland  ;  all  the 
judicial  business.  Then,  sir,  there  is  naturalization.  Then  there 
is  the  class  of  business — which  is,  at  times,  more  extensive  than  one 
could  desire — called  disturbances.  Then  there  is  a  very  peculiar 
class  of  business  called  burials.  And  there  is  vivisection,  and  the 
recorders  and  the  magistrates,  and  the  lunatics,  and  the  asylums, 

389 


390  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT     [1880-85 

and  the  habitual  drunkards,  and  the  factories,  and  the  mines,  and 
the  chimney-sweepers,  and  hackney  cabs,  and  the  police,  and  ex- 
plosives, and  small  birds,  and  tithes,  and  enclosures,  and  municipal 
corporations,  and  metropolitan  buildings,  and  artisans'  dwellings. 
And  at  the  end  of  it  there  is  the  business  of  the  Channel  Islands 
and  the  Isle  of  Man.  And  when  you  have  spent  a  morning  on  light 
work  of  that  kind  there  is  about  ten  hours  sitting  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  after  that  it  is  supposed  that  I  am  desirous  of  engross- 
ing a  larger  share  of  business  than  that  which  I  have  at  present.  .  .  . 

Of  the  spirit  in  which  Harcourt,  during  five  years, 
administered  this  great  office,  no  one  is  more  competent  to 
speak  than  Sir  Evelyn  Ruggles-Brise,  who  began  his  official 
career  as  Harcourt's  private  secretary  at  the  Home  Office. 
At  the  commemoration  of  the  completion  of  twenty-five 
years'  service  as  Chairman  of  the  Prison  Commission,  Sir 
Evelyn  said  he  owed  much  to  the  encouragement  and 
training  of  Harcourt.  "  Sir  William,"  he  said,  "  was 
a  great  man  and  my  constant  friend — a  man  who  was 
terrifying  to  me,  yet  one  of  the  most  affectionate  men  I 
ever  met.  I  used  to  take  dictation  of  Sir  William's  letters 
given  at  a  great  pace  and  full  of  literary  and  other  allusions . 
Once  I  could  not  follow  one  of  his  allusions,  and  turning 
to  me  he  said,  '  You  are  the  most  ignorant  boy  I  ever 
met.' 

"  I  had  just  come  down  from  Oxford  where  I  had  done 
rather  well,"  said  Sir  Evelyn  to  me  in  recalling  the  incident, 
"  and  I  might  have  felt  aggrieved.  But  I  knew  it  was  one 
of  his  pleasant  ironies.  His  anger  had  much  of  the  quality 
of  summer  lightning.  It  was  fierce,  but  did  not  last 
long  or  do  much  damage.  It  was  my  first  business  in  the 
morning  to  call  on  him  at  7,  Graf  ton  Street  to  take  letters 
and  receive  instructions.  He  used  to  come  down  to  me  in 
his  dressing-gown,  very  large,  very  red  and  generally  very 
angry  with  some  intolerable  person  or  some  impossible 
demand.  But  having  exploded  his  anger,  the  sun  came 
out,  and  his  natural  gaiety  of  temper  would  revive.  He 
was  quick  to  quarrel,  but  quick  to  forgive,  and  to  take  the 
blame  to  himself.  My  predecessor  in  the  Chairmanship  of 
the  Prison  Commission,  Sir  Edmund  Du  Cane,  had  as  hot 


1880-85]    IMPATIENCE   OF   RED   TAPE          391 

a  temper  as  Sir  William  himself,  and  the  two  clashed  with 
a  good  deal  of  violence.  On  one  occasion  Sir  William 
ordered  him  out  of  his  room,  but  he  was  not  long  in  follow- 
ing him,  with  outstretched  hand,  and  a  delightfully  boyish 
confession  that  he  was  a  fool  not  to  control  his  temper. 

"  He  was  a  man  of  singularly  generous  heart,  and  the 
Home  Office  was  never  administered  by  any  one  who  had 
more  sympathy  with  the  prisoner  and  the  captive.  He 
was  a  great  lawyer,  but  he  put  humanity  above  the  law, 
and  he  was  always  thundering  against  judges  and  magis- 
trates who  were  harsh  or  inconsiderate.  He  was  especially 
angry  at  the  long  periods  prisoners  were  often  kept  in 
prison  before  being  put  on  trial,  and  even  after  he  went  out 
of  office  he  continued  his  efforts  in  and  out  of  Parliament 
to  put  a  stop  to  this  abuse.  In  1891  he  got  from  the  Home 
Office  a  promise  to  make  a  return  of  the  periods  that  untried 
prisoners  had  been  kept  waiting  for  trial.  '  Something 
must  be  done,'  he  wrote  to  me, '  to  shame  H.M.'s  judges  into 
doing  a  fair  day's  work  for  a  more  than  fair  day's  wage.' 
And  in  the  case  of  two  boys  whose  treatment  had  aroused 
his  indignation,  he  wrote  to  me  (March  5,  1891)  : 

...  I  shall  be  glad  to  know  that  these  youths  are  not  subjected 
to  three  months'  imprisonment  before  trial  for  an  offence  for  which 
they  should  not  get  more  than  a  month.  Pope  says,  '  Wretches 
hang  that  jurymen  may  dine,'  but  here  people  are  detained  months 
in  prison  (some  of  them  innocent)  in  order  that  judges — the  laziest 
of  the  human  race — may  be  saved  a  little  trouble.  It  is  a  very 
retrograde  sort  of  legislation  that  prefers  the  convenience  of  judges 
to  the  liberty  of  the  subject. 

"  That  was  the  spirit  of  his  administration.  He  was 
impatient  with  the  cold  processes  of  officialism.  I  remember 
once  a  prisoner  had  been  wrongfully  convicted.  A  demand 
was  made  on  the  Treasury  for  some  trifle  of  compensation 
to  the  aggrieved  man — a  gift  of  £10  or  so.  The  Treasury 
refused,  and  Sir  William,  very  red  and  very  angry,  promptly 
sent  the  man  the  sum  out  of  his  own  pocket.  He  could 
not  tolerate  injustice.  . 

"  And  he  was  just  as  intolerant  of  official  laziness.     The 


392  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880-85 

Home  Office  messengers  were  certainly  trying  people  in 
those  days,  and  they  were  a  constant  source  of  annoyance 
to  Sir  William.  On  one  occasion  he  had  despatched  by 
one  of  them  an  '  immediate  '  box  of  documents  to  the  Lord 
Chancellor.  It  was  not  delivered  until  next  day,  and  this 
is  a  passage  from  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Chancellor  which  Sir 
William  thereupon  dictated  to  me  : 

.  .  .  Though  I  believe  there  are  about  200  public-houses  between 
Grafton  Street  and  the  House  of  Lords,  four-and-twenty  hours 
is  more  than  enough  to  have  devoted  to  them  on  one  occasion. 
I  have  remonstrated  on  this  subject  over  and  over  again,  but  can 
get  no  support  in  endeavouring  to  re-establish  discipline  in  the 
Office.  ...  It  is  like  firing  cannon  balls  into  feather  beds. 

"  He  was  extraordinarily  punctilious  about  the  dignities 
and  courtesies  of  official  intercourse.  It  was  before  the 
days  of  the  cold,  impersonal  departmental  note.  On  one 
occasion,  after  he  went  out  of  office,  he  wrote  to  his  successor 
on  some  public  question,  and  received  in  return  an  official 
acknowledgment.  He  returned  the  note  to  me  with  the 
following  letter : 

I  return  the  enclosed  letter  without  reading  it.  I  am  sorry  to 
observe  that  the  good  manners  of  the  Home  Office  have  degenerated 
since  I  knew  it.  I  certainly  was  not  in  the  habit  of  answering 
letters  addressed  to  me  by  my  predecessors  in  office  through  an- 
under -secretary ;  nor  did  they  do  so.  I  daresay  I  may  be  con- 
sidered old-fashioned  in  these  matters,  but  the  observance  of  tradi- 
tional courtesies  is  not  a  bad  thing  even  in  a  Secretary  of  State. 
At  all  events  I  don't  wish  to  make  myself  a  party  to  what  the  French 
would  call  a  mal  eleve  innovation.  So  please  note  this  letter  is 
'  returned  from  the  dead  letter  office.' 

"  He  would  have  no  part  in  the  periodical  hue  and  cry 
against  Civil  Service  extravagance.  Writing  to  me  in 
reference  to  Lord  Randolph  Churchill's  '  economy '  cry 
against  the  Civil  Service,  he  said  : 

All  this  economy  talk  is  for  '  the  gallery  '  and  not  real  business. 
The  real  truth  is  that  there  has  been  much  growth  of  work  and  little 
growth  of  expenditure  in  the  Civil  Service  of  late  years.  If  anything 
is  to  be  really  done  it  must  be  by  big  reduction  of  Army  and  Navy, 
and  that  only  a  Tory  Government  can  attempt. 

"  I  think  his  attitude  of  mind  was  that  of  the  oligarch 


1880-85]     HOME   OFFICE   PERSONNEL  393 

rather  than  the  democrat.  He  had  a  passion  for  justice 
and  a  genuine  belief  in  liberty,  but  he  had  the  tradition  of 
the  governing  class.  He  wanted  it  to  be  an  efficient  govern- 
ing class,  and  he  devoted  much  of  his  enormous  energies 
to  an  unceasing  .correspondence  with  the  inner  circle  spirits 
in  every  phase  of  public  affairs.  He  had  great  affection  for 
and  great  pride  in  his  subordinates,  and  no  promotion  ever 
came  to  me  without  bringing  a  generous  letter  of  congratu- 
lation from  him,  with  a  jocular  reminder  that  he  '  invented  ' 
me  for  the  Home  Office.  He  was  a  great  man,  with  a  for- 
midable outside,  but  a  big  heart  and  a  powerful  under- 
standing." 

In  his  work  at  the  Home  Office,  Harcourt  had  as  Under 
Secretary  Peel  (afterwards  Speaker  of  the  House),  but  in 
December  1880,  owing  to  the  state  of  his  health,  Peel 
resigned,  and  Granville  urged  the  appointment  of  the  Earl 
of  Fife.  "  I  think  Granville  is  somewhat  too  greedy  for  his 
peers,"  wrote  Harcourt  to  Gladstone.  He  would  not  have 
Fife  on  any  terms.  He  had  tried  him  in  the  Office  and  done 
all  he  could  to  interest  him  with  the  work,  but  he  never 
came  near  the  place.  He  believed  in  a  governing  class,  but 
it  must  be  competent  and  must  work.  He  would  have  no 
roi faineant.  He  urged  Gladstone  to  consent  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  Leonard  Courtney  (Lord  Courtney).  "  I  know  him 
well,"  he  said,  "  and  think  highly  of  his  powers.  He  is  a  man 
capable  of  being  very  useful  in  office  and  very  much  the 
reverse  out  of  office.  I  know  he  is  generally  considered  not 
facile  a  vivre,  but  I  have  always  got  on  well  with  him  per- 
sonally. "  Gladstone  agreed,  and  Courtney  became  Harcourt's 
chief  lieutenant,  on  the  condition  that "  I  may  be  at  liberty  to 
walk  out  if  the  Transvaal  question  is  raised."  At  this  time 
Harcourt  was  urging  Huxley  to  take  the  Chief  Inspectorship 
of  Fisheries,  vacant  by  the  death  of  Frank  Buckland.  "  I 
have  always  thought  that  science  has  not  its  fair  share  in 
the  Civil  Service,"  he  wrote,  and  Gladstone  agreed.  After 
much  pressure  Huxley  took  the  post.  One  of  Harcourt's 
tasks  at  the  Home  Office  was  the  reorganization  of  the 
Metropolitan  Police.  In  a  long  memorandum  to  Gladstone 


394  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880-85 

(December  3,  1880)  he  urged  the  need  of  carrying  through 
the  reforms  recommended  by  the  departmental  committee, 
and  expressed  his  own  view  that  the  staff  at  Scotland  Yard 
was  susceptible  of  material  consolidation  and  reduction. 
He  entered  into  his  scheme  with  great  minuteness,  and  as 
he  showed  a  net  saving  of  £3,650  a  year  as  the  result  of  a 
more  efficient  system  he  was  justified  in  his  remark  that 
"  I  hope  that  .  .  .  you  will  not  regard  this  as  a  bad 
financial  transaction." 

ii 

Among  the  multitudinous  tasks  that  fell  to  him  at  the 
Home  Office,  none  gave  Harcourt  so  much  anxiety  as  the 
treatment  of  prisoners  and  the  revision  of  sentences.  John 
Bright  has  described  him  as  the  most  humane  Home  Secre- 
tary he  ever  encountered.  It  was  this  aspect  of  his  ad- 
ministration which  was  largely  the  subject  of  his  correspon- 
dence with  the  Queen,  to  whom  he  was  responsible  in  the 
exercise  of  clemency,  and  who  was  disturbed  at  what  she 
/felt  was  his  undue  tenderness  to  offenders,  and  was  only 
pacified  on  receiving  the  most  exhaustive  reports. 

Harcourt  was  especially  preoccupied  with  the  unsatis- 
factory administration  of  justice  in  the  case  of  juvenile 
offenders,  which  had  already  begun  to  offend  the  public 
conscience,  although  the  process  of  remedying  it  is  still 
incomplete.  He  was  strongly  impressed  with  the  harmful 
effects  of  sending  young  children  to  prison,  which  he  thought 
was  more  likely  to  make  them  into  criminals  than  to  reform 
them.  But  the  magistrates  were  faced  with  the  difficulty 
of  dealing  with  young  hooligans,  in  the  absence  of  proper 
agencies  to  which  their  reform  could  be  entrusted,  and  they 
were  more  than  restive  under  the  recommendations  of  the 
Home  Secretary.  In  a  circular  sent  to  the  metropolitan 
I  police  magistrates  he  recommended  the  birch  in  preference 
*  to  committal  to  prison  in  certain  cases,  and  he  also  addressed 
letters  to  other  districts  urging  his  point  of  view. 

In  a  letter  (September  1880)  to  the  Mayor  of  Manchester, 
who  had  submitted  to  him  a  scheme  for  obviating  some  of 


1880-85]  CHILD   OFFENDERS  395 

the  worst  hardships  of  the  system,  he  pointed  out  that  in 
a  single  year/^o^/.  children  between  the  ages  of  twelve 
and  sixteen,  and(72<^ under  the  age  of  twelve,  were  sent  to 
prison.  In  a  long  letter  to  the  Queen,  who  had  not  approved 
of  some  remissions  of  sentences,  he  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Queen  Victoria. 

STUDLEY  ROYAL,  September  16,  1880. — Many  of  these  cases  were 
for  trifling  offences,  as,  for  instance,  a  boy  of  nine  years  old  for 
throwing  stones,  several  boys  of  eleven  and  twelve  years  for  damaging 
grass  by  running  about  in  the  fields  ;  a  girl  of  thirteen  for  being 
drunk ;  several  boys  of  twelve  and  thirteen  for  bathing  in  a  canal, 
and  similarly  for  playing  at  pitch  and  toss  ;  a  boy  of  nine  for  stealing 
scent ;  a  boy  of  thirteen  for  threatening  a  woman,  three  boys  of 
eleven  for  breaking  windows ;  a  boy  of  ten  for  wilfully  damaging 
timber.  This  morning  a  case  is  reported  of  a  boy  of  ten  years  old 
sentenced  to  fourteen  days'  hard  labour  or  a  fine  of  £i  155.  3*2!. 
for  "  unlawfully  throwing  down  a  boarded  fence,"  and  the  Governor 
of  Prisons  reports  this  child  as  a  small  delicate  boy  who  can  neither 
read  nor  write.  .  .  . 

Sir  William  humbly  begs  leave  to  represent  to  Your  Majesty 
that  protracted  imprisonment  in  such  cases  has  an  injurious  effect 
both  upon  the  physical  and  moral  nature  of  children  of  tender  years. 
The  child  who  has  been  guilty  only  of  some  mischievous  or  thought- 
less prank  which  does  not  partake  of  the  real  character  of  crime 
finds  himself  committed  with  adult  criminals  guilty  of  heinous 
offences  to  the  common  gaol.  After  a  week  or  a  fortnight's  imprison- 
ment he  comes  out  of  prison  tainted  in  character  amongst  his  former 
companions,  with  a  mark  of  opprobrium  set  upon  him,  and  he  soon 
lapses  into  the  criminal  class  with  whom  he  has  been  identified. 
That  this  sort  of  punishment  has  not  a  reformatory  but  a  degrading 
effect  is  painfully  evident  from  many  of  the  cases  reported.  Most 
of  them  are  first  convictions,  but  in  those  where  there  have  been 
previous  imprisonments  the  child  was  over  and  over  again  brought 
up  on  fresh  charges  generally  exhibiting  a  progressive  advance  in 
criminal  character.  .  .  . 

The  Queen  thereupon  sent  her  approval.  "  H.M.  was 
really  interested  in  all  you  said  about  the  youthful  criminals," 
wrote  Sir  Henry  Ponsonby  in  a  private  letter  to  Harcourt 
from  Balmoral.  "  She  would  like  to  whip  them,  but  it 
/seems  that  that  cannot  be  done.  What  she  objected  to 
was  not  being  forewarned  of  these  numerous  remissions." 
Incidentally  Ponsonby  advised  Harcourt  to  put  his  letter 
in  a  sealed  envelope  to  "  The  Queen."  "  She  didn't  say 


SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1881-85 

anything,"  he  said  significantly,  "  but  she  generally  likes 
this  best,  as  she  can  show  me  your  letter  or  not  as  she  thinks 
best." 

But  Harcourt  had  other  difficulties.  The  harsher  type 
of  magistrate  was  outraged  by  this  display  of  leniency,  and 
the  Home  Secretary  became  the  target  of  widespread  attack 
in  the  Press.  "  Your  speech  and  Derby's,"  Harcourt  wrote 
to  Lord  Houghton  from  Oban  (October  9),  "  have  come  just 
in  the  nick  of  time  to  save  me  from  the  roaring  J.P.'s  who 
are  about  to  devour  me."  This  had  reference  to  a  meeting 
on  the  subject  of  the  punishment  of  children,  at  the  Man- 
chester Town  Hall,  when  Lord  Derby  and  Lord  Houghton 
both  spoke  in  support  of  the  Home  Secretary.  Harcourt's 
activity  had  an  immediate  effect  on  the  magistrates.  He 
was  able  to  say  at  Birmingham  on  November  6  that  since 
he  had  received  daily  reports  of  the  committal  of  children 
they  had  fallen  from  eighty  and  ninety  in  a  week  to  ten. 
He  mentioned  that  in  one  case  a  child  of  seven  had  been 
sent  to  prison.  Unfortunately  the  legislation  which  Har- 
court had  in  mind  was  prevented  owing  to  the  increasing 
degree  in  which  Ireland  occupied  the  time  of  Parliament. 
But  the  administrative  activity  had  a  permanent  effect  upon 
the  magisterial  mind,  and  Lord  Norton  was  able  to  write 
to  Harcourt  that  his  "  bold  and  potent  action  "  had  emptied 
the  Stafford  Gaol  of  children.  In  1882  Harcourt  drafted 
a  Bill  giving  discretion  to  magistrates  to  substitute  whipping 
J  for  imprisonment  in  the  case  of  indictable  offences  ;  requiring 
the  parent  in  certain  cases  to  pay  fines  and  to  be  responsible 
for  the  child's  benaviour,  and  doing  away  with  the  necessity 
of  preliminary  imprisonment  before  sending  a  child  to  the 
\/  reformatory. 

The  occupant  of  the  condemned  cell  was  no  less  disquieting 
a  responsibility  to  Harcourt  than  the  juvenile  offender.  In 
1878  he  had  declared  in  the  House  of  Commons  his  unofficial 
view  in  favour  of  the  abolition  «Jf  the  death  penalty.  He 
did  not  believe  in  the  deterrent  argument  that  had  been 
used  in  the  past  to  support  the  hanging  of  men  convicted 
of  the  theft  of  55.  If  it  did  not  deter  them  from  sheep- 


1881-85]        TOO   MANY   REMISSIONS  397 

stealing  why  should  it  deter  them  from  murder,  which  was 
generally  done  under  the  influence  of  violent  passion.  In 
office  he  developed  his  case  in  a  paper  addressed  to  the 
Cabinet.  He  recognized  that  public  opinion  was  not  ripe 
for  abolition,  but  he  desired  to  see  a  better  discrimination 
established  by  law,  and  later  (January  1882)  he  submitted 
a  Bill  to  the  Cabinet  proposing  that  two  "  degrees "  of 
murder  should  be  recognized.  For  the  first  "  degree  "  the 
jury  must  expressly  find  the  "  intent  to  kill "  ;  for  this 
first  degree  the  death  penalty  would  still  be  exacted,  but 
for  the  second,  where  "  intent '  was  not  expressly  recognized, 
penal  servitude  for  life  or  for  a  shorter  period  would  be  the 
scheduled  punishment.  But  like  so  many  other  good 
legislative  intentions  the  project  was  suffocated  by  more 
clamant  affairs. 

Meanwhile,  in  the  treatment  of  adult  prisoners  as  in  the 
case  of  juveniles,  the  exercise  of  the  prerogative  of  mercy 
under  the  administration  of  Harcourt  was  giving  concern 
in  high  quarters.  "  The  Queen  is  afraid  from  the  number 
of  remissions  sent  her,"  writes  Ponsonby  to  Harcourt  from 
Balmoral  (November  17,  1880),  "that  you  are  treating 
/offenders  with  too  great  leniency,  and  commanded  me  to 
^  call  your  attention  to  this."  Her  Majesty  demanded  a 
return  of  the  number  of  remissions  signed  by  her  in  the 
last  six  months  and  in  the  previous  six  months.  It  was 
apparent  that  she  intended  to  judge  Harcourt's  action  by 
that  of  his  predecessor  Cross. 

"  The  notion  that  I  am  letting  fellows  out  of  prison  right 
and  left  out  of  pure  gaiete  de  c&ur  is  quite  unfounded," 
wrote  Harcourt  to  Ponsonby.  "  There  was  not  one  of 
these  cases  in  which  I  could  have  acted  otherwise  if  I  had 
wished."  The  Queen  had  specially  drawn  attention  to  the 
discharge  of  two  militiamen  in  prison  for  desertion.  Har- 
court triumphantly  pointed  out  to  Ponsonby  that  one  had 
been  released  at  the  instance  of  the  Secretary  of  War  because 
it  had  been  found  that  he  ought  not  to  have  been  imprisoned 
at  all,  and  the  other  had  been  inadvertently  convicted  of 
desertion  when  he  was  actually  in  custody  in  gaol.  "  What 


398  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1881-85 

would  have  happened,"  he  asked  Ponsonby,  "  if  she  had 
declined  to  sign  the  release  of  two  militiamen  declared  by 
the  War  Office  and  the  judges  to  be  innocent  and  to  be 
wrongfully  imprisoned  ?  "  To  the  Queen  he  wrote  at  great 
length  (November  20)  pointing  out  that,  except  in  the  case 
of  children,  he  had  not  departed  from  the  practice  of  his 
predecessors.  Seven  of  the  sixteen  cases  had  been  remitted 
on  medical  certificates  that  the  life  of  the  prisoner  was  in 
danger,  and  he  was  confident  that  Her  Majesty  would  not 
desire  that  a  moderate  punishment  should  be  "  turned  into 
a  capital  sentence."  In  five  other  cases  in  which  prisoners 
had  been  released  an  illegal  sentence  had  been  passed  by 
inadvertence  in  excess  of  the  powers  of  the  judges.  In  two 
cases  the  judges  themselves  had  recommended  the  revision  of 
sentences.  The  remaining  two  cases  were  the  commutation  of 
the  capital  sentences  on  women  for  the  murder  of  their 
illegitimate  children.  "  No  woman  has  for  many  years  been 
^/  hanged  under  these  circumstances.  Sir  William  humbly 
submits  to  Your  Majesty  that  he  would  not  have  been 
justified  in  advising  Your  Majesty  to  revive  in  their  cases 
a  practice  long  disused  which  would  greatly  have  shocked 
the  sentiments  of  the  community."  But  he  had  given 
instructions  that  in  future  in  every  case  of  remission  a 
memorandum  of  the  facts  should  be  sent  to  the  Queen. 

But  still  the  Queen  was  disturbed.  "  H.M.  remarks — 
But  why  are  there  more  remissions  now  than  formerly  ?  ' ' 
wrote  Ponsonby  to  Harcourt,  who  promptly  replied  with 
the  actual  figures  showing  that  he  had  remitted  eighty-three 
/  sentences  on  adults  in  seven  months  against  his  predecessor's 
eighty-two  in  five  months. 

This  satisfied  the  Queen  that  the  Home  Secretary  could 
be  trusted  not  to  be  too  lenient ;  but  her  doubts  returned 
later.  She  was  especially  suspicious  where  men  guilty  of 
wife  murder  were  reprieved.  "  Men  are  lenient  to  criminals 
who  murder  their  wives,"  she  said  to  Ponsonby,  and  in 
the  case  of  John  Richmond,  whose  sentence  had  been  com- 
muted by  Harcourt,  something  like  a  storm  arose  between 
the  Queenjand  her  Minister.  Richmond  had  killed  his  wife, 


1880-85]      THE   QUEEN'S   ANXIETIES  399 

but  not  intentionally.  He  was  sentenced  to  be  hanged  and 
the  sentence  was  commuted  to  penal  servitude.  There 
were  the  customary  protests,  and  Harcourt  in  a  letter  to 
Ponsonby  objected  to  the  Queen's  asking  why  Richmond 
was  pardoned,  and  said  he  must  resign  if  she  objected  to 
commutation.  Ponsonby  claimed  that  the  Queen  had  a 
right  to  inquire  into  the  reasons,  not  in  order  to  reject  his 
advice,  but  to  make  her  own  opinions  known  to  him  and 
in  order  to  receive  further  explanation.  "  Without  insisting 
on  this  man  being  hanged,  the  Queen  may  surely  ask  for 
your  observations."  Harcourt  cooled  down,  the  commuta- 
tion was  duly  signed,  and  Ponsonby  writes,  "  I  have  accord- 
t/ing  to  your  directions  destroyed  your  letter  " — the  letter  in 
which  Harcourt  had  threatened  resignation. 

in 

There  was  another  type  of  crime  which  led  to  a  certain 
collision  between  the  Queen  and  Harcourt./lt  was  that 
most  unhappy  of  all  forms  of  murder,  infanticide.  Harcourt 
in  June  1884  commuted  the  sentence  of  death  passed  on 
Mary  Wilcox  for  the  murder  of  her  illegitimate  child,  and 
the  Queen  wrote  from  Balmoral  (June  20)  that  she  could 
not  "  help  observing  that  this  is  the  third  or  fourth  case 
in  which  conviction  for  murder  has  been  commuted,"  and 
requesting  explanation.  Harcourt  replied  (June  23)  that 
even  in  days  when  the  law  was  more  cruel,  mercy  was 
frequently  extended  by  the  Crown  in  such  cases  "  in  the 
manner  so  beautifully  recounted  by  Sir  W.  Scott  in  the 
Heart  of  Midlothian."  He  proceeded  : 

Hay  court  to  Queen  Victoria. 

...  Sir  William  encloses  the  printed  account  of  the  trial  from 
which  Your  Majesty  will  learn  that  all  the  circumstances  of  pity 
which  surround  these  painful  cases  were  present  in  this  instance. 
The  girl  was  very  young  ;  her  seducer  had  gone  abroad  ;  her  mother 
had  turned  her  out  of  doors  ;  she  loved  her  child  ;  out  of  her  hard 
earnings  of  seven  shillings  a  week  she  gave  three  shillings  for  the 
support  of  the  child  ;  the  child  as  one  witness  says  was  "  better 
clad  than  its  mother,"  and  as  another  states  "  in  fact  except  the 


400  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880-85 

bread  and  water  that  she  ate  and  drank  she  gave  all  her  money  for 
her  child." 

To  have  allowed  a  girl  to  be  hanged  under  these  circumstances 
would  have  been  a  thing  unheard  of  in  modern  times,  and  would 
have  produced  a  revulsion  of  public  sentiment  which  would  have 
been  enlisted  on  the  side  of  the  offender  and  not  against  the  offence. 
As  it  is  she  will  undergo  a  terrible  punishment  which  her  crime  will 
have  well  deserved.  The  jury  strongly  recommended  the  prisoner  to 
mercy.  This  is  a  strong  indication  of  public  sentiment  which  it  is 
not  wise  to  disregard.  If  juries  found  that  their  recommendations 
were  neglected,  they  would  take  the  matter  into  their  own  hands 
(as  they  did  in  former  days),  and  refuse  to  convict,  in  which  case 
the  offender  would  go  free.  .  .  . 

One  thing  which  makes  Sir  William  look  at  these  cases  with  peculiar 
care  and  caution  is  the  sad  conclusion  at  which  he  has  arrived  after 
some  years  of  experience  at  the  Home  Office,  viz.,  that  with  all  the 
care  to  guard  against  such  a  result,  erroneous  sentences  are  too 
often  passed  on  innocent  persons.  So  many  examples  of  this 
misfortune  have  come  under  his  notice  in  ordinary  cases  that  he 
is  bound  to  be  specially  careful  in  the  execution  of  sentences  when 
there  can  be  no  remedy  in  case  of  error.  Only  a  few  weeks  ago  on 
the  careful  study  of  the  case  of  two  men  sentenced  to  death,  Sir 
William,  on  a  careful  consideration,  conceived  that  there  was  so 
much  doubt  about  the  case  that  he  respited  the  prisoners  for  a 
week  in  order  to  enable  an  inquiry  to  be  held.  The  result  of  the 
inquiry  was  to  prove  the  innocence  of  one  of  the  prisoners  on  the 
confession  of  the  other  man  sentenced  with  him.  Your  Majesty 
will  sympathize  in  the  feeling  of  relief  which  Sir  William  felt  in 
having  been  the  means  of  rescuing  an  innocent  man  from  a  terrible 
and  undeserved  fate.  .  .  . 

He  concluded  a  long  dissertation  on  the  true  exercise  of 
the  prerogative  with  the  remark  that  "  the  principle  on 
which  he  endeavours  to  act  is  that  all  the  world  should 
feel  that  no  man  is  spared  who  ought  to  be  hanged,  and  no 
man  is  hanged  who  ought  to  have  been  spared." 

The  Queen  replied  (June  26)  that  she  had  read  the  letter 
with  pain,  "  as  it  gives  her  the  impression  that  Sir  William 
Harcourt  thinks  she  wishes  to  be  harsh  and  cruel  and  to 
insist  on  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law  being  carried  out 
in  cases  which  above  all  commend  themselves  to  mercy — 
especially  when  poor  young  creatures  have  been  in  despair 
driven  to  destroy  newly-born  infants."  She  had  herself 
urged  mercy  in  such  cases.  But  she  did  not  know  this  was 


1880-85]         DEGREES   OF   MURDER  401 

one  of  those  cases — the  child  being  two  years  old — nor  was 
it  about  this  case  she  meant  to  make  the  observation  : 

...  It  was  more  generally  with  regard  to  several  convictions 
for  murders  of  wives,  etc.,  which  had  struck  her  as  very  bad  cases, 
and  the  commutation  for  which  she  hardly  could  understand. 
At  the  same  time  the  bare  thought  of  any  innocent  prisoner  being 
executed  is  too  horrible  to  contemplate.  Still  murder  (excepting 
of  late  in  Austria  and  Hungary)  is  more  frequent  within  the  Queen's 
Empire  (she  ought  to  say  Kingdom  as  she  means  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland)  than  in  other  countries. 

Harcourt  replied  (June  28)  expressing  his  deepest  regret 
that  anything  he  had  written  had  caused  the  Queen  pain, 
or  could  convey  an  impression  "  so  totally  the  reverse  of 
his  true  sentiments.  No  one,"  he  continued,  "  has  had 
better  means  of  knowing  and  of  most  thankfully  acknow- 
ledging Your  Majesty's  tender  kindness  and  constant  sym- 
pathy for  all  your  subjects,  and  particularly  the  miserable 
and  the  erring."  With  this  prelude  he  proceeds  to  state 
the  principles  on  which  he  tenders  advice  in  these  painful 
cases  to  Her  Majesty.  He  points  to  the  decline  in  serious 
crime  as  evidence  that  the  penal  code  is  neither  too  severe 
nor  too  lax,  and  describes  the  different  categories  of  murder 
and  the  cases  in  which  in  all  other  countries  "  the  sentence 
of  death  is  not  only  not  executed,  but  not  pronounced." 
In  England  this  discrimination  does  not  exist : 

Harcourt  to  Queen  Victoria. 

.  .  .  But  there  are  cases  in  which  public  sentiment  would  not 
support  the  execution  of  the  extreme  sentence.  As  for  example  in 
two  recent  cases  (to  which  possibly  Your  Majesty  may  refer)  a 
drunken  husband  has  a  brawl  with  his  wife  also  drunk.  In  the 
course  of  the  fight  he  throws  an  iron  saucepan  at  her  head  and  bruises 
her.  She  is  in  a  bad  state  of  health  and  dies  a  month  after  of  erysipe- 
las. The  blow  was  not  intended  to  kill,  nor  indeed  but  for  her 
state  of  health  calculated  to  destroy  life.  But  it  is  murder  by  law, 
and  the  capital  sentence  is  properly  passed,  but  every  one  would  be 
shocked  at  the  hanging  of  a  man  who  had  no  intention  of  killing 
his  wife,  and  both  before  and  after  the  act  had  showed  himself 
sincerely  attached  to  her. 

Two  years  ago  Sir  William  discussed  at  great  length  with  the 
Chancellor  and  the  Judges  a  Bill  to  classify  murders  which  would, 
as  abroad,  prevent  the  capital  sentence  being  inflicted  except 

DD 


402  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT     [1880-85 

when  the  Jury  found  there  was  an  intention  to  kill.  But  on  mature 
consideration  Sir  William  found  that  there  was  so  much  difficulty 
in  obtaining  an  accurate  definition,  and  so  much  danger  attending 
an  alteration  in  the  law  a  so  serious  matter  that  he  thought  it  more 
prudent  to  abandon  the  attempt,  and  leave  the  principle  to  be 
applied  by  the  judgment  of  the  Secretary  of  State  in  each  particular 
case  as  it  now  is.  Sir  William  feels  most  deeply  the  responsibility 
of  this  anxious  duty  and  is  most  desirous  that  Your  Majesty  should 
be  completely  satisfied  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  is  discharged. 
Your  Majesty  will  easily  believe  that  sometimes  it  has  caused  him 
sleepness  nights  in  the  anxiety  to  arrive  at  a  right  conclusion.  .  .  . 

Sir  William  asks  leave  to  express  to  Your  Majesty  the  pleasure  it 
was  to  him  to  see  in  the  corridor  at  Windsor  your  Majesty's  little 
grandchildren  round  one  of  whom  especially  gather  such  sad  and 
tender  recollections.  He  trusts  that  the  Duchess  of  Albany  is 
in  good  health  and  is  able  to  bear  with  fortitude  her  irreparable 
loss.  [The  Duke  of  Albany  had  just  died.] 

As  Sir  William  gathers  from  Your  Majesty's  letter  that  Your 
Majesty  does  not  disapprove  of  the  commutation  in  the  case  of  the 
poor  girl  Mary  Wilcox,  he  ventures  again  to  submit  the  paper  of 
commutation  for  Your  Majesty's  signature. 

The  Queen  thereupon  signed  the  conditional  pardon,  with 
warm  thanks  for  Harcourt's  "  clear  explanation  of  the  course 
pursued  in  this  most  painful  part  of  his  responsible  duties." 
She  added  : 

.  .  .  The  Queen  is  glad  he  saw  her  dear  little  Grandchildren, 
as  she  knows  the  interest  he  takes  in  them,  and  the  sight  of  these 
poor  little  fatherless  bairns  wrings  her  heart  to  look  at !  Her  poor 
daughter-in-law  is  well,  and  the  most  wonderfully  resigned  and  un- 
complaining person  the  Queen  ever  saw> 

As  a  pendant  to  this  phase  of  the  relations  between  the 
Queen  and  the  Home  Secretary,  the  following  note  from 
Ponsonby  to  Harcourt  is  suggestive  : 

WINDSOR  CASTLE,  July  5,  1883. — I  am  commanded  by  the  Queen 
to  ask  if  men  who  are  cruel  to  dogs  as  mentioned  by  "  Ponto  " 
cannot  be  more  severely  punished  than  by  a  fine  of  £2. 

Her  sympathy  with  the  animal  world  was  acute,  and  in 
a  letter  to  Harcourt  she  said  : 

Queen  Victoria  to  Harcourt. 
WINDSOR  CASTLE,  November  25,  1881. —  .  .  .  There  is,  however, 


i88o-85]      THE   QUEEN'S   HUMANITY  403 

another  subject  on  which  the  Queen  feels  most  strongly,  and  that  is 
this  horrible,  brutalizing,  unchristian-like  Vivisection. 

That  poor  dumb  animals  should  be  kept  alive  as  described  in  this 
trial  is  revolting  and  horrible.  This  must  be  stopped.  Monkeys  and 
dogs — two  of  the  most  intelligent  amongst  these  poor  animals  who 
cannot  complain — dogs,  "  man's  best  friend,"  possessed  of  more 
than  instinct,  to  be  treated  in  this  fearful  way  is  awful.  She  directs 
Sir  Wm.  Harcourt's  attention  most  strongly  to  it. 

It  must  really  not  be  permitted.  It  is  a  disgrace  to  a  civilized 
country. 

Harcourt  replied  that  he  had  already  arranged  an  inter- 
view with  Sir  James  Paget  and  Sir  William  Gull  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  the  question  of  vivisection,  and  would 
later  submit  some  observations  on  the  subject. 

He  had  already  informed  the  Queen  that  instructions  had 
been  given  for  the  rigorous  enforcement  of  the  existing  law 
with  regard  to  vivisection  and  that  the  limit  set  to  the 
practice  should  be  restricted  rather  than  extended.  Pon- 
sonby  was  also  asked  by  the  Queen  (June  20,  1880)  to  say 
that  she  "  takes  the  greatest  interest  in  the  protection  of 
wild  birds,  and  trusts  therefore  that  the  Bill,  which  I  under- 
stand is  to  be  brought  into  the  House  to-morrow,  will 
receive  support."  Harcourt  replied  that  he  believed  it 
would  be  a  useful  measure  and  a  proper  correction  for  the 
cruelties  now  so  often  practised  and  the  destruction  of  rare 
and  beautiful  species  by  unauthorized  persons.  "  The 
object  of  the  Bill,"  he  said,  "  is  to  prevent  vagrant  bird- 
catchers  from  coming  on  to  the  land  and  killing  and  catching 
birds  without  the  leave  of  the  owners  or  occupiers." 

IV 

But  there  was  another  aspect  of  Harcourt's  duties  as  the 
guardian  of  the  peace  and  of  justice  that  brought  him  into 
more  anxious  relationship  with  the  Queen.  He  was  largely 
responsible  for  her  safety  and  for  the  security  of  her  move- 
ments. It  was  the  time  when  the  words  "  dynamitards  " 
and  "  nihilists  "  came  into  the  popular  currency  and  when 
crowned  heads  lay  on  unusually  unquiet  pillows.  The 
murder  of  the  Emperor  Alexander  II  of  Russia  by  the 


404  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880-85 

explosion  of  a  bomb  on  March  13, 1881,  aroused  widespread 
alarm  in  the  courts  of  Europe,  and  a  demand  arose  from 
various  continental  quarters  for  legislation  against  aliens 
in  Great  Britain,  which  was  alleged  to  be  a  harbourage  for 
conspirators.  Harcourt  had  at  the  time  of  the  Orsini  case 
been  an  energetic  upholder  of  the  right  of  asylum,  and  could 
hardly  be  expected  to  reverse  his  convictions.  However, 
his  indignation  was  thoroughly  aroused  by  a  scandalous 
article  praising  the  assassination  of  the  Tsar,  which  appeared 
in  the  Freiheit,  a  German  paper  printed  in  London.  The 
Queen  was  very  anxious  for  the  prosecution  of  the  offender, 
a  man  named  Most.  Harcourt  was  careful  to  explain  in 
the  House  of  Commons  (March  31, 1881)  that,  in  prosecuting, 
the  Government  were  not  acting  at  the  instigation  of  foreign 
Powers.  Most's  language,  which  he  read  in  the  House,  he 
justly  characterized  as  of  "  a  revolting  and  bestial  ferocity," 
constituting  a  gross  domestic  crime  and  a  breach  of  public 
morality.  There  was  much  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
wisdom  of  prosecution,  and  The  Times  argued  powerfully 
against  action.  Harcourt,  however,  took  the  contrary  view. 
"  I  am  myself  in  favour  of  prosecution,"  he  wrote  (March 
25)  to  Granville,  and  the  next  day  he  induced  the  Cabinet 
to  agree  with  him.  The  Queen  was  delighted.  "  The  article 
is  an  abominable  one,  and  it  would  have  been  a  scandal 
if  it  had  been  left  unnoticed,"  wrote  Ponsonby,  and  a  few 
days  later  (April  7)  he  told  Harcourt  that  the  Queen  was 
most  anxious  to  know  when  the  trial  would  come  on  and 
whether  papers  had  been  found  at  Most's  house  which  would 
"  help  the  police  in  following  up  the  traces  of  any  nihilistic 
plot."  Three  days  later  the  Queen  was  inquiring  again 
through  Ponsonby  as  to  the  prospects  of  the  trial,  and 
whether  there  was  any  difference  in  law  between  conspiring 
the  death  of  a  foreign  subject,  which  of  course  was  a  crime, 
and  conspiring  the  death  of  the  ruler  of  a  foreign  State  ?  "It 
has  been  said  that  the  latter  being  an  incident  of  a  political 
nature  is  thereby  protected."  "  The  Queen,"  wrote  Pon- 
sonby (May  2,6),  "cannot  understand  a  recommendation 
to  mercy.  She  hopes  no  weak  leniency  will  be  shown." 


i88o-85]         THE   QUEEN'S   SAFETY  405 

Harcourt  pointed  out  that  the  conviction  was  of  more 
importance  than  the  punishment,  and  the  Queen  replied 
(June  i)  agreeing,  but  added,  "  Still  the  Queen  trusts  this 
(the  punishment)  will  be  sufficient  to  mark  what  she  must 
consider  a  grave  crime."  Most  was  duly  tried,  convicted 
and  sentenced  to  sixteen  months'  hard  labour. 

The  Queen's  concern  was  not  unfounded,  for  early  in 
1882  an  attempt  on  her  own  life  was  made  by  Roderick 
Maclean  at  Windsor.  "  The  carriage  was  shut,"  wrote 
Ponsonby  to  Harcourt  (March  2,  1882)  in  describing  the 
crime,  "  as  the  Queen  drove  out  of  the  station  with  Princess 
Beatrice  and  the  Duchess  of  Roxburghe,  so  the  man  could 
not  have  seen  the  Queen.  There  was  some  cheering,  chiefly, 
I  think,  from  some  Eton  boys,  and  in  the  midst  of  it  we 
heard  the  shot.  He  had  a  new  revolver,  five  chambers — 
two  were  loaded  when  I  saw  it.  He  had  fourteen  cartridges 
on  him  and  a  letter  in  pencil,  that  he  seems  to  have  written 
in  the  station,  which  accuses  some  one  of  not  paying  him 
properly  and  driving  him  to  commit  this  crime."  The 
incident  created  much  sensation,  and  there  were  anxious 
messages  to  Harcourt.  Ponsonby  wrote  : 

WINDSOR  CASTLE,  March  9. —  .  .  .  The  Queen  does  not  want 
severity  of  punishment,  but  that  the  would-be  assassin  should  be  taken 
care  of.  Imprisonment  without  hard  labour  for  life  or  any  punishment 
that  would  prevent  a  recurrence  of  the  offence.  I  send  you  a  memor- 
andum by  the  Prince  Consort  written  after  Francis's  crime. 

The  memorandum  stated  certain  premisses  in  regard  to 
the  protection  of  the  Sovereign,  and  arrived  at  the  con- 
clusion that  as  the  law  stood  it  did  not  afford  adequate 
security. 

Later  in  the  day  came  another  message  from  Windsor 
to  Harcourt  from  Ponsonby,  asking  whether  he  knew  or 
could  ascertain  what  had  become  of  the  previous  would-be 
regicides. 

Before  the  trial  came  on  the  Queen  left  for  Mentone,  first 
sending  to  Harcourt  (March  12)  a  message  to  the  nation 
expressing  her  gratitude  for  the  "  outburst  of  enthusiastic 
loyalty,  affection  and  devotion  which  the  painful  event  has 


406  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1880-85 

called  forth  from  all  classes  and  from  all  parts  of  her  vast 
Empire — as  well  as  from  the  Sovereigns  and  People  of 
other  nations."  Harcourt  in  a  letter  to  Ponsonby  pointed 
out  that  "  loyalty  "  and  "  devotion  "  on  the  part  of  sover- 
eigns and  people  of  other  nations  might  be  misunderstood, 
and  suggested  another  form  of  words  for  publication.  In 
a  personal  letter  to  Harcourt,  the  Queen  said  : 

Queen  Victoria  to  Harcourt. 

CHERBOURG,  On  Board  the  Victoria  and  Albert,  March  14,  1882. — 
The  Queen  has  to  thank  Sir  Wm.  Harcourt  for  a  very  kind  letter 
received  this  morning  before  leaving  Windsor.  She  is  glad  to  see 
that  her  letter  (which  to  her  feeling  did  but  feebly  express  what  she 
felt)  is  appreciated.  Indeed  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  much  touched 
and  gratified  she  is  by  the  demonstrations  of  loyalty,  devotion  and 
affection  shown  her  on  this  painful  occasion.  Generally,  people  are 
appreciated  only  after  their  death — as  alas  !  within  her  own  experi- 
ence, has  often  been  the  case.  But  it  has  fallen  to  her  lot  to  be 
most  kindly  and  lovingly  spoken  of  and  appreciated  in  her  lifetime.  .  .  . 

The  Queen  is  very  glad  to  know  from  Mr.  Gladstone  to-day  the 
proposed  arrangement  for  Maclean's  trial.  How  soon  will  that  take 
place  ? 

But  Harcourt's  anxieties  did  not  end  with  the  Queen's 
holiday.  Ponsonby  wrote  to  him  from  Mentone  (March  20) 
about  three  Irishmen  supposed  to  be  coming  from  Paris, 
who  were  suspected  of  he  knew  not  what.  The  Prefect  of 
the  Police  and  the  detectives  were  all  in  a  state  of  commo- 
tion, and  John  Brown,  "  who  always  goes  with  the  Queen 
when  driving,"  had  told  her  of  the  alarm,  and  consequently 
made  her  nervous.  There  was  a  corrective  however. 
"  Policeman  Greenham  from  Scotland  Yard  says  he  thinks 
it  is  a  hoax.  He  has  said  this  loudly  so  that  it  might  reach 
H.M.'s  ears  (as  it  has),  and  this  is  a  good  thing,  for  it  has 
relieved  her — and  I  am  also  inclined  to  agree  with  him."  In 
his  reply  to  the  Queen's  letter,  Harcourt  (March  26)  set 
himself  to  calm  her  apprehensions,  told  her  that  he  had 
at  once  reinforced  the  detective  police  at  Windsor  and  other 
places  where  she  might  reside,  and  proceeded  : 

...  As  Your  Majesty  has  most  truly  and  touchingly  said  it 
has  been  Your  Majesty's  lot  to  be  universally  beloved  in  your  life- 


i88o-85J       THE   PRINCE   OF   WALES  407 

time,  a  fortune  which  in  most  cases  is  reserved  for  the  dead.  Sir 
William  half  remembers  a  line  in  Schiller's  Maria  Stttart,  in  which 
that  ill-starred  Queen  is  made  to  say,  "  I  have  been  much  hated, 
but  I  have  been  much  beloved."  But  in  a  reign  extended  beyond 
the  term  of  that  of  the  great  Elizabeth,  Your  Majesty  has  had 
experience  only  of  the  better  fortune  of  a  Queen  who  has  always 
lived  in  the  love  of  all  her  subjects. 

The  Queen  was  still  nervous  and  thought  that  a  Scotland 
Yard  detective  should  be  at  Windsor  even  when  she  was 
not  there.  When  Maclean,  tried  at  Reading  by  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice,  was  declared  mad  and  condemned  to  per- 
manent restraint,  Ponsonby  wrote  to  Harcourt  (April  19), 
"  The  Queen  thinks  the  verdict  an  extraordinary  one,  and 
that  it  will  leave  her  no  security  for  the  future  if  any  man 
who  chooses  to  shoot  at  her  is  thereby  proclaimed  to  be 
mad."  She  was  now  back  at  Windsor,  and  Harcourt's 
letter-bag  was  heavy  with  disquiets  from  thence,  and  instruc- 
tions about  precautions  in  regard  to  her  movements.  Thus 
Ponsonby  writes  (June  22)  to  Mm  of  mysterious  digging 
going  on  in  the  garden  of  an  unoccupied  house.  However, 
it  was  a  \groundlessjscare,  for  next  day  Ponsonby  informs 
Harcourt  that  "  the  digging  observed  was  connected  with 
a  fountain  "  which  the  innocent  suspect  was  placing  in  his 
garden.  These  alarms  were  not  without  a  comedy  aspect. 
Occasionally  Harcourt  was  caught  between  two  fires,  from 
Windsor  and  Sandringham.  A  man  named  Bradshaw  had 
written  threatening  the  life  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  if  he 
did  not  receive  £10.  He  had  the  misfortune  to  come  before 
Justice  Hawkins,  with  the  fate  common  to  those  who  had 
that  experience.  On  hearing  the  sentence — ten  years' 
imprisonment — the  Prince  of  Wales  wrote  to  Harcourt 
asking  him  to  secure  the  mitigation  of  the  sentence  : 

The  Prince  of  Wales  to  Harcourt. 

SANDRINGHAM,  Nov.  26,  1882. —  ...  Sir  Henry  Hawkins  has 
sentenced  this  unfortunate  man  to  ten  years'  penal  servitude,  and 
I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  latter  was  suffering  from  derange- 
ment of  the  mind  when  he  threatened  my  life  if  £10  was  not  sent  to 
him.  No  doubt  in  these  days  it  is  necessary  to  inflict  punishment 
on  those  who  write  threatening  letters,  but  at  the  same  time  I  should 


408  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880^85 

be  very  glad  if  it  were  possible  to  lessen,  with  the  concurrence  of 
Sir  Henry  Hawkins,  the  sentence  passed  on  Bradshaw. 

News  of  this  request  reached  Windsor,  and  accordingly 
two  days  later  Harcourt  received  a  message  from  Ponsonby 
that  "  Her  Majesty  cannot  help  remarking  that  she  fears 
anything  that  would  weaken  the  sentence  awarded  by  the 
judge  would  have  a  bad  effect. "  Harcourt  was  equal  to 
the  emergency.  He  wrote  to  Ponsonby  (November  29)  : 

...  I  had  a  note  from  the  Prince  of  Wales  asking  me  to  remit  the 
sentence  of  the  letter- writer.  This  I  have  respectfully  declined 
to  do,  and  told  him  if  it  is  to  be  done  it  must  be  by  my  successor  ! 
May  he  soon  appear  for  the  sake  of  the  culprit — and  of  mine.  Please 
tell  the  Queen  this. 


Apart  from  the  exercise  of  the  prerogative  of  mercy  and 
questions  affecting  the  Queen's  safety,  Harcourt  was  in 
close  intercourse  with  Her  Majesty  on  many  subjects.  He 
prepared  her  speech  for  the  opening  of  the  new  Law  Courts, 
was  consulted  by  her  on  such  subjects  as  her  attitude  to 
the  Salvation  Army,  and  whether  she  should  sign  the 
diplomas  of  the  Old  Water  Colour  Society,  was  kept  busy 
with  inquiries  about  dynamitards  and  secret  societies,  had 
his  attention  called  to  the  horror  of  the  Morning  Post  at 
the  announcement  that  a  great  Socialist  Congress  was  to 
be  held  in  London,  and  was  inundated  with  inquiries  about 
this,  that  and  the  other,  the  state  of  Ireland,  public  calami- 
ties and  personal  affairs.  The  spirit  of  the  correspondence 
is  always  cordial,  and  as  the  years  went  on  the  Queen's 
confidence  in  her  minister  obliterated  her  earlier  doubts. 
She  was  now  growing  old  and  feeling  the  weight  of  years 
and  anxieties,  and  her  letters  contain  many  allusions  to 
her  weariness.  Replying  to  a  birthday  greeting  from 
Harcourt,  she  says: 

Queen   Victoria  to  Harcourt. 

WINDSOR  CASTLE,  May  24,  1883. —  .  .  .  She  is  truly  sensible 
of  and  grateful  for  the  loyalty  of  her  people,  and  as  long  as  life  lasts 
and  she  has  the  strength  to  go  on,  she  will  work.  But  her  powers 
have  been  very  severely  taxed  and  losses  have  fallen  upon  her  which 


1880^85]         BALMORAL   ETIQUETTE  409 

have  made  life  again  very  sad  and  trying  and  difficult,  and  she  must 
ask  that  not  too  much  be  expected  of  her  or — the  cord  will 
snap.  The  work  is  pressing,  too  heavy,  too  severe,  and  age 
advances  and  helps  are  withdrawn — which  makes  everything  very 
difficult. 

And  a  month  later,  referring  to  her  lameness,  she  says  in 
reply  to  Harcourt's  inquiries : 

WINDSOR  CASTLE,  June  24,  1883. —  .  .  .  Her  leg  is  improving 
tho'  not  rapidly,  and  she  can  just  walk  downstairs  with  help. 
But  otherwise  she  cannot  give  a  better  report — her  spirits  remain 
deeply  depressed,  and  this  summer  time,  when  she  is  so  much  out 
of  doors,  forces  her  sad  loss  more  painfully  than  ever  upon  her,  and 
she  feels  weak  and  tired.  But  it  makes  no  difference  in  her  anxiety 
to  do  her  work,  and  her  ability  to  do  so  as  much  as  is  possible.  .  .  . 

As  minister  in  attendance  at  intervals  at  Balmoral, 
Harcourt  was  a  welcome  figure,  though  he  occasionally 
caused  concern  by  such  departures  from  decorum  as 
appearing  in  a  grey  frock-coat  when  black  was  the  accus- 
tomed wear.  And  his  enormous  consumption  of  tobacco 
was  obviously  a  matter  of  comment.  Ponsonby's  letters 
to  him  bear  witness  to  the  strong  odour  of  cigars  that  he 
left  behind  in  his  rooms.  Thus,  when  Lord  Spencer  suc- 
ceeds Harcourt  as  minister  in  attendance,  Ponsonby  writes 
to  the  latter : 

.  .  .  Spencer  arrived  radiant  and  with  the  glow  of  health  upon 
his  cheek.  But  he  is  rapidly  growing  pallider  and  sallower  in  conse- 
quence of  a  mysterious  perfume  in  his  room.  But  he  intimated  to 
me  that  the  mystery  was  explained  in  a  confidential  despatch  which 
he  received  on  arrival.  .  .  . 

After  Harcourt  left  the  Home  Office,  the  Queen  looked 
back  with  regret,  in  the  light  of  what  she  supposed  to  be 
Childers'^/indifference  to  dangerous  people  like  Socialists 
and  "  foreign  political  intriguers,"  to  Harcourt's  "  careful 
watch  on  these  men,"  and  how  regularly  he  told  her  of  the 
measures  taken  for  protecting  every  one  against  evil  deeds. 
"  H.M.  says  it  is  a  pity  you  did  not  go  back  to  the  H.O.," 
wrote  Ponsonby.  "  She  don't  always  admire  your  political 
views,  but  you  did  your  work  very  well  there." 

Although  John  Bright's  description  of  Harcourt  as  the 


410  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880-85 

most  _humane  Home  Secretary  he  had  encountered  is 
justified  by  his  general  record,  he  had  occasional  aberra- 
tions. The  famous  case  of  the  Mignonette  was  the  most 
conspicuous  example.  Sentence  of  death  had  been  passed 
on  two  men,  Dudley  and  Stephens,  shipwrecked  sailors, 
who  after  drifting  for  twenty-four  days  had  murdered  a  boy 
named  Parker  for  cannibalistic  purposes.  Harcourt  was 
for  severity,  but  James  and  Herschell,  the  law  officers, 
implored  him  to  exercise  mercy.  The  men  had  suffered ; 
their  act  was  the  act  of  men  who  had  ceased  to  be  respon- 
sible ;  judge,  jury,  and  public  opinion  were  in  sympathy 
with  them.  "  If  you  announce  a  commutation  to  penal 
servitude  for  life  or  even  to  any  other  term,"  wrote  James 
(December  5,  1884),  "  you  will  never  be  able  to  maintain 
such  a  decision  and  you  will  have  to  give  way."  Harcourt 
protested  against  yielding  to  popular  sentiment.  "It  is 
exactly  to  withstand  an  erroneous  and  perverted  sentiment 
on  such  matters,"  he  wrote  to  the  Attorney-General,  "  that 
we  are  placed  in  situations  of  very  painful  responsibility. 
.  .  .  The  judgment  of  the  Court  in  this  case  pronounces 
that  to  slay  an  innocent  and  unoffending  person  to  save 
one's  own  life  is  not  a  justification  or  excuse,  and  it  is  there- 
fore upon  moral  and  ethical  grounds,  not  upon  technical 
grounds,  that  the  law  repels  the  loose  and  dangerous  ideas 
floating  about  in  the  vulgar  mind  that  such  acts  are  venial 
or  indeed  anything  short  of  the  highest  crime  known  to 
the  law."  But  in  the  end  he  gave  way,  and  the  men  were 
"  respited  during  Her  Majesty's  pleasure." 

In  closing  this  survey  of  Harcourt's  administration 
at  the  Home  Office  reference  may  be  made  to  his  efforts 
in  another  direction  which  left  their  mark  upon  the  ad- 
ministration of  j ustice.  He  was  a  believer  in  short  sentences, 
not  on  humane  grounds  so  much  as  on  practical  grounds. 
In  1884  he  addressed  an  official  letter  to  the  Lord  Chancellor 
showing  the  rapid  and  solid  diminution  of  crime  indicated 
in  the  statistics  of  the  Home  Office.  He  pressed  for  a 
sensible  mitigation  of  punishment  by  materially  shortening 
the  terms  of  imprisonment  imposed  in  ordinary  cases.  His 


1880-85]  LORD   ROSEBERY  411 

experience  was  that  sentences  varied  extremely  in  their 
magnitude  without  such  difference  in  the  circumstances  as 
should  account  for  the  diversity.  He  hoped  that  by  con- 
sultation with  the  Judges  the  Lord  Chancellor  might  be 
able  to  introduce  more  harmony  and  uniformity  in  the 
sentences  passed.  He  agreed  with  the  opinion  of  Sir  E. 
Du  Cane,  the  responsible  officer  at  the  Home  Office  for 
prison  administration,  that  the  deterring  and  reformatory 
effect  of  imprisonment  would  in  general  be  as  well  and  even 
more  effectually  accomplished  if  the  average  length  of 
sentences  were  materially  shortened. 

Harcourt's  general  attitude  to  the  social  life  and  pleasures 
of  jjthe  people  was  essentially  human,  and  I  print  in  the 
Appendix  to  this  volume  a  letter  to  a  correspondent  on 
itinerant  shows,  in  which  his  point  of  view  is  stated  with 
the  kindliness  and  humour  characteristic  of  the  man. 

VI 

It  was  in  the  summer  of  1881,  when  Courtney  had  gone 
to  the  Colonial  Office,  that  Harcourt  welcomed  at  the 
Home  Office  a  new  colleague  with  whom  his  own  career 
was  destined  some  years  later  to  provide  a  political  drama 
that  occupied  the  centre  of  the  stage  at  Westminster. 
Lord  Rosebery  was  then  a  young  man  of  brilliant  promise, 
unusual  gifts  of  speech,  a  pretty  wit,  excellent  brain, 
youthful  enthusiasm  and  great  wealth.  He  had  come  into 
prominence  during  the  Midlothian  campaign  as  the  host  and 
supporter  of  Gladstone,  and  had  already  aroused  the  interest 
and  expectations  of  the  Party.  He  and  Harcourt  had  long 
been  acquainted,  and  in  the  previous  December  they  had 
had  a  conversation  at  Mentmore  on  the  subject  of  Scottish 
business,  then  in  the  hands  ft  the  Home  Office,  with  the 
Lord  Advocate  as  the  voice  of  the  department.  Lord  Rose- 
bery felt  strongly  that  a  lawyer  was  not  a  suitable  person  for 
the  sole  management  of  the  Scottish  business  which  was  not 
mainly  legal,  and  Harcourt  shared  his  view  so  strongly 
that  he  wrote  to  Gladstone  (December^,  1880)  urging  the 
appointment  of  a  Scottish  Minister.  He  was  himself 


412  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT      [1880-85 

anxious  from  the  party  point  of  view  that  Lord  Rosebery 
should  have  a  place  in  the  Ministry.  Lord  Rosebery's 
popularity  in  Scotland  was  an  important  asset  of  the  Party, 
and  Harcourt  thought  that  some  recognition  of  his  claims 
was  not  only  due  to  him  but  desirable  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  favourable  effect  it  would  have  on  Scottish 
opinion.  Gladstone,  however,  pleaded  the  pressure  of 
business  as  a  reason  for  not  taking  action  then.  Some- 
what later  Lord  Carlingford  was  appointed  Lord  Privy 
Seal,  and  on  the  following  Good  Friday  Harcourt,  after  a 
visit  to  the  Durdans  at  Epsom,  wrote  with  what  seems 
excessive  candour  to  Gladstone  : 


Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

RICHMOND,  Good  Friday. —  ...  I  should  like  to  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  some  talk  with  you  on  the  subject  of  the  owner  of  The 
Durdans  whom  I  found  in  a  very  great  state  of  disappointment  and 
irritation  at  the  recent  appointment  to  the  Privy  Seal,  which  office 
he  says  he  did  not  expeofc— though  that  I  consider  is  not  quite  an 
accurate  view  of  the  matter — but  because  he  seems  to  have  expected 
confidences  on  the  subject  which  £r6  did  not  receive.  However 
unreasonable  this  may  appear  I  can  assure  you  that  the  annoyance 
is  very  strong  and  the  vexation  very  deep.  I  did  my  best  to  smooth 
him  down,  but  only  with  partial  success.  One  of  the  symptoms  of 
provocation  is  that  he  wholly  declines  to  be  consulted  on  Scotch 
business,  on  which  I  was  in  the  habit  of  taking  his  opinion,  as  he 
says  "  that  he  has  now  no  relations  of  any  kind  with  the  Government," 
and  I  have  had  some  difficulty  in  restraining  him  from  making  a 
public  declaration  in  Scotland  to  that  effect — pointing  out  to  him 
that  such  a  course  would  infallibly  be  attributed  to  pique  and  be 
more  injurious  to  him  than  to  the  Government. 

I  am  sure  you  will  be  able  to  administer  an  anodyne  to  his  wounded 
spirit  when  you  return  to  town — but  it  is  wanted.  ... 

Gladstone  replying  to  Harcourt  said  he  hoped  it  was 
a  temporary  emotion,  and  added  that  "  the  notion  of  a 
title  to  be  consulted  on  the  succession  to  a  Cabinet  office 
is  absurd.  ...  I  believe  Rosebery  to  have  a  very  modest 
estimate  of  himself,  and  trust  he  has  not  fallen  into  so 
gross  an  error."  Harcourt,  who  had  in  the  meantime 
gone  to  Sandringham,  replied  (April  17)  to  a  letter  from 


1880-85]  SCOTTISH   BUSINESS  413 

Granville,   advising  that   nothing    should  be  written  to 
Lord  Rosebery : 

.  .  .  Later  on  I  doubt  not  a  word  in  season  will  tend  to  set  matters 
straight.  Time  is  a  great  soother.  I  think  I  had  better  not  send 
on  your  letter. 

We  find  it  very  pleasant  here.  The  hosts  very  gracious  and  easy. 
Everything  in  the  deepest  mourning  (for  the  Emperor  Alexander),  but 
I  don't  think  the  spirits  much  depressed.  The  Princess  gives  a 
ghastly  account  of  their  having  to  go  twice  a  day  to  kiss  the  Czar 
for  a  fortnight  after  his  death.  The  spectacle  most  horrible.  She 
for  some  reason  augurs  well  of  the  prospects  of  the  Great  Throne, 
but  I  see  he  is  by  no  means  equally  confident.  .  .  . 

A  month  later  Lord  Rosebery  sent  Harcourt  an  old 
family  relic  which  he  had  the  luck  to  pick  up,  a  watch 
/given  by  Charles  II  to  JojiiiJ^^j^an  ancestor  of  Har- 
court's.  Gladstone  kept  Harcourt's  hint  in  view,  and  when 
Courtney  was  promoted  wrote  to  Harcourt  suggesting  that 
Lord  Rosebery  should  succeed  him  as  Under-Secretary  at 
the  Home  Office.  "  I  think  you  know  how  sincerely  I  am 
anxious  that  Rosebery  should  join  the  Government  for  all 
reasons/'  replied  Harcourr  (July  27),  "  and  particularly 
on  the  ground  of  my  great  personal  regard  for  him."  But 
he  went  on  to  point  out  that  it  was  impossible  to  cany  on 
the  business  of  the  Home  Office  without  a  Parliamentary 
Under-Secretary  in  the  Commons.  The  Home  Secretary 
had  never  been  without  such  assistance  for  forty  years. 
However,  the  appointment  was  made,  perhaps  unhappily. 
Harcourt's  objection  was  a  sound  one,  and  no  doubt  absence 
from  the  parliamentary  side  of  the  work  made  the  office, 
not  in  itself  very  suitable  for  one  of  Lord  Rosebery's  gifts, 
all  the  more  irksome  to  him.  The  arrangement  did  not 
work  well,  and  we  find  Harcourt  recurring  to  it  a  little 
later  in  connection  with  a  tiresome  incident  in  connection 
with  John  Maclaren,  the  Lord- Advocate.  He  had  been  a 
source  of  much  irritation,  and  as  a  way  out  Harcourt  had 
offered  him  a  vacant  judgeship.  Maclaren,  however, 
resisted,  appealed  to  Gladstone  and  to  Bright,  who  wrote 
to  Gladstone  on  his  behalf.  Harcourt  in  a  letter  to  Glad- 
stone (August  5)  said  : 


414  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT       [1880-85 

.  .  .  Already  I  find  the  Department  in  confusion  and  despair 
at  the  loss  of  a  House  of  Commons  Under- Secretary.  And  if  be- 
sides wanting  that  aid  I  am  to  have  a  Lord-Advocate  on  whose 
cordial  co-operation  I  could  not  rely,  and  who  had  successfully 
appealed  against  me  (as  he.  said  he  should)  I  do  not  see  how  I  could 
get  on  at  all.  .  .  . 

Gladstone  suggested  that  the  pertinacious  Lord-Advocate 
should  be  allowed  to  continue  in  his  office  for  two  or  three 
months  until  the  law  term  began,  and  on  this  compromise 
the  matter  was  settled.  But  in  the  meantime  Rosebery 
had  informed  Harcourt  that  he  could  not  accept  the  Under- 
Secretaryship  if  his  name  was  to  be  associated  with  the 
incident.  It  was  not  a  promising  opening  to  their  official 
relationship. 

VII 

Harcourt's  preoccupation  with  his  departmental  duties 
of  course  curtailed  his  general  political  activities  in  public, 
but  in  the  Cabinet  and  in  private  his  influence  was  brought 
to  bear  on  a  multitude  of  themes,  as  his  correspondence 
abundantly  shows.  Fears  and  threats  of  resignation  from 
various  quarters  soon  became  a  commonplace.  In  January 
1881,  for  example,  there  is  a  note  to  Harcourt  from  Dilke 
saying,  "  Chamberlain  replies  exactly  what  I  expected — 
that  he  would  do  it  if  nothing  else  was  possible,  but  would 
prefer  that  he  and  I  snould  resign."  It  is  not  clear  what 
this  refers  to  in  the  midst  of  the  gathering  discontents, 
but  I  imagine  it  relates  to  the  proposal  to  give  a  charter 
to  the  North  Borneo  Company,  on  which  the  Government 
was  sharply  divided,  Harcourt,  Chamberlain,  Bright,  Childers 
and  Dilke  being  against  the  grant,  and  Kimberley,  Selborne 
and  Granville  for  it.  But  there  were  so  many  other  crises 
about  this  time  that  the  Dilke  letter  may  refer  to  something 
else.  Harcourt  himself  had  passed  his  "  resignation " 
phase,  and  though  he  often  spoke  in  letters  to  his  friends 
of  the  irritations  of  office,  he  generally  played  the  part  of 
peacemaker  among  his  high-spirited  colleagues.  None  of 
the  extra-departmental  duties  he  performed  in  1881  was 
more  delicate  than  his  share  in  the  famous  conflict  between 


1880-85]         STORM  AT  BALMORAL  415 

the  Queen  and  Gladstone  over  the  evacuation  of  Kandahar. 
The  announcement  of  that  policy  formed  a  part  of  the 
Queen's  speech,  and  it  was  Spencer's  and  Harcourt's  duty 
to  go  to  the  Council  at  Osborne  and  submit  the  speech  for 
the  approval  of  the  Queen.  The  story  of  that  singular 
day  of  battle,  with  its  comings  and  goings,  its  remonstrances 
from  the  Queen,  and  the  polite  but  adamant  replies  of  the 
Ministers,  the  telegram  to  Gladstone  and  the  anxious  wait 
for  the  reply,  all  ending  in  the  final  surrender  of  Her  Majesty 
is  told  in  the  memorandum  which  Harcourt  and  Spencer 
addressed  to  Gladstone  (Appendix  I  to  this  volume). 

In  another  case  in  which  Harcourt  became  involuntarily 
engaged  there  were  sparks  between  the  Queen  and  her 
Prime  Minister.  Harcourt  was  staying  at  Balmoral  in 
October  1881  in  the  midst  of  the  storm  that  arose  over 
the  appointment  of  Sir  Garnet  Wolseley  as  Adjutant- 
General.  He  was  a  firm  believer  in  the  Cardwell-Childers 
short-service  system  which  the  Duke  of  Cambridge,  the  Com- 
mander-in-Chief,  hated.  The  Duke  also  disliked  Wolseley, 
and  prevailed  on  the  Queen  to  adopt  his  view.  At  Balmoral 
the  Queen  approached  Harcourt  for  his  "  advice,"  which, 
writes  Harcourt  to  Gladstone  (October  23),  "I  was 
obliged  respectfully  to  evade,  pointing  out  that  it  was 
impossible  for  one  Secretary  of  State  to  invade  or  inter- 
meddle with  the  affairs  of  the  department  of  a  colleague." 
He  could  not  however  prevent  the  Queen  giving  her  opinion, 
and  he  communicated  that  opinion  to  Gladstone.  It  seemed 
that  the  Duke  had  told  the  Queen  he  would  resign  if 
Wolseley  was  appointed.  The  Queen  had  thereupon 
telegraphed  to  Childers  refusing  to  approve  the  appoint- 
ment. "  She  is  quite  conscious,"  he  writes  to  Gladstone  on 
October  23,  "  that  the  Duke  has  put  himself  out  of  court 
by  the  ground  he  has  taken  up,  and  the  reasons  he  has  given 
for  his  objection  to  Sir  Garnet's  appointment.  He  has  not 
chosen  to  state  what  is  the  fact,  that  there  is  strong  personal 
antipathy  between  the  men  quite  apart  from  differences  of 
professional  opinion.  .  .  .  The  question  as  I  understand 
it  is  really  one  of  '  incompatibility/  which  between  husband 


416  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880-85 

and  wife  is  often  regarded  as  a  good  ground  of  amiable 
separation.  It  seems  almost  idle  to  hope  that  the  Duke  and 
Sir  Garnet  can  live  conjugally  together."  Harcourt  added  : 

...  I  have  not  ventured  myself  to  offer  any  suggestion,  but  I 
have  endeavoured  to  lay  before  you  the  situation  as  it  is.  It  is 
very  like  the  dramatic  position  in  the  Critic  when  all  the  parties 
are  at  a  deadlock  each  with  his  dagger  at  the  other's  throat,  and  how 
it  is  to  be  terminated  is  not  obvious.  I  fear  not  by  the  formula, 
"  In  the  Queen's  name  I  bid  you  all  drop  your  swords  and  daggers." 

The  only  thing  I  feel  strongly  is  that  the  resignation  of  the  Duke 
should  if  possible  be  averted.  The  Queen  evidently  looks  to  you  to 
help  her  out  of  the  scrape,  of  the  gravity  of  which  I  think  she  is 
entirely  aware.  .  .  . 

Gladstone  did  not  approve  of  the  Court  approaching 
Ministers,  and  showed  no  disposition  to  yield.  Replying 
to  Harcourt,  he  said  :  V 

Gladstone   to  Harcourt. 

HAWARDEN  CASTLE,  October  25. —  .  .  .  The  Childers-Wolseley- 
Cambridge  imbroglio  is  indeed  serious,  and  H.M.  I  fear  will  not  mend 
it  by  multiplying  channels  of  communication  ;  but  it  is  not  unnatural 
that  she  should,  by  herself  and  her  belongings,  feel  for  a  soft  place 
in  the  heart  of  the  successive  Ministers  who  may  appear  at  Balmoral. 
You  have  been  I  think  very  constitutional.  I  am  surprised  that  the 
temperature  should  now  be  high,  because  so  far  as  I  know  Childers 
has  given  time,  leaving  the  "  enemy  "  so  to  speak  in  full  possession  of 
the  field  for  the  moment.  No  doubt  his  resignation  would  be  an 
awkward  fact  for  us,  but  to  him  damning.  I  will  send  your  letter 
to  Childers,  and  probably  more  light  may  be  thrown  upon  the  matter 
when  we  meet  in  town.  .  .  . 

The  conflict  continued,  and  in  a  further  letter  to  Glad- 
stone Harcourt  said  that  the  claim  at  Balmoral  was  that 
under  the  Royal  Warrant  the  person  who  was  to  submit 
appointments  to  the  Queen  was  the  Commander-in-Chief, 
subject  only  to  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

In  the  meantime  Harcourt  had  delivered  his  speech  at 
Glasgow  (October  25),  and  visited  Sir  Wilfrid  Lawson  in 
Cumberland  and  Gladstone  at  Hawarden  on  his  way  to 
London.  In  his  speech  he  had  indulged  in  some  plain 
speaking  about  Salisbury  and  Stafford  Northcote.  Writing 
to  him  Ponsonby  said : 


1880-85]          A   FRIEND   AT   COURT  417 

Ponsonby  to  Hay  court. 

BALMORAL,  November  5. —  ...  If  you  care  to  know  the  comment 
on  your  speeches,  which  were  carefully  studied,  I  may  tell  you  that 
your  references  to  Lord  Salisbury  were  not  so  much  remarked  upon, 
but  your  observations  on  Sir  Stafford  were  objected  to.  However, 
what  was  still  more  objected  to  was  your  going  to  stay  with  Sir 
Wilfrid  Lawson. 

These  exceptions  excepted,  your  visit  here  was  much  liked  and 
your  letter  on  departing  well  appreciated. 

The  Wolseley  bother  has  come  to  a  crisis.  .  .  . 

Harcourt's  stay  with  Lawson  occurred  in  connection 
with  his  visit  on  October  29  to  Cockermouth  to  speak  on 
juvenile  offenders.  It  was  about  this  time  that  he  began 
to  favour  local  option  as  the  solution  of  the  liquor  question. 
He  ignored  the  reference  to  his  visit  to  Lawson  in  his  reply 
to  Ponsonby,  but  said : 

Harcourt  to  Ponsonby. 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  November  8. — I  fear  I  can  hardly  hope  to 
give  satisfaction  politically,  but  if  I  suit  personally  it  is  as  much  as 
can  be  expected.  As  to  the  great  Duke  of  Cambridge  bear -fight  I 
hope  what  the  French  call  a  transaction  will  still  be  arrived  at.  I 
saw  Gladstone  at  Hawarden  and  Childers  here  this  morning  on  the 
subject.  I  am  not  authorized  to  say  anything,  but  I  hope  the  direct 
personal  difficulty  may  be  removed  and  consequently  the  rupture 
arrested,  but  H.R.H.  will  have  to  learn  for  the  future  that  the 
appointments  do  not  rest  with  him,  and  I  doubt  if  he  will  congratu- 
late himself  on  the  substituted  names.  ...  I  never  saw  G.  in  better 
health  and  spirits  than  he  was  at  Hawarden  where  we  spent  some 
pleasant  days. 

There  was  a  pleasanter  subject  between  Harcourt  and 
Balmoral  a  little  later.  He  wrote  to  Ponsonby  that  "  to- 
day (December  6)  I  found  an  equestrian  picture  of  H.M. 
by  Landseer  on  the  point  of  being  sold  to  a  Yankee  to  go 
to  America.  So  I  cut  him  out  and  kept  it  for  the  U.K." 
The  picture  was  painted  when  the  Queen  was  eighteen. 
She  remembered  the  sittings  she  gave  for  it  well,  said 
Ponsonby,  but  it  was  left  unfinished  : 

....  Her  Majesty  hopes  you  will  not  think  she  ever  wore  her 
hat  as  Landseer  has  represented  it.  He  insisted  on  placing  it  so 
for  artistic  reasons,  but  much  against  her  will. 

Earlier  in  the  year  Harcourt  had  sent  to  the  Prince  of 

EE 


4i8  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT      [1880-85 

Wales  two  water-colour  drawings  of  George  III  out  hunting, 
with  a  jocular  suggestion  that  they  might  decorate  the 
stables.  His  relations  with  the  Prince  were  free  from  the 
heavy  sense  of  decorum  that  marked  his  communications 
-with  the  Queen.  The  two  men  had  much  in  common,  and 
\J  healthy  understanding  and  good  feeling  characterized  their 
correspondence  which,  after  the  visit  of  Harcourt  and  his 
wife  to  Sandringham  in  April  of  this  year,  was  not  infre- 
quent. For  the  rest,  in  spite  of  his  heavy  duties,  he  found 
time  to  cultivate  his  friendships  and  enjoy  the  pleasant 
things  of  life,  especially  those  which  centred  in  his  family. 
Of  his  way  of  life  we  have  a  glimpse  in  a  merry  letter  to 
Lord  Lytton,  with  whom  in  spite  of  disagreements  over 
India  he  still  remained  on  cordial  terms : 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  January  7,  1881. — You  don't  know  how 
happy  your  letter  makes  me.  By  no  means  come  to  a  pompous 
dinner  on  Saturday.  I  am  obliged  to  dine  or  be  dined  en  ceremonie 
Wednesdays  and  Saturdays,  and  I  do  not  know  which  is  the  more 
detestable.  But  on  the  other  days  of  the  week  I  almost  always 
dine  at  home — on  furlough  for  an  hour  or  so.  If  you  will  come  with 
or  without  notice  on  any  Monday,  Tuesday,  Thursday  or  Friday, 
you  will  always  find  broken  meats,  ramshackle  company,  an  odd 
Radical,  an  Old  Whig,  a  strong  Tory,  and  occasionally  a  Traverser 
(masculine  for  Traviata)  picked  up  on  the  spot  in  the  H.  of  C.  and 
served  hot  and  hot.  If  this  menu  with  a  bottle  of  claret  smiles  upon 
you,  you  will  find  it  on  all  profane  days  with  the  warmest  of  welcomes 
at  7,  Grafton  Street.  Do  you  remember  the  meeting  at  Ripon  ; 
how  strange  all  that  has  happened  to  all  of  us  since. 

During  the  late  summer  of  this  year  Harcourt  went  as 
usual  to  Scotland  yachting  with  his  wife.  From  Loch 
Alsh  he  wrote  to  Ponsonby  : 

BALMACARRA,  LOCH  ALSH. — I  am  living  here  in  the  midst  of 
Celts  and  Papists  on  the  West  Coast  of  Scotland  who  have  no 
thoughts  of  dynamite  and  are  as  loyal  subjects  and  peaceful  citizens 
as  if  they  were  Lowland  Presbyterians.  .  .  . 

We  have  had  delicious  weather  yachting  about  the  Islands  for 
the  last  three  weeks  and  not  a  day's  rain  even  in  Skye.  .  .  .  We 
weathered  Cape  Wrath  last  Tuesday  in  a  perfect  calm,  and  my  wife 
wished  to  go  on  to  the  Orkneys,  but  I  was  too  prudent  to  attempt 
it  on  the  very  day  of  the  Equinox,  and  accordingly  a  gale  came  on 
next  day  from  the  East  which  would  probably  have  sent  us  to  the 
bottom. 


i88o-85]  A   HAPPY   HOME  419 

I  hope  the  weather  will  allow  us  to  keep  the  sea  a  week  or  two 
longer.  We  make  this  place  head-quarters,  and  come  back  at 
intervals  to  boxes  and  the  baby.  .  .  . 

His  son,  who  had  been  shooting  partridges  at  Studley, 
joined  the  family,  and  they  set  sail  again  for  the  Outer 
Hebrides,  where  they  were  caught  in  a  great  gale.  "It  is 
wonderful  to  think,"  he  wrote  to  his  sister,  "  that  old  Sam 
Johnson  should  have  navigated  these  strong  waters  in  an 
open  boat  in  November  when  they  are  now  sometimes  as 
much  as  we  can  manage  in  a  good  steam  yacht."  He 
returned  to  London  before  his  visit  to  Glasgow,  and  writes 
to  his  wife  who  had  remained  in  Scotland,  that  he  finds 
"  this  house  lonely,"  and  that  "  you  had  better  house 
Bobs  as  soon  as  possible  in  '  Grafton  Street,  Hay  Hill 
home.' '  He  is  full  of  complaints  that  he  has  had  no 
letter  from  his  wife  or  Loulou,  only  telegrams,  says  he  is 
"  homesick  without  a  family,"  and  concludes : 

.  .  .  This  is  my  birthday  dearest — the  first  I  think  I  ever  spent 
quite  alone.  I  have  thought  much  of  you  all  and  the  happiness  you 
have  made  for  me.  I  don't  think  any  man  was  ever  more  completely 
happy  in  his  wife  and  children  and  his  home.  God  bless  you  all 
for  it,  and  kiss  one  another  all  round  on  my  behalf.  How  I  wish  I 
was  with  you  to  do  it  for  myself. 

During  his  visit  to  Balmoral  in  October  he  kept  his  wife 
informed  of  the  life  at  Court,  the  company  there,  his  after- 
dinner  talks  with  the  Queen  and  the  manners  and  customs 
in  vogue.  "  We  wear  trousers  and  not  knees,  which  indi- 
cates a  more  relaxed  tone  of  Society  than  Windsor,  and  the 
dinner  last  night  was  pleasant  enough.  I  at  once  told 
many  stories  of  Bobbie  which  were  well  received."  Later, 
in  connection  with  his  speech  at  Derby  (November  26)  he 
paid  a  visit  with  Loulou  to  the  Duke  of  Devonshire  at 
Chatsworth,  where  he  tells  his  wife  there  was  a  family 
party  of  twenty-four — "  very  amiable,  not  very  lively. 
There  is  only  Emma  (Lady  Ed.  Cavendish)  who  can  be 
regarded  as  flirtable  ...  I  am  very  glad  of  a  day's  quiet 
rest,  for  after  a  speech  I  always  feel  as  if  the  virtue  had 
gone  out  of  me." 


CHAPTER  XIX 
PHCENIX   PARK 

Parnell's  leadership — Cabinet  discussion  over  coercion — Arrest 
of  Parnell — Harcourt  and  the  Irishmen  in  the  House — Demand 
for  Davitt's  release — Forster's  Coercion  Bill — Gladstone's 
Land  Bill — Fenian  outrages  in  England — Fenian  propaganda 
in  the  States — Parnell  arrested  once  more — Karcourt's  speech 
at  Derby  on  Ireland — The  Errington  Mission — The  Kilmainham 
negotiations — The  Phoenix  Park  murders — The  Crimes  Bill — 
Opponents  of  coercion  in  the  Cabinet — Lord  Spencer's  moderate 
attitude  —  Gladstone's  Arrears  Bill  —  Correspondence  with 
Lord  Spencer — The  Queen's  interest  in  the  Bill — Abandonment 
of  night  search — Harcourt' s  disagreement  with  Gladstone 
on  Irish  policy — Request  for  English  police  in  Dublin  refused 
by  Harcourt — The  Maamtrasna  murders. 

MEANWHILE  the  great  drama  that  was  to  dominate 
the  life  of  the  Government,  and  in  which  Harcourt 
became  involved  as  one  of  the  principals,  had 
begun  to  unfold.  With  the  election  of  Parnell  to  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Irish  Party  at  the  opening  of  the  new  Parliament 
the  Irish  agitation  entered  on  a  new  and  more  formidable 
phase.  It  would  have  done  so  in  any  case,  for  the  succes- 
sion of  bad  harvests  from  1877  to  1879  had  shown  that  the 
Land  Act  of  1870  was  inadequate  to  the  needs  of  the  tenants. 
They  could  not  pay  their  rents,  and  evictions  had  greatly 
increased  in  number.  The  Bright  clause  of  the  Act  intended 
to  facilitate  the  peasants'  purchase  of  land  was  practically 
inoperative,  and  a  radical  revision  was  plainly  necessary. 
The  Government,  through  the  Compensation  for  Disturbance 
Bill,  brought  in  in  June  1880,  had  gone  a  long  way  to  meet 
the  Irish  demand  for  the  recognition  of  full  tenant  right, 
but  this  wise  measure  was  rejected  by  the  House  of  Lords, 

420 


i88o]  "  CAPTAIN  BOYCOTT  '  421 

and  the  discontents  grew.  They  were  focussed  in  two  men 
who  embodied  the  new  policy. 

The  amiable  spirit  of  Isaac  Butt  had  given  place  to  a 
resolute  hostility  that  aimed  at  making  the  evictions  and 
government  itself  impossible.  Michael  Davitt,  that  romantic 
figure  with  the  tragic  faoe  and  the  armless  sleeve,  had 
returned  to  Ireland  some  two  years  before  after  eight  years 
spent  in  Dartmoor  prison,  and  had  founded  the  Irish  Land 
League  in  October  1879,  with  Parnell  as  its  first  President. 
The  American  Fenians  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
parliamentary  movement  and  distrusted  the  Land  League, 
but  Parnell  had  visited  America  and  secured  much  financial 
help,  and,  returnir^^nnounced  in  his  historic  speech  at  Ennis 
on  September^  18,  i88A  a  new  strategy  which  was  promptly 
adopted  againsT~Ca"pfain  Boycott,  and  became  known  by 
that  victim's  name.  Famine  threatened,  evictions  and 
outrages  became  more  numerous,  and  in  many  districts 
the  new  plan  of  isolating,  as  if  he  were  a  leper,  the  man 
who  took  a  farm  from  which  another  had  been  evicted  was 
carried  out.  As  the  autumn  advanced  the  difficulties  of 
the  Cabinet  increased.  Gladstone,  foiled  by  the  Lords  in 
his  policy  of  appeasement,  and  determined  to  carry  through 
a  new  Land  Bill,  was  opposed  to  coercive  measures  ;  but 
the  Opposition  were  crying  out  for  them,  and  Dublin  Castle 
was  demanding  them.  The  letters  of  the  Lord-Lieutenant, 
Lord  Cowper,  urged  strong  action,  and  Forster,  the  Irish 
Secretary,  demanded  the  suspension  of  Habeas  Corpus. 
"  The  actual  perpetrators  and  planners  [of  the  outrages] 
are  old  Fenians  and  old  Ribbonmen  and  mauvais  sujets," 
J  he  said.  "  They  would  shrink  into  their  holes  if  a  few 
were  arrested." 

Within  the  Cabinet  all  was  confusion  in  regard  to 
policy.  Chamberlain  and  Dilke  threatened  resignation  on 
the  one  side,  Cowper  and  Forster  on  the  other.  "  I  saw 
Harcourt,"  writes  Dilke1  in  his  diary  (November  15),  "and 
told  him  that  I  should  follow  Chamberlain  in  resigning  if 
a  special  Irish  coercion  session  were  to  be  called.  I  saw 

1  Gwynn  and  Tuckwell,  Life  of  Sir  Charles   W .  Dilke,  i,  246. 


422  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1880 

Chamberlain  immediately  after  the  Cabinet  which  was  held 
this  day.  Bright  and  Chamberlain  were  as  near  splitting 
off  at  one  end  as  Lord  Selborne  at  the  other."  Next  day 
.Harcourt  received  a  note  from  Chamberlain  making  the 
sensible  suggestion  that  if  he  must  bring  in  a  Coercion 
Bill  to  please  Forster  and  the  Tories  he  should  (pending 
the  production  of  a  Land  Bill)  accompany  it  with  a  measure 
of  one  clause  suspending  evictions  for  three  months. 

The  situation  was  aggravated  by  the  arrest  on  November  n 
of  Parnell  and  other  officials  of  the  Land  League  for  inciting 
to  the  non-payment  of  rent.  The  trial  in  Dublin  lasted 
twenty-one  days  and  ended,  as  it  was  expected  to  end,  in 
a  fiasco.  The  jury  after  four  hours  could  not  agree.  They 
/  were  sent  back  by  the  judges,  and  two  hours  later  summoned 
again.  "  There  is  no  good  in  keeping  us  here  any  longer," 
said  the  foreman  ;  "  we'll  never  agree."  "  We  are  ten  to 
two/'  said  another  of  the  jurymen,  and  the  gallery  burst 
into  applause.  Parnell  left  the  Court  victorious.  Irish 
opinion  was  solidly  at  his  back  and  at  the  back  of  the 
League. 

At  this  time  Harcourt  was  hostile  to  coercive  measures, 
and  in  writing  to  Gladstone  (November  18)  urged  delay. 
The  case  was  not  yet  made  out.  "  Of  course  The  Times 
and  the  Telegraph  and  generally  the  Jingo  Press  are  as  usual 
for  '  blood  and  thunder,'  "  but  the  provincial  Press  was 
more  reasonable,  and  he  observed  in  the  papers  "  that 
Campbell-Bannerman  (a  very  shrewd  and  sensible  man) 
took  credit  to  the  Government  for  not  having  been  frightened 
into  resort  to  measures  beyond  the  present  law."  To 
Chamberlain,  Harcourt  was  urging  moderation  on  the  other 
side.  "  Let  us  all  stick  to  the  ship."  Forster,  he  said, 
was  like  the  Yankee  general  after  Bull  Run — "  not  just 
afraid,  but  dreadful  demoralized."  Forster  was  demanding 
a  meeting  of  Parliament  before  Christmas,  but  Gladstone 
was  silent  on  the  subject.  On  December  II  Lewis  Harcourt 
took  a  note  from  his  father  to  Dilke  :  "  L.  will  tell  you 
what  he  heard  from  Brett  (Lord  Esher,  Hartington's  private 
secretary).  It  is  odd  that  the  Sawbones  should  know  what 


A 


i88i]  IRISH   OBSTRUCTION  423 

we  are  trying  to  find  out."  Sawbones  was  Gladstone's 
physician,  Sir  Andrew  Clarke,  who  had  told  Mr.  Brett  that 
Parliament  was  to  meet  before  Christmas. 

But  "  Sawbones  "  was  wrong.  Parliament  did  not  meet 
before  Christmas.  It  met  on  January  6  in  an  atmosphere 
of  impending  trouble.  Coercion  and  land  legislation  were 
to  be  the  solvents  of  the  trouble.  The  Irish  demanded 
precedence  for  the  Land  Bill,  but  Forster  was  insistent  and 
got  precedence  for  a  Protection  of  Person  and  Property  Bill, 
and  an  amendment  of  the  law  relative  to  the  possession 
and  carrying  of  arms.  There  followed  scenes  unprecedented 
in  the  history  of  Parliament.  The  weapon  of  obstruction 
which  Parnell  and  Biggar  had  forged  in  the  teeth  of  Butt's 
opposition,  was  now  the  official  instrument  of  the  party, 
and  it  reduced  Parliament  to  a  bear  garden.  Through  six 
days  and  nights  the  struggle  over  the  first  reading  con- 
tinued, and  from  January  31  to  February  2  the  House  sat 
continuously  for  forty-one  and  a  half  hours,  at  the  end  of 
which  the  Speaker,  stretching  the  power  vested  in  the  Chair, 
closed  the  debate  by  putting  the  question  that  the  Bill  be 
now  brought  in.  The  House  had  been  for  some  hours  in 
charge  of  Lyon  Playfair,  when  at  nine  o'clock  the  Speaker 
returned.  Biggar,  who  was  speaking,  sat  down  in  accord- 
ance With  custom,  expecting  to  be  called  immediately,  but 
the  Speaker  forthwith  closed  the  debate.  This  exercise  of 
the  independent  authority  of  the  Chair  won  the  first  round 
against  obstruction,  and  had  been  prearranged  with  Glad- 
stone, with  Stafford  Northcote's  concurrence.  The  Speaker, 
however,  took  this  exceptional  course,  he  says  in  his  note 
of  the  proceedings,  only  after  stipulating  that  Gladstone 
should  reconsider  the  regulation  of  business,  either  by  giving 
more  authority  to  the  House,  or  by  conferring  authority 
on  the  Speaker. 

Meanwhile  pressure  was  being  put  upon  Harcourt  to 
revoke  Michael  Davitt's  "  ticket-of -leave."  He  finally 
yielded,  and  on  February  3,  in  reply  to  a  question  from 
Parnell,  he  said  that  Davitt  had  been  rearrested  as  his 
conduct  was  incompatible  with  his  ticket-of-leave.  There 


424  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1881 

followed  scenes  of  intense  anger.  Davitt  was  in  London 
at  the  time,  and  there  is  a  note  in  the  Journal  that  records 
a  dramatic  incident  that  preceded  his  arrest : 

February  15. —  .  .  .  When  Michael  Davitt  was  in  the  Gallery  of 
the  House  of  Commons  about  ten  days  ago  Howard  Vincent  (Scotland 
Yard)  sat  by  him  for  some  time  without  recognizing  him.  Labou- 
chere  came  up  to  the  Gallery,  and  having  greeted  Davitt  saw  Vincent, 
upon  which  he  said,  "  Mr.  Vincent — Mr.  Davitt — you  are  two  men 
who  ought  to  know  one  another."  I  believe  their  faces  were  a 
sight  to  be  seen.  [H.]. 

On  the  night  of  February  9  there  was  a  dinner  at  Har- 
court's  house,  and  afterwards  a  large  party  including  Cham- 
berlain, Dilke,  Childers  and  many  M.P.'s.  "  Several  Irish 
members  were  asked,"  says  the  Journal,  "  but  none  of  them 
came,  as  I  suppose  they  are  still  huffy."  The  comment  is 
not  so  odd  as  it  seems.  It  is  true  that  Harcourt  had 
announced  the  arrest  of  Davitt,  but  he  was  still  working 
for  peace,  and  was  personally  on  good  terms  with  the 
Irish  members.  Indeed  throughout  the  fierce  struggles 
that  were  to  ensue  this  personal  good  feeling  continued, 
and  many  records  bear  witness  to  it.  Contrasting  the 
methods  of  Forster  and  Harcourt  in  the  handling  of  their 
respective  Coercion  Bills,  Lord  George  Hamilton  in  his 
Reminiscences  and  Reflections  says,  "  Forster  .  .  .  seemed 
perpetually  to  irritate  and  aggravate  the  Irish  members. 
Harcourt,  on  the  other  hand,  by  his  control  and  command 
of  the  more  polished  language  of  the  practised  advocate, 
contrived,  with  one  or  two  notable  exceptions,  to  handle 
his  opponents  very  successfully."  Lord  Eversley,  in  his 
Gladstone  and  Ireland,  bears  the  same  testimony.  But  it 
was  more  than  the  skill  of  the  "  practised  advocate " 
that  explained  the  difference.  Justin  McCarthy  in  his 
Reminiscences  pays  a  high  tribute  to  Harcourt's  good  feel- 
ing during  these  bitter  times : 

.  .  .  Sir  William  Harcourt  was,  after  Gladstone  himself,  the 
strongest  fighting  man  on  the  Treasury  Bench.  He  delighted  in 
hard  hitting,  and  he  did  not  seem  to  grumble  when  he  received  hard 
hits  in  return.  He  stood  up  to  Parnell  many  a  time,  and  when  I 
summoned  up  courage  enough  to  assail  him  I  need  hardly  say  that 


i88i]  MICHAEL   DAVITT  425 

he  gave  me  a  great  deal  better  than  I  had  brought.  During  the  most 
heated  period  of  that  warfare  I  had  on  three  or  four  occasions  to 
make  application  to  Sir  William  Harcourt,  as  Home  Secretary, 
for  some  exercise  of  his  official  authority  on  behalf  of  entirely  un- 
known and  uninfluential  applicants  who  knew  no  other  member  of 
the  House  of  Commons.  All  that  I  had  to  ask  of  Sir  William  in 
each  of  these  cases  was  a  slight  relaxation  of  the  prison  rules.  The 
Home  Secretary  had  only  to  say  that  he  could  not  interfere  with  the 
ordinary  course  of  prison  discipline  and  there  was  an  end  of  the 
matter.  My  friends  and  I  had  made  ourselves  as  troublesome  as 
we  could  to  the  Government,  and  I,  like  others  of  us,  had  had  sharp 
and  angry  personal  altercation  across  the  floor  of  the  House  with 
Sir  William  Harcourt.  Nothing,  however,  could  have  been  more 
considerate  and  more  kindly  than  the  Home  Secretary's  manner  of 
dealing  with  each  of  my  applications.  He  sent  for  me,  he  gave  me 
a  most  patient  hearing,  he  went  out  of  his  way  to  make  himself 
acquainted  with  the  circumstances  of  each  case,  and  to  find  out 
if  there  was  anything  exceptional  in  each  which  would  justify  any 
relaxation  of  the  ordinary  rules. 

Gladstone  had  consented  as  unwillingly  as  most  of  his 
colleagues  to  the  arrest  of  Davitt,  and  wrote  to  Harcourt 
expressing  the  general  feeling  that  his  treatment  should  be 
as  mild  as  possible.  "  Having  put  him  out  of  the  way  of 
mischief,  any  allowable  consideration  for  him  will  be  so 
much  to  the  good."  Harcourt  needed  no  pressure  on  the 
point,  and  ordered  that  Davitt  should  be  allowed  to  work 
in  the  governor's  garden,  be  supplied  with  books,  and  have 
all  the  comforts  consistent  with  detention. 

There  was  much  controversy  over  the  legality  of  the 
revocation  of  the  ticket-of-leave,  and  when  on  August  9 
Parnell  on  a  formal  motion  demanded  Davitt's  liberation, 
Harcourt  denied  that  the  reimprisonment  was  due,  as 
Parnell  suggested,  to  the  fact  that  Davitt  had  spoken  of 
the  Chief  Secretary  as  "  Outrage  Forster,"  and  read  a 
speech  in  which  Davitt  had  said  that  "  the  world  will  hold 
England  responsible  if  the  wolf-dog  of  Irish  vengeance  bounds 
over  the  Atlantic  at  the  very  heart  of  the  Power  from 
which  it  is  now  held  back  by  the  influence  of  the  Land 
League. ' '  Would  any  Power  on  earth  tolerate  such  language 
from  a  Fenian  convict  ?  Harcourt  proceeded  to  quote  the 
violent  language  of  O'Donovan  Rossa  and  other  Clan-na- 


426  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1881 

Gael  men.  He  did  not  know  how  bitterly  hostile  these  men 
were  to  Davitt  and  the  League,  and  how  much  truth  there 
had  been  in  Davitt's  assertion  that  it  was  the  Land  League 
which  held  the  wolf-hound  of  extremism  in  check. 


II 

But  this  is  to  anticipate  events.  Meanwhile  the  struggle 
at  Westminster  had  been  going  forward  with  heightening 
passion.  The  Speaker  had  been  given  powers  of  closure, 
but  this  only  changed  the  character  of  the  conflict.  On 
February  22  in  Committee  Harcourt  defended  emergency 
legislation  on  the  ground  of  a  Fenian  conspiracy.  He  said 
that  his  information  was  not  based  on  informers  but  on 
the  declared  statement  of  O'Donovan  Rossa  in  the  United 
Irishman,  and  of  John  Devoy  of  the  American  Land  League. 
O'Donovan  Rossa  had  openly  advocated  the  assassination 
of  ministers  and  the  burning  of  London.  He  did  not  assume 
that  members  of  the  Irish  Land  League  held  these  views, 
but  the  Government  was  bound  to  take  measures  of  defence 
in  face  of  such  statements.  After  fierce  scenes  which 
resulted  in  the  expulsion  of  the  whole  Parnellite  Party, 
the  Bill  was  passed  on  February  28.  Under  the  new  powers, 
which  meant  the  suspension  of  Habeas  Corpus,  the  Lord- 
Lieutenant  was  able  to  arrest  anyone  on  suspicion  and  hun- 
dreds of  men  were  swept  into  Kilmainham  and  other  gaols. 

The  next  and  immediate  step  was  Harcourt's  introduction 
(March  i)  of  the  Peace  Preservation  Bill  (the  Arms  Bill) 
which  gave  powers  for  the  search  for  and  the  prohibition 
of  arms.  Dilke  records  (February  12)  that  Gladstone, 
Bright  and  Chamberlain  "  fought  hard  in  the  Cabinet 
against  the  Arms  Bill.  Harcourt,  however,  said  that 
'  coercion  was  like  caviare ;  unpleasant  at  first  to  the 
palate,  it  becomes  agreeable  with  use ' ;  and  led  by  Har- 
court the  majority  insisted  on  having  more  coercion." 
Passion  was  still  high,  and  the  bitter  conflicts  that  had 
become  the  commonplace  of  the  debates  continued  during 
the  passage  of  the  Bill.  After  a  violent  attack  by  Mr.  John 
Dillon  (March  3)  Harcourt  said  : 


i88i]  IRISH   LAND   BILL  427 

We  have  heard  the  doctrine  of  the  Land  League  expounded  by 
the  man  who  has  the  authority  to  explain  it ;  and  to-morrow  every 
subject  of  the  Queen  will  know  that  the  doctrine  so  expounded  is 
the  doctrine  of  treason  and  assassination.  .  .  .  The  language  of 
Redpath  which  I  read  the  other  day,  and  in  which  he  recommended 
that  the  landowners  should  be  shot  down  like  rabbits,  was  exactly 
the  language  which  the  hon.  member  for  Tipperary  has  just  used.  .  .  . 

Who  support  the  Land  League  in  Dublin  ?  Is  it  supported  by 
Irish  subscriptions  ?  Why,  the  Irish  subscriptions  are  coppers, 
but  the  gold  and  silver  come  from  Fenianism  in  America. 

He  did  not  say  that  all  members  of  the  Land  League 
held  Fenian  views,  but  Mr.  Dillon  had  avowed  them.  Mr. 
Timothy  Healy  charged  the  Home  Secretary  with  "  a 
deliberate  untruth "  in  saying  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Land  League  was  a  doctrine  of  assassination  and  treason. 
He  was  called  upon  to  withdraw  the  remark,  did  so  but 
repeated  it  in  other  words  and  was  suspended.  In  com- 
mittee the  temper  was  milder,  Harcourt  was  conciliatory 
(he  was  actually  complimented  by  Mr.  Healy  on  his  suavity), 
and  the  Bill  passed  on  March  n. 

With  these  repressive  powers  in  hand,  Gladstone  pro- 
ceeded with  his  scheme  of  appeasement.  The  Land  Bill 
was  a  large  and  just  measure,  which  practically  recognized 
duality  of  ownership,  gave  the  tenant  fair  rent,  fixed  tenure, 
free  sale,  and  the  protection  of  a  commission  presided  over 
by  a  judge  or  ex-judge,  and  provided  for  assistance  from 
the  Public  Exchequer  for  the  purchase  of  land  by  the  tenant. 
It  was  a  good  Bill  and  Parnell  knew  it  was  a  good  Bill, 
and  was  determined  not  to  prevent  its  passage.  But  the 
extreme  spirits  were  hostile  to  "  remedial  legislation  "  as 
the  enemy  of  the  national  demand  for  self-government, 
and  between  the  two  views  Parnell  imposed  on  his  party 
an  attitude  of  aloofness,  neither  accepting  nor  rejecting  the 
measure.  "  I  must  congratulate  you  heartily  on  the  success 
of  the  Land  Bill,"  wrote  Harcourt  to  Gladstone  (April  n). 
"  It  seems  almost  to  have  persuaded  Parnell  to  become  a 
Christian."  The  Opposition  this  time  came  from  the  Con- 
servatives, who,  as  usual  when  in  opposition,  found  their 
refuge  in  the  House  of  Lords.  For  a  time  the  Bill  was 
in  danger,  as  this  note  from  the  Journal  shows  : 


428  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1881 

August  14.  Gladstone  and  W.  V.  H.  had  a  very  hard  fight  to 
get  the  Cabinet  to  decide  on  resisting  the  House  of  Lords  on  the 
Irish  Land  Bill.  The  Lord  Chancellor,  Granville,  Kimberley, 
Northbrook  and  Hartington  were  strongly  opposed  to  it,  and  the 
rest,  with  the  exception  of  Bright  and  Chamberlain,  were  neutral, 
but  Bright,  Chamberlain,  Gladstone  and  Har court  carried  their 
point.  [H.] 

The  Land  Bill  became  law,  but  neither  coercion  nor 
appeasement  brought  peace,  whether  in  Ireland  or  England. 
Public  opinion  at  home  was  kept  in  a  state  of  feverish  alarm 
by  rumoured  Fenian  outrages.  There  had  been  an  attempted 
explosion  at  the  Mansion  House  on  May  16,  and  in  June 
there  was  an  attempt  to  blow  up  the  Liverpool  Town  Hall. 
These  troubles  did  not  come  from  Ireland,  but  from  the 
Fenians  in  America,  where  a  propaganda  of  violence  directed 
against  England  was  being  carried  on  in  various  publica- 
tions. In  the  attempt  to  deal  with  this  Harcourt  came 
into  conflict  with  some  of  his  colleagues,  notably  Dilke  at 
the  Foreign  Office,  over  the  use  of  secret-service  money. 
The  result  of  this  policy,  Dilke  insisted,  was  the  fabrication 
of  plots,  and  Harcourt  himself  later  modified  his  view  on 
the  subject.  One  incident  in  connection  with  this  phase 
of  the  struggle  brought  the  Foreign  Office  into  some  trouble. 
Parnell  complained  in  the  House  that  he  had  been  shadowed 
in  Paris  by  persons  from  the  Embassy.  Lord  Lyons  denied 
this  and  demanded  a  contradiction.  "  Harcourt,  however, 
would  not  allow  a  contradiction  to  be  given,"  says  Dilke  ;  l 
"  and  the  fact  was  that  Parnell  had  been  watched,  but 
watched  by  the  Home  Office,  through  the  police,  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  Embassy."  It  was  not  the  only 
subject  of  conflict  between  the  Foreign  Office  and  the  Home 
Office.  Harcourt  was  receiving  despatches  from  the  Foreign 
Office  asking  what  was  to  be  done  about  the  incendiary 
literature  in  America.  Harcourt  retorted  by  asking  what 
the  Foreign  Office  thought  should  be  done.  To  Granville 
he  wrote  : 

HOME  OFFICE,  June  2. —  .  .  .  No  doubt  these  atrocious  publica- 
tions are  mainly  intended  for  the  purpose  of  raising  money,  but  as 

1  Life,  i.  366. 


i88i]  FENIANS   IN   THE   STATES  429 

I  told  the  American  Minister  privately  last  night  it  is  not  compatible 
with  the  self-respect  of  a  civilized  state  that  they  should  allow  money 
to  be  raised  openly  on  such  pretences.  .  .  . 

To  Gladstone  he  wrote  (June  13)  asking  him  to  give  him 
"  a  good  hearing  at  the  Cabinet  to-day  on  the  subject  of 
the  assassination  literature  in  the  United  States."  The 
Queen  was  highly  pleased  with  Harcourt's  attitude.  She 
observed,  wrote  Ponsonby,  "  that  you  were  the  only  Minister 
of  the  present  Government  that  had  any  determination." 
She  was  much  concerned  at  "  the  U.S.  allowing  the  propaga- 
tion of  atrocious  doctrines  to  go  on  publicly,"  and  through 
Ponsonby  wrote  to  Harcourt  calling  his  attention  to  the 
Fenian  threats  in  New  York  papers  against  the  Prince  of 
Wales.  "  The  Queen  would  not  wish  the  Princess  of  Wales 
to  be  alarmed  by  these  reports,  but  does  not  think  it  right 
to  keep  them  from  the  knowledge  of  the  Prince."  Writing 
to  Granville,  Harcourt  summarizes  the  incitements  to  outrage 
in  England — the  murder  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  the  murder 
of  Gladstone  and  so  on — in  O'Donovan  Rossa's  New  York 
paper  United  Irishman,  and  says : 

Harcourt  to  Granville. 

HOME  OFFICE,  June  17. —  ...  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  remonstrate  with  the  Government  of  the  U.S. 
against  the  publication  of  such  papers  within  their  jurisdiction. 
By  no  possibility  could  the  venerable  and  venerated  name  of  free- 
dom of  discussion  or  liberty  of  the  Press  be  prostituted  to  cover 
such  outrages  against  public  decency.  .  .  .  Would  the  U.S.  or  any 
civilized  Government  tolerate  the  keeping  of  an  office  to  collect  and 
distribute  money  publicly  for  the  purpose  of  murder  and  incendiar- 
ism directed  against  individuals  even  though  they  happened  to  be 
political  antagonists  within  their  own  borders.  If  so,  will  they 
tolerate  the  open  profession  of  a  trade  in  assassination  and  arson 
aimed  at  public  and  private  persons  in  a  friendly  country.  .  .  . 

The  emissaries  of  O'Donovan  Rossa  come  over  with  the  wages  of 
murder  publicly  advertised  in  America  in  their  hands,  commit  the 
crime  for  which  they  were  openly  hired,  and  return  to  the  United 
States  to  receive  publicly  the  reward  which  they  have  earned.  This 
is  a  state  of  things  which  is  subversive  of  the  very  foundations  of 
society,  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  may  be  confidently 
appealed  to  to  take  such  measures  as  they  shall  think  fit  to  restrain 
this  open  defiance  of  public  morals. 


430  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1881 

He  was  writing  at  the  same  time  in  another  vein  to  the 
Queen,  who  was  concerned  about  the  precautions  for  her 
journey  to  the  North.  "  I  wrote  to  the  Queen  yesterday," 
he  tells  Ponsonby  (June  17).  "I  hope  you  will  take  any 
opportunity  of  reassuring  H.M.  as  to  the  question  of  actual 
danger.  I  have  watched  this  business  most  intently  now 
for  more  than  six  months.  There  was  a  time  when  I  thought 
the  matter  really  formidable,  but  the  more  I  learn  of  it 
the  less  it  alarms  me.  ..."  His  alarms,  however,  were 
renewed  a  few  days  later.  A  vessel  arrived  at  Liverpool 
bringing  barrels  of  cement  alleged  to  contain  infernal 
machines.  The  barrels  were  taken  over  by  the  Customs, 
and  in  these  the  machines  were  found.  In  communicating 
the  news  to  Granville,  Harcourt  says : 

RAMSGATE,  July  3. — I  have  just  read  the  horrid  news  of  Garfield's 
assassination.  I  think  this  terrible  event  will  considerably  modify 
the  views  of  Lowell  and  Blaine  on  the  subject  of  political  murder 
and  O'Donovan  Rossa's  proceedings.  It  will  confirm  those  who 
think  us  right  and  confound  those  who  have  been  disposed  to  ridicule 
our  alarms  and  condemn  our  proceedings.  .  .  . 

These  events  led  to  promise  of  action  by  Blaine,  who 
said  the  United  States  Government  were  investigating  the 
origin  of  the  infernal  machines,  and  thought  it  would  be 
found  that  very  few  persons  were  actually  involved.  In 
the  meantime,  Harcourt  was  in  unceasing  correspondence 
with  Vincent  and  Scotland  Yard  as  to  the  various  outrages 
and  threatened  outrages,  and  was  in  conflict  with  some  of 
his  colleagues  as  well  as  with  the  Irish  on  the  subject  of 
the  opening  of  suspicious  letters.  "  How  I  wish  August 
were  come,"  he  writes  to  Ponsonby. 

in 

But  the  recess  brought  little  release  from  the  anxieties, 
in  spite  of  the  "  amphibian  life  "  in  the  Hebrides.  Harcourt 
was  summoned  back  to  London  "to  shut  up  Parnell." 
The  immediate  excuse  for  Parnell's  arrest  was  a  speech 
delivered  at  Wexford  on  October  9  in  which  he  said  :  "  The 
Irishman  who  thinks  that  he  can  now  throw  away  his 


i88i]  ARREST   OF   PARNELL  431 

arms,  just  as  Grattan  disbanded  the  volunteers  in  1789, 
will  find,  to  his  sorrow  and  destruction,  when  too  late,  that 
he  has  placed  himself  in  the  power  of  the  perfidious  and 
cruel  and  relentless  British  enemy."  Gladstone  he  described 
as  "  this  masquerading  knight  errant,  this  perfidious  cham- 
pion of  the  rights  of  every  other  nation,  except  those  of  the 
Irish  nation."  He  asserted  that  Gladstone  had  admitted 
that  England's  mission  in  Ireland  had  been  a  failure,  and 
that  Irishmen  have  established  their  right  to  govern  Ireland 
by  laws  made  by  themselves.  Forster  took  the  opinion  of 
the  Irish  law  officers  on  this  speech,  and  then  crossed  over 
to  England  to  attend  a  meeting  of  the  Cabinet,  where  it 
was  decided  to  arrest  Parnell  under  the  terms  of  the  Coercion 
Act.  Messrs.  Dillon,  Sexton  and  O' Kelly  were  arrested  at 
the  same  time.  Biggar  and  Healy  escaped  by  remaining 
in  England. 

Granville,  writing  to  Selborne  1  (October  12)  about  the 
Cabinet  decision  to  arrest  Parnell,  said,  "  No  opposition 
except  from  Harcourt,  who  took  legal  points  on  which  he 
appeared  to  be  wrong."  His  opposition  was  obviously 
Pickwickian,  for  writing  to  his  wife  on  the  day  of  Parnell's 
arrest  (October  13),  Harcourt  said,  "It  is  a  great  event, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  foresee  all  the  consequences,  but  it 
was  inevitable."  What  the  effect  will  be  on  his  reception 
at  Glasgow  which  was  one-third  Irish  he  did  not  know. 
"  We  may  be  in  civil  war  by  that  time.  But  one  can  never 
tell.  The  Irish  are  like  the  West  coast  gales,  one  can  never 
guess  when  or  whence  they  will  blow  or  cease."  And  three 
days  later  he  writes  again  to  his  wife  : 

.  .  .  Forster  goes  on  bagging  his  Leaguers,  and  Dillon  and  Sexton 
are  now  in  the  mouse  trap.  I  am  sorry  he  has  missed  Healy,  who  is 
the  most  dangerous,  and  T.  P.  O'Connor,  who  is  the  noisiest  of  them 
all.  I  am  glad  our  friend  A.  M.  Sullivan  and  O'Connor  Power  are 
out  of  the  row.  ...  I  fear  nothing  at  Balmoral  but  the  cold,  as  I 
am  sure  H.M.  will  be  radiant  at  all  this  coercion. 

But  while  endorsing  and  taking  his  share  in  carrying  out 
the  policy  of  coercion,  Harcourt  did  not  forget  the  causes 

1  Lord  Selborne,  Memorials   Political  and  Personal,  ii.  30. 


432  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1882 

of  discontent  or  the  need  of  removing  those  causes.  In 
his  speech  at  Derby  (November  26)  he  dealt  exclusively 
with  Ireland,  and  made  a  reasoned  reply  to  Salisbury's 
accusation  that  the  lawless  condition  of  that  country  was 
due  to  Liberal  weakness  and  that  the  spirit  of  the  Land 
Act  was  an  attack  on  property.  Harcourt  took  the  ground 
that  Ireland's  grievances,  especially  in  regard  to  the  land, 
were  real  grievances,  that  they  were  chiefly  due  to  Tory 
misgovernment  in  the  past,  and  that  while  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  Government  to  maintain  order,  it  was  not  less  their 
duty  to  remove  the  causes  of  discontent.  It  was  soon 
obvious  that  the  Coercion  Act  was  a  failure,  and  that  the 
imprisonment  of  Parnell  and  his  colleagues  was  worse  than 
useless.  "  If  you  are  arrested,  who  will  take  your  place  ?  " 
Parnell  was  asked  at  a  meeting  at  Wexford  when  his  arrest 
was  anticipated.  "  Captain  Moonlight  will  take  my  place," 
he  replied. 

Events  confirmed  the  forecast.  The  condition  of  Ireland 
grew  steadily  worse  during  the  winter,  outrages  increased 
threefold,  and  the  no-rent  propaganda  spread  like  a  prairie 
fire.  Gladstone  had  no  liking  for  and  little  faith  in  repres- 
sion, and  several  of  his  colleagues  in  the  Government  were 
notoriously  hostile  to  it.  He  was  feeling  his  way  already 
to  a  large  solution  of  the  ancient  quarrel,  and  in  the  early 
days  of  the  new  Session  (February  18)  said  in  the  House 
that  a  demand  from  Ireland  that  purely  Irish  affairs  should 
be  under  purely  Irish  control  was  not  in  his  opinion  so 
dangerous  that  it  should  be  refused  consideration,  but  the 
proper  way  of  meeting  it  was  to  require  those  who  proposed 
it  to  say  what  provision  they  intended  to  make  for  the 
supremacy  of  the  Imperial  Parliament.  In  the  meantime 
a  minor  storm  had  arisen  in  regard  to  the  Errington  Mission 
to  Rome,  which  fanned  the  old  embers  of  "No  Popery  " 
into  a  feeble  flicker.  Harcourt  was  a  stalwart  of  Protes- 
tantism, but  he  believed  that  any  influence  which  could 
be  brought  to  bear  on  the  political  situation  should  be 
invoked,  and  in  sending  a  "  formula  "  on  the  subject  to 
Granville  he  said : 


i882]  DEMAND  FOR  COERCION  433 

Har  court  to  Granville. 

HOME  OFFICE,  February  12, 1882. —  .  .  .  In  such  a  state  of  things 
as  that  which  exists  in  Ireland  I  for  one  should  not  be  afraid  to  assert 
that  I  had  had  recourse  to  any  instrument  which  offered  a  legitimate 
prospect  of  sustaining  the  framework  of  society.  I  should  point 
out  how  mischievous  it  is  by  such  questions  as  those  now  put  to 
seek  to  influence  religious  animosities  at  a  moment  when  it  is  of  the 
highest  consequence  to  rally  men  of  all  creeds  and  opinions  to  the 
side  of  order  and  good  government.  I  would  add  that  if  the  clergy 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  and  their  Head  are  willing  to  aid  in  the  difficult 
task  of  tranquillizing  Ireland  it  is  not  the  business  of  any  wise 
Government  or  any  good  citizen  to  repel  their  co-operation  in  a  spirit 
of  intolerance,  but  rather  to  welcome  their  co-operation  in  the 
common  cause. 

Granville  endorsed  Harcourt's  formula,  and  the  "  No 
Popery  "  alarm  soon  vanished  before  the  impending  rupture. 
Cowper,  writing  from  Dublin,  admitted  the  failure  that  had 
attended  the  policy  of  repression.  "  Every  one,"  he  said, 
"  advised  us  to  suspend  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act.  .  .  .  The 
police  led  us  quite  astray.  They  said  they  knew  all  the 
people  who  got  up  the  outrages,  and  that  if  the  Habeas 
Corpus  Act  was  suspended  they  could  arrest  them.  Of 
course  we  found  out  afterwards  that  they  were  mistaken." 
What  was  to  be  done  ?  Coercion  had  failed  :  let  us  have 
more  coercion,  was  the  demand  of  Cowper  and  Forster.  But 
Gladstone  would  not  advance  deeper  into  that  bog  except 
under  compulsion.  If  he  did  the  rupture  would  not  be 
prevented  ;  it  would  only  be  changed  in  character.  More- 
over the  Tories  at  this  moment  exhibited  a  singular  modera- 
tion in  regard  to  Ireland,  called  through  John  Gorst  for  a 
new  departure,  protested  through  Sir  John  Hay  against 
the  imprisonment  of  large  numbers  of  Her  Majesty's  subjects 
in  solitary  confinement,  without  cause  assigned  and  without 
trial,  and  asked,  through  W.  H.  Smith,  for  an  extension  of 
land  purchase. 

Meanwhile,  through  Captain  O'Shea,  Parnell  was  in  com- 
munication with  Gladstone  and  Chamberlain.  The  former 
apprised  Forster  of  what  passed  and  of  the  ideas  under 
consideration.  They  involved  on  the  one  side  the  intro- 
duction of  an  Arrears  Bill  to  calm  the  discontents  in  Ireland, 

FF 


434  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1882 

and  on  the  other  the  exercise  of  Parnell's  influence  to  slow 
down  the  agitation.  Through  this  policy  of  appeasement, 
Parnell  said,  in  a  letter  dated  April  30,  that  he  looked  for 
co-operation  of  the  Irish  party  and  the  Liberal  party,  and 
an  improvement  which  would  speedily  justify  the  Govern- 
ment in  dispensing  with  coercive  measures.  The  night 
before,  at  the  Royal  Academy  dinner,  Forster  had  told 
Harcourt  that  he  would  resign  "if  it  is  decided  to  let  out 
the  men."  He  was  sympathetic  on  the  question  of  arrears, 
but  he  would  not  sanction  the  release  of  Parnell.  The  tide, 
however,  was  against  him.  Hartington  was  the  last  doubtful 
to  be  won  over,  as  the  following  entry  in  the  Journal  indi- 
cates : 

May  i.  W.  V.  H.  and  Granville  went  this  morning  to  Devonshire 
House  to  square  Hartington  for  the  Irish  crisis,  as  he  seems  to  doubt 
the  advisability  of  releasing  the  suspects  against  Forster's  will  and 
thereby  forcing  his  resignation.  [H.] 

The  prisoners  were  released  next  day,  and  the  same  day 
the  resignations  of  Lord  Cowper  and  Forster  were  announced 
in  the  House. 

Lord  Spencer  was  appointed  Lord-Lieutenant,  and 
Chamberlain  had  expressed  his  readiness  to  take  the  Irish 
Secretaryship.  In  the  end,  says  Sir  Charles  Dilke,1  after 
the  offer  had  been  made  to  and  rejected  by  Hartington,  his 
brother  Lord  Frederick  Cavendish  was  chosen.  Harcourt 
had  suggested  the  appointment  of  Dilke,  but  Gladstone  in 
reply  urged  "  a  less  aspiring  course  and  no  seat  in  the 
Cabinet,"  which  Dilke  made  a  condition  of  acceptance — 
hence  Cavendish.  Harcourt  in  his  reply  (May  4)  said  : 
"  F.  Cavendish  is  like  the  aftv/iovei;,  a  man  whom  all  like 
and  all  respect.  His  self-sacrifice  will  command  for  him 
still  greater  esteem.  All  that  I  can  say  of  him  is  that  I 
think  he  is  too  good  for  the  job."  He  then  went  on  to  say 
that  the  case  of  Davitt  was  pressing  and  asked  for  Glad- 
stone's opinion  about  his  release.  He  had  that  day  received 
the  following  telegram  from  the  Queen: 

May  4,  11.30  p.m. — Is  it  possible  that  M.  Davitt,  known  as  one 
1  Life,  i.  440. 


i882]  PHCENIX   PARK   CRIME  435 

of  the  worst  of  the  treasonable  agitators,  is  also  to  be  released  ? 
I  cannot  believe  it.  Three  suspects  were  spoken  of,  but  no  one 
else.  I  had  not  heard  a  word  about  the  former. 

Two  days  later,  by  which  time  Davitt  was  free,  there 
came  an  indignant  letter  from  Ponsonby,  protesting  against 
the  release  of  Davitt,  stating  that  the  Queen  thought  she 
ought  not  to  have  learned  of  the  fact  through  the  parlia- 
mentary report,  and  concluding  "  The  Queen  cannot  deny 
that  she  looks  with  great  anxiety  to  the  effect  which  will 
be  produced  in  Ireland  by  the  change  of  policy  in  the  Govern- 
ment." A  little  later  she  telegraphed  to  Harcourt,  "  Have 
you  seen  how  Davitt  profits  by  his  release  ?  Is  this  language 
to  be  tolerated  with  impunity  ?  "  Harcourt  wrote  a  sooth- 
ing letter,  impressing  on  the  Queen  his  confident  belief  that 
Davitt's  influence  was  being  used  against  outrage.  This 
view  was  confirmed  in  a  letter  (May  n)  from  Howard  Vin- 
cent at  Scotland  Yard  to  Harcourt  in  which  he  said  that 
"  Davitt  will  do  anything  I  want  and  give  every  assistance 
that  is  possible." 

IV 

Meanwhile  a  crime  of  a  shocking  and  unprecedented  kind 
had  plunged  the  country  in  anger  and  alarm  and  thrown 
its  baleful  shadow  over  the  new  policy  of  conciliation. 
Lord  Frederick  Cavendish  had  gone  to  Ireland  immediately 
on  his  appointment  as  Irish  Secretary,  and  on  the  evening 
of  May  6  he  and  his  Under-Secretary,  Mr.  Burke,  were 
stabbed  to  death  as  they  were  walking  in  Phoenix  Park, 
Dublin.  There  had  been  a  Cabinet  meeting  that  morning 
to  consider  the  closure  proposals  of  the  Government  embodied 
in  the  new  rules  of  procedure  introduced  in  February. 
Gladstone  had  favoured  accepting  the  Tory  two-thirds 
amendment  which  made  it  practically  impossible  to  apply 
the  closure  against  the  regular  Opposition.  Harcourt  was 
strongly  opposed  to  this  concession,  and  as  he  was  unable 
to  be  at  the  Cabinet  he  wrote  a  long  letter  to  Gladstone 
protesting  against  the  compromise  and  the  futility  of  sur- 
render to  the  Opposition.  "  I  feel  very  sure,"  he  said, 


436  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1882 

"  we  ought  to  stand  to  our  guns  and  fight  it.  If  we  fall 
we  shall  fall  creditably.  But  the  H.  of  C.  dare  not  destroy 
us.  The  thought  of  what  is  to  come  after  us  is  too  dark." 
After  the  Cabinet  Gladstone  replied  explaining  the  grounds 
on  which  the  majority  came  to  a  decision  contrary  to  the 
view  of  Harcourt. 

A  few  hours  later,  Gladstone  and  Harcourt  met  at  dinner 
at  the  Austrian  Embassy,  and  it  was  there  at  about  ten 
o'clock  that  the  Home  Secretary  received  the  appalling 
tidings  from  Dublin.  This  was  the  message  that  was  put 
into  his  hand  at  the  table : 

Lord- Lieutenant  to  Home  Secretary. 

May  6,  1882. — I  grieve  to  say  that  the  Under-Secretary  has  been 
murdered  and  Lord  Frederick  wounded,  I  fear  dangerously,  while 
walking  through  Phoenix  Park.  Bodies  found  about  7  o'clock. 

Upon  Harcourt  fell  the  painful  task  of  breaking  the  news 
to  Hartington,  who  was  dining  that  night  with  Lord  North- 
brook,  and  had  asked  Harcourt  to  join  him  there  later  to 
talk  over  the  closure.  Upon  the  principals  of  the  political 
drama  the  news  fell  with  devastating  effect.  Horror  at  the 
crime  and  sorrow  at  the  bereavement  were  mingled  with 
despair  at  the  blow  that  had  been  struck  at  the  new  policy 
of  peace.  Lord  Esher,  who  was  then  Hartington's  secretary, 
has  described  to  me  the  emotions  of  the  next  morning  when 
it  was  his  duty  to  call  on  Hartington,  the  Duke  of  Devon- 
shire, and  Harcourt  in  turn.  "  All  were  stricken  with  grief," 
he  said,  "  but  it  was  Harcourt  who  seemed  to  me  most 
utterly  broken  and  unmanned."  The  blow  fell  with  almost 
equal  ruin  upon  the  Parnellites.  Lord  Spencer  had  no 
doubt  from  the  first  of  their  entire  freedom  from  complicity 
in  the  crime.  In  a  letter  despatched  by  special  messenger 
to  Harcourt,  written  on  the  Monday,  Spencer  gave  a  graphic 
description  of  the  events  leading  up  to  and  following  upon 
the  tragedy,  and  continued : 

Spencer  to  Harcourt. 

VICEREGAL  LODGE,  May  8. —  .  .  .  You  will  do  all  that  you  can, 
I  know,  for  Lady  Frederick  and  all  the  family,  and  I  think  it  best  to 
write  this  to  you  to  use  as  you  think  best.  I  still  hope  that  Lady 


i882]  COURAGE  OF  SPENCER  437 

Spencer  will  not  come.  I  have  no  apprehension  whatever  as  to 
myself.  My  impression  is,  though  it  is  rash  to  say  so  now,  that  the 
extreme  party  of  violence  saw  that  the  party  of  order  had  struck  a 
distinct  blow,  and  were  succeeding  in  winning  to  their  side  many 
people  who  had  before  connived  at  crime,  and  that  they  plotted 
this  foul  deed  to  exasperate  England  and  prevent  the  healing  process 
continuing.  But  these  are  not  moments  for  political  speculation.  I 
feel  that  it  is  essential  to  be  calm  and  not  influenced  by  panic.  I 
have  several  cool  heads  about  me,  and  I  have  every  confidence  in 
them.  .  .  . 

I  have  written  coldly,  but  I  rather  dread  saying  what  I  feel  ; 
indeed  I  cannot  realize  yet  what  has  happened.  It  is  a  ghastly 
dream. 

Meanwhile,  replying  to  a  telegram  which  he  had  received 
from  Spencer  on  the  Sunday  morning,  Harcourt  wrote  : 

Harcourt  to  Spencer. 

May  7.  ...  You  know  what  we  all  feel  for  you  and  how  much 
we  admire  your  braveness  and  coolness  in  this  terrible  trial.  I 
have  just  seen  Lady  Spencer.  She  of  course  would  wish  to  join 
you,  but  acquiesces  in  your  wise  decision  that  she  should  remain 
here.  I  write  nothing  about  public  affairs,  on  which  you  will  hear 
from  Gladstone.  I  only  write  to  assure  you  of  our  deep  sympathy 
and  affection  for  you.  Poor  Hartington  is  dreadfully  grieved, 
and  you  may  imagine  what  it  is  to  the  rest.  God  help  you,  and  we 
will  do  all  we  can  to  help  you.  .  . 

It  was  a  fearful  task  telling  the  news.  I  got  your  telegram  about 
10  p.m.  at  dinner  at  the  Austrian  Embassy,  where  Gladstone  was, 
and  I  had  to  find  Hartington  at  Northbrook's  party. 

For  Parnell  the  position  was  one  of  extraordinary  diffi- 
culty. He  had  written  on  the  Monday  to  Gladstone  offering 
in  consequence  of  the  assassinations  to  resign  his  seat,  but 
was  told  that  it  was  not  advisable  to  do  so.  In  the  House 
the  next  day,  replying  to  Gladstone's  statement  of  his 
intention  to  bring  in  a  Bill  for  the  repression  of  crime  in 
Ireland,  he  agreed  that  the  Prime  Minister  could  do  nothing 
else,  expressed  his  horror  at  the  crime,  and  declared  his 
conviction  that  it  had  been  "  committed  by  men  who 
absolutely  detest  us  and  who  have  devised  that  crime  and 
carried  it  out  as  the  deadliest  blow  which  they  had  in  their 
power  to  deal  against  our  hopes  in  connection  with  the  new 
course  on  which  the  Government  had  just  entered."  He 


438  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1882 

himself  was  in  imminent  danger,  and  applied  to  Harcourt 
for  protection.  This  incident  was  not  without  a  gleam  of 
comedy,  which  is  recorded  in  the  Journal : 

May  9. — Parnellhas  applied  for  police  protection,  and  in  granting 
it  W.  V.  H.  said  "  He  was  glad  Parnell  was  now  suffering  himself 
some  of  the  tortures  he  had  inflicted  on  others  during  the  past  two 
years." 

May  ii. — I  went  to  Lord  Frederick's  funeral  at  Chats  worth  to-day. 
I  gathered  from  what  W.  V.  H.  said  last  night  he  would  not  be  sorry 
if  it  became  known  that  Parnell  had  asked  for  and  received  protec- 
tion, so  I  thought  the  best  way  of  spreading  it  was  by  telling  it 
to  my  five  companions  in  the  train  (names  suppressed)  as  a  great 
secret,  and  expect  soon  to  see  it  in  the  papers  <•  .  .  . 

May  12. — I  am  much  amused  to  find  a  paragraph  in  to-day's 
Standard  announcing  that  Parnell  has  asked  for  and  obtained 
police  protection.  I  wonder  which  of  the  five  men  I  told  it  to  is 
the  authority.  [H.] 

Of  the  spirit  in  which  the  calamity  was  received  by  those 
who  felt  it  most,  there  is  no  more  beautiful  witness  than 
the  following  letter : 

Lady  Frederick  Cavendish  to  Harcourt. 

May  12. — How  can  I  ever  thank  you  enough  for  writing  to  me 
with  all  the  weight  that  lay  upon  you  yesterday  ?  Your  letter  is 
one  that  I  shall  always  treasure.  Let  me  thank  Lady  Harcourt 
too  for  President  Lincoln's  noble  words.  It  is  curious  she  should 
have  sent  them,  for  my  husband  had  a  most  special  veneration  for 
him,  and  I  shall  never  forget  how  deeply  he  was  moved  by  that 
terrible  murder.  Little  did  I  dream  his  own  death  would  be  so 
similar.  God  grant  that  the  evil  intended  in  this  case  may  fail 
as  utterly  as  it  did  in  the  other  !  Indeed  you  do  dwell  on  the  one 
mighty  hope  that  above  all  sustains  me — that  my  darling's  death 
may  in  God's  providence  do  more  for  Ireland  than  ever  his  life  could 
have  done.  Through  all  the  terrible  difficulties  and  dangers  good 
may  come  at  last.  I  will  try  to  have  long  patience.  .  .  . 

The  same  enlightened  spirit  breathed  through  Spencer's 
communications  to  Gladstone  and  Harcourt.  He  was 
shocked  at  the  evidence  of  the  incapacity  of  the  police, 
urged  Harcourt  to  do  what  he  could  in  cities  like  Liverpool 
where  it  was  confidently  believed  that  the  arrangements 
for  these  murders  were  completed,  asked  for  measures  more 
effective  than  the  amendment  of  the  jury  laws,  and  urged 
a  request  to  the  United  States  Government  to  deal  with 


i882]         GLADSTONE'S   RELUCTANCE          439 

people  like  O'Donovan  Rossa,  but  warned  the  Government 
against  panic,  rejected  the  idea  of  martial  law,  and  declared 
that  "  we  must  to  the  utmost  utilize  the  good  feeling 
expressed,  so  that  good  may  come  out  even  of  this  ghastly 
tragedy."  In  writing  to  him  the  same  day  Harcourt 
explained  the  measures  he  was  taking  and  the  assistants 
he  was  sending  him  (Brackenbury,  Bradford,  and  Hamilton), 
and  continued  : 

Harcourt  to  Spencer. 

May  8.  ...  We  got  Gladstone,  not  without  difficulty,  to  consent 
that  the  Protection  of  Life  Bill  should  take  precedence  of  all  other 
measures.  I  am  strongly  in  favour  of  the  special  tribunal  clause,  and 
shall  support  and  I  hope  carry  in  the  committee  of  the  Cabinet  to- 
morrow. .  .  .  We  can  carry  whatever  you  wish  now  without  difficulty  ; 
so  you  have  only  to  express  your  view  and  it  will  be  carried  into  effect. 
Our  police  are  all  in  favour  of  a  large  reward  being  offered.  .  .  . 
But  on  reading  the  passage  in  your  letter  to  Gladstone  objecting  to  a 
reward  I  of  course  suspended  action.  I  should,  however,  be  glad 
if  you  would  telegraph  me  your  final  view  in  the  matter,  as  the  opinion 
of  our  police  may  have  weight  with  you.  It  is  to  be  considered 
that  we  have  to  deal  with  the  members  of  secret  societies,  that 
informers  are  in  peril  of  their  lives,  and  you  cannot  expect  they  will 
peach  unless  you  give  them  a  sum  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  live 
somewhere  in  safety.  You  must  also  remember  that  we  want  to 
buy  American  evidence,  which  is  probably  to  be  had  for  money. 
The  plot  was  probably  American,  and  you  must  think  of  the  chance 
of  buying  evidence  abroad  as  well  as  in  Ireland. 

Everything  passed  off  well  in  the  House.  Gladstone  bore  up 
very  well ;  and  Forster's  speech  about  poor  F.  C.  and  Burke  was 
very  touching. 

Your  letter  I  sent  on  to  Lady  Spencer,  and  I  think  it  reassured  her 
a  good  deal,  and  she  is  more  satisfied  to  stay  where  she  is. 

Good-bye,  my  dear  Spencer.  You  are  a  noble  fellow ;  I  have 
always  admired  you,  and  at  this  moment  there  is  no  man  I  admire 
half  so  much.  Depend  upon  it,  your  colleagues  who  owe  you  so 
much  will  do  all  in  their  power  to  strengthen  your  hands  in  the 
terrible  task  you  have  so  bravely  undertaken. 

In  the  meantime  the  question  of  a  successor  to  Lord 
Frederick  was  urgent.  After  the  murder,  Dilke  received  a 
note  from  Chamberlain  telling  him  to  "  prepare  for  an  offer." 
It  was  a  reminder  to  him  of  the  compact,  and  Dilke  adhered 
to  it.  A  note  from  the  Journal  (May  8)  records  what 
happened  : 


440  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1882 

A  Cabinet  at  5  this  afternoon  in  Gladstone's  room  at  the  House  of 
Commons.  Dilke  was  offered  and  pressed  to  accept  the  Chief 
Secretaryship  for  Ireland,  but  refused  unless  he  had  a  seat  in  the 
Cabinet.  All  the  Ministers  were  furious.  [H.] 

The  objection  to  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet  was  largely  based 
on  the  fact  that  the  Lord-Lieutenant  was  himself  in  the 
Cabinet.  Gladstone  was  prepared  to  invite  Dilke  to  be 
present  when  Irish  affairs  were  discussed,  but  this  did  not 
satisfy  the  Dilke-Chamberlain  demand.  With  Dilke's 
refusal,  the  post  was  offered  to  Mr.  G.  0.  Trevelyan,  who  at 
once  entered  on  his  grave  duties.  The  consequential  changes 
in  the  Ministry  had  one  feature  of  interest.  They  introduced 
Campbell-Bannerman  to  office  as  Financial  Secretary  at  the 
War  Office. 

v 

While  the  funeral  of  Lord  Frederick  Cavendish  was  taking 
place  at  Chatsworth,  Harcourt  was  introducing  (May  n) 
the  Prevention  of  Crime  (Ireland)  Bill,  generally  known  as 
the  Crimes  Bill,  in  the  House  of  Commons.  This  measure, 
contemplated  before  the  Pticenix  Park  tragedy,  had  become 
an  actuality  as^tEe^rVsult  of  that  tragedy.  Unlike  the 
Forster  Coercion  Act  of  the  previous  year,  which  was  the 
negation  of  law  and  which  had  utterly  failed  in  practice, 
the  Crimes  Bill  aimed  at  strengthening  the  administration 
of  the  law.  Trial  by  jury  had  broken  down,  and  Harcourt 's 
Bill  provided  for  a  special  tribunal  of  three  judges  to  deal 
with  cases  of  treason,  murder,  attempt  to  kill,  crimes  of 
violence  and  attacks  on  dwelling-houses  whenever  the 
Lord-Lieutenant  thought  an  impartial  trial  could  not  be 
obtained  under  the  ordinary  law.  The  tribunal  would  sit 
without  a  jury,  and  would  decide  questions  of  law  and 
fact,  but  their  judgment  must  be  unanimous,  and  there 
would  be  a  right  of  appeal  to  the  Court  for  Criminal  Cases 
Reserved.  The  preventive  measures  included  the  power 
of  search  by  day  or  night  in  proclaimed  districts,  the  arrest 
of  persons  out  at  night  who  could  not  satisfactorily  explain 
their  business,  power  to  deal  with  aliens,  and  to  arrest 
strangers.  Among  the  offences  liable  to  be  brought  before 


i882]  THE   COERCION   BILL  441 

a  court  of  summary  jurisdiction  by  two  stipendiary  magis- 
trates were  incitement  to  crime,  membership  of  secret 
societies,  aggravated  assaults  on  police  and  process-servers, 
and  intimidation.  Power  was  sought  to  deal  with  news- 
papers and  to  exact  caution  money  from  them,  and  to 
prevent  unlawful  assemblies.  The  duration  of  the  Act  was 
to  be  for  three  years. 

Harcourt's  task  was  not  an  easy  one.  Public  opinion, 
shocked  by  the  tragedy,  demanded  some  action,  but  the 
return  to  coercion,  even  under  legal  forms,  was  profoundly 
distasteful  in  many  quarters.  The  Press  generally  expressed 
disapproval.  Liberal  opinion  outside  the  House  disliked 
the  suggestion  that  charges  so  vaguely  denned  as  treason 
or  intimidation  should  be  heard  without  a  jury,  and  the 
Irish  judges  themselves  expressed  their  unwillingness  to 
accept  the  duties  assigned  to  them.  Parnell  in  the  debate 
paid  his  tribute  to  the  spirit  in  which  the  English  people 
had  received  the  blow  of  May  6,  but  prophesied  that  the 
Act  would  be  a  failure,  that  it  would  inflict  wrong  on  the 
innocent  without  reaching  those  who  sought  by  crime  to 
make  constitutional  agitation  impossible,  and  that  England 
had  yet  to  discover  the  secret  of  that  "  undiscoverable  task," 
the  task  of  governing  one  nation  by  another.  But  the  House 
was  wellnigh  unanimous,  and  leave  to  bring  in  the  Bill  was 
carried  by  327  to  22,  most  of  the  Irish  members  absenting 
themselves  from  the  House  but  no  fewer  than  27  supporting 
the  Government. 

It  was  not  in  the  House,  but  behind  the  scenes,  that 
Harcourt's  battle  raged  most  severely.  In  the  House,  there 
was  criticism  as  the  Bill  progressed  from  Liberals  like 
Horace  Davey  and  Mr.  (Lord)  Bryce,  but  the  Parnellites 
had  been  too  much  shattered  by  the  blow  to  offer  their 
usual  obstinate  resistance.  Their  attitude  is  indicated  in  a 
letter  from  Harcourt  to  Spencer : 

Har  court  to  Spencer. 

May  14. —  .  .  .  Poor  Hartington  is  sadly  broken  down.  He  was 
at  the  Cabinet  yesterday.  I  had  a  most  touching  letter  from  Lady 


442  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1882 

Frederick  Cavendish,  who  clings  to  the  consolation  that  poor  Freddy's 
death  may  be  of  use  to  Ireland.  The  outbreak  of  the  Parnellites  on 
Thursday  night  in  the  House  of  Commons  was  owing  to  Forster's 
unfortunate  speech,  which  provoked  them  to  desperation.  They 
had  intended  to  be  very  conciliatory.  I  believe  they  are  thoroughly 
frightened  and  would  do  all  they  could  to  restore  peace.  But 
I  fear  their  powers  for  good  are  far  less  than  their  powers  for  evil. 
I  believe  they  will  make  no  obstinate  resistance  to  the  Prevention 
of  Crime  Bill.  There  is  necessarily  great  alarm  as  to  what  the  desper- 
adoes may  do  next,  and  London  is  full  of  threatening  letters  and 
rumours  of  all  kinds.  The  attempted  explosion  at  the  Mansion 
House  was  a  Fenian  scare  of  the  old  clumsy  kind.  I  made  it  a  reason 
for  having  all  the  Irish  quarters  in  London  beat  up  last  night.  My 
police  report  very  little  Fenianism  in  London,  but  of  course  it  may 
be  imported  any  day  either  from  America  or  Ireland.  .  .  .  You  will 
probably  have  been  told  that  we  have  remonstrated  with  the 
United  States  Government,  and  had  a  cautious  but  favourable 
reply.  We  have  given  instructions  to  have  the  ships  watched  when 
they  get  to  America.  .  .  . 

"  I  am  not  afraid  of  the  fervida  dicta  of  the  Irish,"  he 
writes  three  days  later  to  Spencer,  "  but  I  much  more 
dread  the  Jupiter  hostis.  In  his  heart  Gladstone  hates  the 
Bill,  and  will  with  great  difficulty  be  kept  up  to  the  mark." 
Harcourt  was  smarting  at  the  moment  under  the  fact 
recorded  in  Dilke's  diary  (May  15)  that  Gladstone  had  sent 
Chamberlain  to  O'Shea  to  see  if  Parnell  could  be  got  to 
support  the  new  Coercion  Bill  with  some  changes.  When, 
says  Dilke,1  Harcourt  heard  of  this,  "which  was  done 
behind  his  back,  he  was  furious,  and  went  so  far  as  to  tell 
me :  '  When  I  resign  I  shall  not  become  a  discontented 
Right  Honourable  on  a  back  bench,  but  shall  go  abroad  for 
some  months  and  when  I  come  back  rat  boldly  to  the  other 
side.' '  His  indignation  exploded  in  a  letter,  which  has 
not  been  preserved,  written  from  Windsor  to  Gladstone, 
who  promptly  wrote  acknowledging  his  "  forcible  letter," 
and  offering  a  Cabinet  meeting  the  next  day.  At  this 
Cabinet  (May  17)  Harcourt  declared  that  if  any  change  was 
made  in  the  principle  of  the  Coercion  Bill  he  would  resign, 
adding,  according  to  Dilke,  that  the  Kilmainham  Treaty 
would  not  be  popular  when  it  was  discovered  that  it  was 

1  Life,  i.  445. 


i882]  SPENCER'S  MODERATION  443 

negotiated   by   Mr.    O'Shea,    the   husband   of   "  Parnell's 
mistress." 

But  the  most  formidable  antagonist  of  Harcourt  at  this 
stage  was  Chamberlain,  who  had  arrived  at  an  understand- 
ing with  Parnell  and  was,  according  to  Dilke,  anxious  to 
resign  on  account  of  Harcourt's  unyielding  attitude  on 
coercion.  Writing  to  Harcourt,  Spencer  says  : 

VICEREGAL  LODGE,  May  22. —  .  .  .  I  hope  the  moderate  Irish  will 
be  consulted  as  well  as  Healy,  and  I  gather  that  J.  C.  has  seen  the 
latter  again.  He  seems  to  me  entirely  to  miscalculate  the  situation, 
and  says  that  if  it  were  not  for  the  necessity  of  meeting  public 
opinion  he  would  be  against  all  (?  repressive)  measures.  That 
strikes  me  as  absolutely  absurd.  I  have  written  to  him  on  his 
minute  and  letter.  I  was  a  little  nettled  at  his  minute  and  criti- 
cisms of  my  letter  to  you,  for  he  treated  it  as  if  I  had  taken  a  line  of 
iron  without  any  bend  or  consideration  of  Irish  opinion.  .  .  . 

Spencer  himself  through  all  this  turbulent  and  difficult 
time  preserved  a  temper  of  rare  patience  and  wisdom.  He 
had  gone  to  Dublin  with  Lord  Frederick  Cavendish  to  repair 
the  mischief  of  the  Forster  Act  and  to  inaugurate  a  more 
conciliatory  policy.  He  had  seen  his  hopes  shattered  on 
the  evening  of  his  arrival  by  the  tragedy  within  sight  of 
the  Viceregal  Lodge,  but  he  gave  way  to  no  emotion  of 
panic,  and  in  the  voluminous  correspondence  he  carried  on 
with  Harcourt  on  the  details  of  the  Bill  his  advice  was 
always  for  moderation  with  firmness.  The  discussion 
turned  mainly  on  such  questions  as  whether  incitement 
should  be  included  in  the  scope  of  "  intimidation,"  whether 
the  search  clause  should  insist  on  the  warrant  naming  the 
house,  and  on  the  substitution  of  county  court  judges  for 
resident  magistrates  on  the  tribunal  of  summary  jurisdiction. 
"  Gladstone  is  very  much  disposed  to  close  with  some  or 
all  of  these  amendments  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  inducing 
the  Irish  to  let  the  Bill  through  easily,"  wrote  Harcourt  to 
Spencer  (May  17),  but  he  himself  was  opposed  to  the  changes 
as  bad  in  themselves  and  as  evidence  of  vacillation  and 
weakness.  He  appealed  to  Spencer,  who  generally  but  not 
invariably  supported  him,  to  "write  very  decisively  to  G.  in 


444  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1882 

this  sense  and  also  to  Trevelyan,  who  might  otherwise  be 
inclined  to  yield  somewhat  to  Radical  pressure." 

A  few  days  later  he  was  in  high  spirits.  The  second 
reading  stage  had  produced  a  moderate  speech  from  Parnell, 
who  was  "  in  a  great  state  of  alarm  as  to  his  personal 
safety,"  and  five  days  later  Mr.  Dillon  made  a  violent 
speech  which  changed  the  prospects  of  the  Bill.  Writing 
to  Spencer  next  day  Harcourt  said  : 

May  24. — Dillon's  diabolical  speech  to-day  and  Gladstone's  fine 
reply  to  it  have  settled  the  question  of  the  Bill.  All  our  Radicals 
feel  that  after  Dillon's  speech  they  cannot  do  otherwise  than  support 
the  Bill.  There  was  also  some  advantage  derived  from  Northcote's 
denunciation  of  two  spiteful  speeches  delivered  from  the  Conserva- 
tive benches  by  E.  Clarke  and  Ritchie  which  were  made  d  Vadresse 
of  their  Irish  constituents.  .  .  .  Nothing  can  be  better  than  Tre- 
velyan ;  he  is  most  popular  with  all  sides  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
modest,  straightforward,  and  able — a  sort  of  second  Spencer. 

Next  day  Parnell  threw  over  Mr.  Dillon,  and  Harcourt 
wrote  to  his  wife  in  good  humour  over  the  outlook.  Spencer, 
too,  was  more  cheerful.  Outrages  were  decreasing.  "  I 
hope,"  he  said,  "  Dillon's  diabolical  speech  will  not  set  them 
going  again. ' '  He  proposed  when  clear  of  work  to  go  through 
the  disaffected  districts.  "  Even  if  they  do  not  show  loyalty, 
it  does  good  in  an  image-worshipping  country  to  let  them 
see  that  there  is  a  Government  in  person.  Don't  laugh  at 
this  view,  but  it  is  very  true  in  Ireland." 

Meanwhile  (May  15-16)  Gladstone  was  introducing  the 
Arrears  Bill,  which  largely  embodied  proposals  elaborated 
by  Parnell  in  Kilmainham.  There  was  fierce  opposition 
led  by  Mr.  Balfour,  and  a  last  tu  quoque  retort  from  Harcourt. 
The  Bill  was  read  a  second  time  on  May  23,  and  the  second 
reading  of  the  Crimes  Bill  being  completed,  the  House  went 
into  Committee  on  it.  Harcourt  still  demanded  his  measure 
entire.  In  the  House  he  made  certain  concessions  to 
Horace  Davey,  Bryce,  and  other  Liberals,  but  he  would 
not  yield  to  Davey's  amendment  to  omit  felony  and 
treason  from  the  list  of  charges  which  could  be  heard  without 
a  jury.  Behind  the  scenes  the  struggle  went  doggedly 
forward.  Chamberlain  was  still  in  touch  with  Parnell,  and 


i882]       DIFFERENCE   WITH   SPENCER        445 

wrote  (June  8)  to  Gladstone  warning  him  that  "  if  we  once 
fall  back  into  the  old  condition  of  exasperation,  the  reaction 
in  Ireland  will  be  most  prejudicial  to  peace  and  order." 
The  immediate  question  was  some  concessions  on  the  pro- 
posal to  deal  with  boycotting.  If  these  were  not  given, 
Parnell  said  things  would  revert  to  what  they  were  under 
the  Forster  regime.  Gladstone  sent  the  correspondence  to 
Harcourt,  and  in  replying  to  Chamberlain  said  it  was  not 
for  him  "  to  take  any  notice  of  what  some  would  call  the 
threat  that  things  may  revert  to  what  they  were  under 
the  Forster  regime,"  and  continued  : 

...  I  believe  that  in  the  matter  of  what  is  called  coercion  my 
appetite  is  decidedly  less  keen  than  the  average  appetite  even  of 
English  Liberals,  and  even  of  pretty  stout  ones.  But  nothing  would 
induce  me  to  assent  to  a  clause  doing  less  as  to  boycotting  than 
what  I  have  now  said.  .  .  . 

Harcourt  had  won  on  the  boycotting  issue,  and  wrote 
triumphantly  to  Spencer  (June  8),  "  We  had  a  most  useful 
discussion  yesterday  which  brought  out  Gladstone  in  full 
force  against  Boycotting,  which  is  of  much  importance  as 
the  Party  were  beginning  to  say  that  he  was  lukewarm  on 
the  Bill." 

With  Spencer  himself,  however,  he  was  in  conflict  over 
the  question  of  night  search,  about  which  Spencer  was 
lukewarm,  or,  as  Harcourt  said,  "  weak-kneed."  Writing 
to  him,  Harcourt  said  : 

...  I  want  strongly  to  urge  you  to  maintain  the  night  search 
in  the  Bill  by  your  authority  when  you  write  here.  I  am  convinced 
by  my  police  experience  in  London  that  nothing  is  of  so  much 
value  as  the  power  to  go  into  (no  matter  on  what  pretext)  suspicious 
places  by  night,  if  only  to  note  and  see  who  is  there.  Nothing  helps 
so  much  to  break  up  gangs  of  conspirators  as  the  terror  of  being 
known  to  meet  together  to  plot,  and  this  you  can  only  accomplish 
by  night.  .  .  . 

But  Spencer  stuck  to  his  guns,  holding  that  the  existing 
power  to  enter  on  the  ground  that  a  meeting  was  being 
illegally  held  was  sufficient.  Harcourt's  hostility  to  negotia- 
tions with  Parnell  continued,  and  writing  to  Spencer  he 

says : 


446  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1882 

Har  court  to  Spencer. 

LONDON,  June  12. — I  fought  out  a  great  battle  in  the  Cabinet 
on  Irish  policy  on  Saturday — Chamberlain  contending  for  the  view 
of  making  concessions  to  Parnell  and  Co.,  with  a  view  to  strengthening 
his  hands  as  a  beneficial  influence  through  whom  we  might  pacify 
Ireland ; '  I  on  the  other  hand  maintaining  that  this  was  an  entire 
delusion,  that  either  Parnell  had  the  power  to  control  outrage  and, 
if  so,  that  he  had  not  exercised  it,  or  (which  is  more  probable) 
that  he  had  not  the  power,  in  which  case  he  was  not  worth  buying 
at  the  price  of  concessions  which  independently  of  him  we  should 
not  think  it  wise  to  make.  In  short,  that  we  are  not  in  any  way  to 
shape  our  conduct  with  a  view  to  giving  Parnell  something  to  "go 
to  market  with."  Such  a  policy  in  my  judgment  would  not  only 
be  discreditable  but  a  failure. 

This  view,  I  am  happy  to  say,  entirely  prevailed  (in  spite  of  some 
disposition  in  one  influential  quarter  to  support  the  other  side). 
And  it  was  resolved  to  stick  staunchly  by  the  Bill  without  any 
negotiation  of  any  kind  with  the  Parnellites,  and  with  no  changes 
except  those  which  you  have  recommended  and  which  will  be 
notified  and  introduced  at  an  early  stage.  If  any  other  decision 
had  been  arrived  at  I  would  no  longer  have  taken  any  responsibility 
for  the  Bill,  and  I  believe  the  greater  part  of  the  Cabinet  shared  my 
determination.  .  .  . 

On  the  same  day  he  sent  a  secret  memorandum  to  Spencer 
on  the  question  of  the  secret  societies.  Like  "  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, Lord  H.  and  Lord  G."  he  thought  no  money  objection 
should  stand  in  the  way  of  efforts  to  grapple  with  them. 
But  he  was  growing  wise  with  years  : 

.  .  .  My  experience,  however,  now  of  two  years'  duration  in 
experiments  of  this  character,  does  not  lead  me  to  be  sanguine  as 
to  the  success  of  this  particular  method  of  action.  I  have  endeav- 
oured to  purchase  information  in  America  with  the  result  of  finding 
that  there  is  great  danger  of  being  the  victim  of  deliberate  plants  by 
the  manipulation  or  crime  (such  as  the  dynamite  boxes)  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  obtaining  money  by  the  very  persons  who  have  contrived 
them.  Great  prudence  and  caution  is  necessary  in  such  proceedings, 
and  I  should  be  glad  to  have  the  opportunity  of  giving  Colonel 
Brackenbury  some  warnings  on  this  head.  .  .  . 

But  there  were  other  ways,  and  he  thought  it  would  be 
"  well  worth  while  for  Colonel  Brackenbury  to  get  the 
Pinkerton  detective  agency  in  the  United  States  to  send 
over  to  Ireland  one  of  their  best  confidential  agents  to 
communicate  with  him  on  their  methods  of  proceeding." 


i882]  THE   QUEEN'S   SUPPORT  447 

A  third  communication  to  Spencer  on  this  day  (June  12) 
found  the  tireless  Home  Secretary  refusing  to  accept  the 
Lord  Lieutenant's  proposal  to  allow  the  exclusion  of  peaceful 
districts  from  the  operation  of  the  Bill,  and  pleading  with 
him  to  stand  firm.  In  the  House  meanwhile  the  Bill  was 
labouring  through  Committee.  Harcourt  was  unyielding  on 
principle,  but  conciliatory  in  detail,  and  his  rigour  was 
helped  by  the  seizure  of  arms — 400  Sugden  rifles  and  25 
cases  of  revolvers,  etc. — at  Clerkenwell.  But  he  was 
impatient  with  the  slow  progress  of  the  Bill,  and  writing 
to  Gladstone  he  said  "  the  time  for  decided  action  has 
arrived  "  : 

June  1 6. —  .  .  .  The  desire  to  impede  if  not  to  obstruct  the  Bill 
was  so  conspicuous  last  night  all  throughout  that  the  temper  of  our 
Party  was  thoroughly  roused  :  they  were  prepared  and  eager  at 
one  o'clock  to  have  fought  it  out  through  the  night  to  get  the  /th 
clause.  I  with  difficulty  restrained  their  ardour  after  two  divisions, 
as  I  could  not  in  your  absence  commit  the  Government  to  so  strong 
a  measure. 

But  the  feeling  is  overwhelming  that  the  present  state  of  things  is 
intolerable  and  that  strong  measures  must  be  taken. 

These  men  are  not  only  sans  hi  but  sans  foi,  and  the  more  con- 
cessions that  are  made  the  less  is  the  progress  accomplished.  .  .  . 

Meanwhile  from  Balmoral  a  watchful  eye  was  kept  upon 
the  struggle,  and  Harcourt  was  the  recipient  of  frequent 
notes  from  Ponsonby  telling  him  of  the  Queen's  approval 
of  his  firmness  and  urging  him  to  press  on  with  the  Bill. 
H.M.  "  hopes  you  will  not  give  way  in  essential  parti- 
culars." Ponsonby  can  well  understand  that  Harcourt 
must  be  worn  out  with  this  prolonged  fight.  "  The  Queen 
sees  this  too,  but  thinks  her  occasional  reminders  give  you 
spirit  to  keep  on."  Sometimes  she  takes  exception  to 
something  said  in  debate.  She  does  not  approve  (June  16) 
of  something  Trevelyan  said  against  Irish  landlords.  "H.M. 
said  it  was  most  injudicious  for  him  to  swell  the  cry  against 
them,  but  could  not  tell  me  the  exact  words,  and  I  have  no 
time  to  refer  to  the  paper  before  this  goes." 

The  endless  argument  with  Spencer  on  limiting  the  Act 
to  "  proclaimed  "  districts  and  on  the  night  search  goes 


448  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1882 

on,   and  Harcourt  uses  the  Clerkenwell  capture  to  tune 
Gladstone  up  to  concert  pitch.     He  writes  : 

Hay  court   to   Gladstone. 

June  1 8. —  ...  It  is  a  fortunate  capture  and  will  make  a  great 
stir — I  have  never  doubted,  and  doubt  still  less  than  ever,  that  the 
root  of  the  whole  thing  in  Ireland  is  a  treasonable  conspiracy,  backed 
by  assassination,  and  that  the  Land  League  and  all  the  so-called 
agrarian  agitation  is  only  the  veil  by  which  it  is  wrapped  up. 

O'Shea  called  upon  me  yesterday.  ...  I  know  that  the  main 
author  of  the  obstruction  is  Labouchere,  who  organizes,  instigates, 
and  provokes  it  far  beyond  the  desire  of  the  Irish  themselves  out 
of  sheer  love  of  mischief.  .  .  . 

Two  days  later  he  writes  to  Gladstone,  still  declining  to 
modify  the  night  search  clause  and  arguing  for  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Alien  Act  to  England : 

...  It  is  an  absurdity  difficult  to  defend  that  whilst  we  remove 
the  American  conspirator  from  Cork — and  even  from  Liverpool  if 
he  had  been  dealt  with  at  Cork — we  should  allow  him  to  work  his 
will  and  pull  the  wires  with  impunity  at  Liverpool  if  he  has  not 
landed  in  Ireland.  .  .  . 

But  Gladstone,  replying  the  same  day,  takes  his  stand 
on  the  night  search  with  Spencer  against  Harcourt.  He 
will  ask  the  Cabinet  to  meet  on  the  subject  if  Harcourt 
thinks  it  necessary,  but  only  "  to  state  reasons  which  are 
for  me  binding  and  absolute."  He  has  yielded  much  both 
last  year  and  this  in  deference  to  the  Cabinet. 

.  .  .  But  (he  says)  it  is  quite  another  matter  to  pass  into  law  any 
power,  and  especially'one  so  invidious,  which  Spencer  is  willing  to 
forego.  I  think  you  will  see  it  is  not  strange  or  unreasonable,  from 
my  point  of  view,  that  this  should  stand  with  me  as  a  principle  of 
action. 

At  the  same  time  I  am  most  sorry  to  trouble  you,  amidst  your  very 
severe  work,  on  a  matter  where  our  respective  views  have  not  been 
quite  the  same.  But  what  I  say  tends  to  shorten,  as  I  hope,  not  to 
lengthen  labour. 

This  decision  brought  Harcourt  to  the  brink  of  revolt. 
Later  in  the  day  he  wrote  to  Gladstone,  bowing  to  his 
decision,  but  throwing  upon  him  the  burden  of  denning 
what  he  considered  safe. 

.  .  .  When  this  is  settled  (he  concludes)  I  hope  that  you  or  Tre- 


1882]         "NO  MORE  CONCESSIONS"  449 

velyan  will  take  charge  of  this  difficult  retreat,  which  I  should  find 
it  hard  to  manage  with  my  strong  sense  of  the  dangers  which  it 
opens,  and  should  probably  therefore  make  a  mess  of. 

9 

Gladstone  undertook  the  task  himself  in  the  House  the 
same  evening,  announcing  that  the  Government  would 
limit  the  power  of  night  search  to  cases  in  which  there  was 
a  reasonable  suspicion  that  illegal  meetings  were  being  held. 
Harcourt  wrote  to  Spencer  next  day  lamenting  the  con- 
cession to  which  he  had  had  to  yield  ("  having  no  support 
from  you  "),  stating  that  he  had  designedly  stayed  away 
from  the  House  and  predicting  evil  consequences.  "  I  do 
earnestly  trust  you  will  countenance  no  more  concessions,"  he 
said.  "  The  House  of  Commons  will  not  stand  them." 
Spencer  replied  gently  insisting  that  "  I  have  never  felt 
clearer  in  my  life.  In  practice  we  lose  nothing." 

It  was  Harcourt's  severest  check  in  the  struggle ;  but 
he  had  a  compensation  next  day  in  the  shape  of  a  note 
from  the  Queen,  who  said : 

WINDSOR  CASTLE,  June  22. —  .  .  .  She  has  observed  with  satis- 
faction the  manner  in  which  Sir  Wm.  Harcourt  has  defended  this 
necessary  Bill  for  Prevention  of  Crime  in  Ireland,  and  the  way  in 
which  he  has  resisted  those  interminable  and  in  many  cases  really 
most  absurd  amendments.  It  would  be  a  good  thing  if  the  clause 
referring  to  Aliens  could  for  the  present  be  extended  to  England. 

But  when  will  the  Bill  be  passed  ? 

It  was  not  to  be  passed  without  a  first-rate  Irish  storm. 
On  June  30- July  I  the  House  sat  continuously  for  twenty- 
eight  hours  on  clause  17,  proposing  that  districts  should 
be  rated  for  compensation  payable  for  cases  of  murder  and 
maiming  in  the  district.  The  levying  of  the  "  blood  tax  " 
gave  rise  to  endless  amendments.  At  seven  in  the  morning 
Harcourt,  who  had  been  absent  for  less  than  an  hour  during 
the  whole  of  the  sitting,  complained  of  the  intolerable 
waste  of  time  over  amendments  which  were  unreasonable 
and  based  on  no  semblance  of  argument.  The  question 
was  put  about  eight  o'clock.  Harcourt  said  that  practi- 
cally two  days  of  parliamentary  time  had  been  wasted 
over  a  clause  of  secondary  importance,  with  the  deliberate 

GC 


450  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1882 

intention  of  blocking  and  impeding  the  measure  devised  to 
stop  the  horrible  and  atrocious  crimes  now  being  committed 
in  Ireland. 

The  Chairman,  appealed  to  by  Mr.  Biddulph,  said  he 
thought  the  systematic  obstruction  should  be  stopped,  and 
named  seventeen  Irish  members  for  persistent  and  wilful 
obstruction,  and  they  were  duly  suspended.  Before  the 
sitting  closed  other  members  were  suspended,  after  which 
clauses  up  to  the  thirtieth  were  agreed  to. 

Next  day  Harcourt  wrote  to  his  wife  from  Downe  Terrace, 
Richmond  : 

July  2. —  ...  I  got  down  here  about  9  o'clock  after  we  had 
finally  shut  up  the  last  batch  of  Irishmen.  With  some  difficulty 
I  prevailed  on  the  Cabinet  to  go  right  through  committee  even  if 
we  had  to  sit  through  Sunday,  and  to  propose  urgency  for  Monday. 
We  shall  now  rush  the  Bill  through  this  week. 

Yesterday  was  a  great  success.  It  has  shown  the  Irishmen  they 
are  not  our  masters,  and  that  we  can  when  we  please  brush  them 
away  like  flies. 

It  was  a  great  effort  and  I  am  a  good  bit  tired,  but  shall  be  all 
right  after  a  little  rest.  I  shall  take  a  week's  holiday  as  soon  as  the 
Bill  is  through.  .  .  . 

The  Bill  was  "  rushed,"  but  it  came  near  being  wrecked 
in  sight  of  port,  and  on  the  very  issue  about  which  Harcourt 
had  been  overruled.  When  the  amendment  on  night 
search  was  moved  by  Mr.  Trevelyan  (July  7)  it  was  fiercely 
opposed,  and  Gladstone  said  that  if  it  were  defeated  he 
would  have  to  reconsider  his  position.  In  spite  of  this  the 
amendment  was  lost  by  thirteen  votes ;  but  Gladstone 
decided  to  continue  with  the  Bill  on  account  of  its  urgency. 
Harcourt  was  entitled  to  say  "  I  told  you  so,"  and  he  said 
it  to  Spencer  next  day. 

Harcourt  to  Spencer. 

.  .  .  Gladstone  tried  the  Party  too  high,  and  they  revolted  as  I 
always  expected  they  would  do,  and  after  G.  had  said  that  if  his 
amendment  was  rejected  he  would  have  to  "  reconsider  his  personal 
position "  we  were  beaten  by  13.  The  Tories  of  course  were 
jubilant,  and  the  Liberals  in  dismay,  and  for  a  few  hours  all  London 
expected  the  immediate  resignation  of  G.  (which  he  really  intended), 
and  consequently  the  dissolution  of  the  Government  and  probably 


i882]  AGAINST   CONCILIATION  451 

of  Parliament.  There  never  was  so  unnecessary  a  "  pother."  But 
the  truth  is  the  House  of  Commons  are  determined  there  shall  be 
no  concessions  to  the  Irish.  Happily  la  nuit  porte  conseil,  and  G.  is 
quite  mild  here  (at  the  Cabinet),  and  will  make  a  statement  on  Mon- 
day in  the  House  of  Commons  which  will  smooth  things  down.  .  .  . 

Four  days  later  the  Bill  received  the  Royal  Assent,  and 
there  came  from  Windsor  to  Harcourt  a  sigh  of  relief  and 
approval :  "  H.M.,"  wrote  Ponsonby,  "  has  been  very  much 
pleased  with  the  Government  lately  in  pressing  on  the 
Bill,  and  thinks  your  management  of  the  Bill  has  been  very 
good." 

But  the  passage  of  the  Bill  was  not  the  end  of  the  trouble. 
If  Gladstone  disliked  the  Crimes  Bill,  Harcourt  had  no  love 
for  the  Arrears  Bill,  and  looked  quite  frankly  and  cheerfully 
to  its  rejection  and  the  end  of  the  Government.  "It  is 
an  event  I  do  not  at  all  deprecate,  nor  would  do  anything 
to  avert,"  he  wrote  to  Hartington  (July  9).  ...  "  The 
couleur  de  rose  view  in  which  Gladstone  persists  in  looking 
at  the  state  of  Ireland  is  most  disastrous  ;  in  my  judgment 
it  incapacitates  the  Government  from  doing  that  which  is 
necessary  to  restore  peace  there.  I  enclose  you  a  letter 
I  have  written  to  G.  to-day  on  that  subject.  In  my  opinion 
the  sooner  the  end  comes  the  better,  for  this  Government 
is  not  fit  to  govern  Ireland." 

The  letter  to  Gladstone  is  a  formidable  and  rather 
passionate  indictment  of  the  Government's  policy.  A  few 
extracts  will  indicate  its  character. 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

HOME  OFFICE,  July  9. —  ...  It  is  with  great  regret  but  with  a 
very  deep  conviction  that  I  have  arrived  at  the  fixed  conclusion 
that  all  the  measures  of  conciliation  which  we  have  passed  or  pro- 
posed have  absolutely  failed  of  the  object  to  which  they  were  directed. 
They  have  only  been  regarded  as  signs  of  weakness  and  inspired 
fresh  demands  which  will  never  rest  short  of  absolute  confiscation 
of  the  property  of  the  landlords  and  a  total  separation  of  Ireland 
from  England.  These  are  the  avowed  objects  of  Davitt  and  Parnell, 
and  their  ideas  have  entirely  permeated  the  Irish  people. 

At  this  moment  the  wife  of  the  popular  Lord- Lieutenant  cannot 
drive  out  of  the  walls  of  the  Castle  and  cannot  walk  in  the  garden 
except  surrounded  by  police .  This  is  the  state  of  things  thirteen  years 


452  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1882 

after  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church  and  the  passing  of  the 
Land  Act.  These  measures  just  in  themselves  are  useful  as  quieting 
our  own  consciences,  but  as  regards  pacifying  Ireland  they  have 
been — I  regret  to  say  it — worse  than  useless  and  instead  of  appeasing 
dissatisfaction  have  rather  encouraged  it  by  the  belief  that  disorder 
has  been  the  only  instrument  which  has  achieved  concession. 

I  wish  I  could  think  that  the  pending  Arrears  Bill  was  likely  to 
mend  the  state  of  things.  But  I  find  that  it  is  regarded  with  entire 
coldness  and  indifference  by  those  who  are  the  best  of  judges  of 
Irish  opinion.  .  .  .  Errington  assures  me  that  no  one  in  Ireland 
cares  a  straw  about  it,  and  that  we  may  make  what  concessions  we 
please  in  it  to  the  Lords  because  no  one  in  Ireland  takes  any  interest 
in  its  fate.  .  .  . 

I  anticipate  therefore  that  the  Arrears  Bill  will  perish — certainly 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  possibly  in  the  House  of  Commons — because 
many  in  England  disapprove  it,  but  much  more  because  no  one  in 
Ireland  cares  to  make  an  effort  for  it.  The  Lords  may  therefore 
"work  their  will  upon  it  with  impunity.  .  .  .  There  remains  now 
in  my  belief  only  one  remedy  for  Ireland,  and  that  is  in  the  most 
resolute  and  sternest  determination  to  enforce  the  law  and  to  exer- 
cise to  the  utmost  the  powers  of  repression.  .  .  . 

I  have  been  told  by  Broadhurst  and  others  that  any  indications  of 
leniency  on  their  part  in  the  progress  of  the  late  Bill  has  been  very 
decisively  rebuked  by  the  most  Radical  constituencies.  I  feel  very 
strongly  that  the  time  is  come  when  we  must  put  the  iron  heel  of 
government  on  the  head  of  these  foul  conspiracies  whether  they  call 
themselves  by  the  name  of  the  Land  League,  Fenians  or  any  other 
name.  .  .  . 

I  feel  sure  that  the  country  is  resolved  that  a  very  different  treat- 
ment shall  be  employed  from  that  which  we  have  used  latterly  with 
so  little  effect,  and  I  cannot  say  that  I  think  the  country  is  wrong. 

Gladstone  circulated  the  memorandum  to  the  Cabinet 
for  their  comments.  "  I  might  have  been  more  struck  with 
Harcourt's  letter,  if  it  had  not  been  so  like  Lord  Salisbury's 
speech  of  this  afternoon,"  was  Granville's  reply.  Chamber- 
lain's reply  was  acid  and  scornful,  and  his  counsel  was 
"  steady  and  patient  persistence  in  well-doing."  "  I  differ 
utterly  from  Harcourt's  despairing  view,"  was  the  comment 
of  Carlingford.  Generally  the  Cabinet  was  against  Harcourt, 
and  his  anticipations  were  not  fulfilled.  The  Lords  resisted 
the  Arrears  Bill,  and  on  August  4  Gladstone  wrote  to  Har- 
court for  his  views  as  to  the  basis  of  a  plan  of  dissolution. 
But  the  advice  was  not  needed.  The  Bill  went  through, 
and  received  the  Royal  Assent  on  August  18. 


i882]  MAAMTRASNA  MURDERS  453 


VI 


But  neither  the  Crimes  Act  nor  the  Arrears  Act  sensibly 
changed  the  situation  in  Ireland,  and  the  unfailing  patience 
and  reasonableness  of  Spencer  was  tried  to  the  utmost 
throughout  the  autumn.     Not  only  did  the  outrages  con- 
tinue but  the  police  of  Dublin  got  out  of  hand,  and  Spencer 
appealed  to  Harcourt  to  supplement  the  Irish  force  by  a 
body    of    English    constables.    Gladstone    supported 
appeal     "I  do  not  venture  to  dogmatize  without  know- 
ledge "  he  wrote  to  Harcourt  (September  i),  "  but  I  think 
that  were  I  in  your  place  I  should  be  inclined  to  offer  him 
(Spencer)  a  small  batch  of  picked  London  policemen  whose 
advent  would  strike  terror."     But  Harcourt  pointed  out 
Spencer  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  sending  an  alien 
police  into  the  country,  and  his  view  prevailed.    When 
the  situation  in  Dublin  became  acute  on  September  i, 
Spencer  dismissed  234  of  the  Dublin  force,  and  thereupon 
practically    the    whole    of    the    remaining    600    resigned. 
Spencer  at  once  enrolled  special  constables,  and  two  days 
later  Gladstone,  in  acknowledging  Harcourt's  "  clear  and 
forcible  statement  "  of  the  objections  to  sending  London 
police  to  Dublin,  was  able  to  say  that  Spencer's  "  admirable 
conduct  "  had  removed  the  necessity.    The  dismissed  men, 
with  the  exception  of  seventeen,  had  been  reinstated,  and 
the  rest   of  the  force  had  withdrawn  their  resignations. 
"  The  nerve  and  prudence  you  displayed,"  wrote  Harcourt 
to  Spencer  (September  16),  "  has  placed  you  in  the  highest 
!   rank  of  statesmanship,  and  I  think  you  and  Wolseley  divide 
the  honours  of  this  time.    The  Chancellor  (Childers)  who 
has  been  staying  with  us  in  the  country,  and  is  generally 
as  cold  as  ice  and  as  impassive  as  dough,  waxed  quite 
enthusiastic  as  we  spoke  together  of  you." 

In  the  meantime  there  occurred  an  incident  which  was 
to  cast  its  sinister  shadow  over  the  future.  On  January  2, 
two  of  Lord  Ardilaun's  bailiffs,  named  Huddy,  were  sent 
to  collect  rents  in  a  part  of  Connemara  known  as  Joyce's 
country  because  of  the  prevalence  of  that  surname,  and  were 


454  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1882 

murdered.  Their  murderers  (subsequently  executed)  were 
not  found  at  the  time,  and  a  terrible  sequel  to  the  event 
took  place  in  August  at  Maamtrasna  in  the  same  country. 
A  party  of  disguised  men  entered  the  house  of  a  man  called 
Joyce,  and  massacred  the  man,  his  wife,  his  mother, 
daughter  and  one  son,  the  other  son  being  severely  wounded 
and  apparently  left  for  dead.  The  murderers  had  reason 
to  fear  that  the  Joyce  family  knew  of  the  murder  of  the 
two  bailiffs.  Ten  men  were  arrested,  and  two  turned  in- 
formers. Of  the  remaining  eight,  who  were  sentenced  to 
death,  five  had  their  sentences  commuted  to  penal  servitude. 
The  remaining  three  men  were  hanged  on  December  15. 
Of  these  three,  one,  Myles  Joyce,  declared  his  innocence 
even  in  the  moment  of  being  hanged.  The  two  men  who 
died  with  him,  while  admitting  their  own  guilt,  also  dis- 
sociated him  from  complicity  in  the  crime,  but  Spencer 
told  Harcourt  that  he  was  satisfied  that  the  declarations 
were  part  of  a  plot  to  bring  the  administration  of  the  law 
into  disrepute,  and  the  capital  sentence  was  not  interfered 
with.  The  case  aroused  intense  feeling,  which  was  to  blaze 
up  again  many  months  later  when  it  became  known  that 
Casey,  one  of  the  informers,  had  confessed  to  the  Archbishop 
of  Tuam  that  he  had  falsely  accused  Myles  Joyce  of  being 
associated  with  the  crime. 

This  and  many  other  aspects  of  the  Irish  situation  engaged 
the  attention  of  Harcourt  during  the  autumn.  The  Phoenix 
Park  murderers  were  still  undiscovered,  and  there  were  other 
tragic  episodes  on  which  he  corresponded  freely  with 
Spencer — questions  of  suspects,  the  commutation  of  sen- 
tences and  the  personal  safety  of  ministers.  Gladstone 
had  written  to  him  suggesting  that  the  Flintshire  authorities 
might  be  relieved  of  the  cost  and  duty  of  "  shadowing  " 
him,  but  Harcourt  would  take  no  risks,  and  writing  to 
Spencer  said : 

December  24. —  .  .  .  I  am  very  glad  you  are  strictly  watched.  It 
is  most  clearly  your  duty.  A  blow  struck  at  you  would  be  fatal  to 
the  country  as  well  as  to  your  friends.  I  have  insisted  on  Gladstone 
submitting  to  precautions.  He  had  begun  to  resist,  and  he  has  I 


i882]  KILMAINHAM     'TREATY'  455 

am  glad  to  say  consented,  and  I  have  even  myself  taken  precautions 
which  I  had  not  used  before — as  these  villains  are  quite  capable  of 
striking  here  when  baffled  in  Ireland.  .  .  . 

He  was  still  disposed  to  think  that  Gladstone  was  too 
conciliatory  both  to  the  Irish  and  the  Conservative  Opposi- 
tion. The  latter,  through  Lord  Randolph  Churchill,  had 
during  the  autumn  session  raised  again  the  question  of  the 
so-called  "  Kilmainham  Treaty,"  and  Harcourt  writing  to 
his  wife  said : 

November  14. —  .  .  .  We  had  an  unsatisfactory  night  in  the  H.  of  C. 
last  night,  Gladstone  giving  way  in  the  hope  of  conciliating  opposi- 
tion, which  became  all  the  worse  the  more  he  conciliated.  He  then 
got  very  angry,  and  in  a  fury  demanded  an  inquiry  into  the  "  Kil- 
mainham Compact "  which  we  all  decided  in  the  spring  should  not 
be  given.  And  now  when  the  whole  affair  had  died  out  it  is  blown 
into  a  flame  again.  It  is  a  great  scrape,  and  I  don't  know  what  will 
come  of  it.  ... 

He  wrote  (November  17)  a  long  letter  to  Gladstone 
urging  that  the  inquiry  should  be  limited  to  the  facts  and 
circumstances  under  which  Parnell  was  released  from 
Kilmainham,  and  should  not  traverse  confidential  corre- 
spondence and  conversations,  a  precedent  "  which  would 
really  make  the  conduct  of  difficult  business  of  State 
hereafter  impossible.  ...  It  is  a  transaction  which  I  for 
one  am  quite  prepared  to  defend.  If  Parnell  was  ready  to 
take  the  side  of  order  upon  any  terms  which  we  could 
fairly  accept  we  were  bound  to  welcome  his  aid." 


CHAPTER  XX 
HARCOURT  AND  HIS  COLLEAGUES 

Government's  Egyptian  policy — Resignation  of  Mr.  Bright — 
Harcourt  at  Balmoral — Pressure  from  the  Queen  on  Egyptian 
questions — Harcourt  in  the  New  Forest — The  closure  again — 
Cabinet  reconstruction — Lord  Rosebery  at  the  Home  Office — 
Harcourt' s  improved  relations  with  Gladstone. 

IRELAND  was  not  the  only  capital  subject  that  occupied 
Parliament  and  the  country  during  these  months. 
By  the  irony  of  events  the  Government  had  become 
involved  in  a  war  in  Egypt.  It  was  a  sequel  to  the  policy 
started  under  the  previous  Government  against  which  Glad- 
stone had  protested  at  the  time,  but  from  the  consequences 
of  which  his  Government  could  not  well  escape.  The  joint 
action  of  Great  Britain  and  France  in  promoting  internal  order 
in  Egypt  was  never  a  workable  or  enduring  scheme,  and  the 
incompetence  and  corruption  of  the  Khedive's  rule  promptly 
showed  its  weakness.  A  revolt,  military  in  form  but  largely 
nationalist  in  character  and  directed  against  European 
intervention  in  the  country,  took  place  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Arabi,  an  able  and  fanatical  man  who  had  risenj 
from  the  fellah  class.  The  problem  of  putting  down  thei 
revolt  and  restoring  order  and  the  authority  of  the  Khedive 
was  a  delicate  and  complicated  one,  rendered  all  the  more 
difficult  by  the  fall  of  Gambetta,  who  had  been  the  chief 
spirit  in  promoting  joint  French  and  English  action,  to  the 
exclusion  of  other  Powers.  Gladstone,  caught  in  a  net 
that  he  would  gladly  have  escaped,  would  have  preferred 
international  action,  but  this  was  rendered  impossible  by 
France,  and  when  that  country  overthrew  the  de  Freycinet 
Ministry  rather  than  lock  up  any  of  her  soldiers  in  Egypt 

456 


i882]  BRIGHT   RESIGNS  457 

— being  then  more  afraid  of  Bismarck  than  of  British  aggres-) 
sion — the  English  Government  found  themselves  alone  with 
the  task  of  putting  down  the  rebellion.  The  result  was  the 
bombardment  of  Alexandria  and  the  subsequent  campaign 
under  Wolseley  which  ended  in  the  victory  at  Tel-el-Kebir 
and  the  suppression  of  the  insurrection. 

The  pursuit  of  this  policy  cost  Gladstone  the  heaviest 
personal  loss  his  Ministry  had  sustained.  Bright  resigned 
his  seat  in  the  Cabinet  rather  than  be  a  party  to  military  ' 
action.  Harcourt  wrote  to  him  (July  18)  expressing  his 
"  profound  sorrow  "  at  the  thought  that  they  were  no  longer 
colleagues  and  adding : 

.  .  .  No  man  in  England  has  more  truly  earned  the  right  to 
determine  what  is  just  and  right  than  you  have. 

Quite  apart  from  the  serious  loss  to  the  Government  which  your 
retirement  necessarily  creates,  to  me  it  is  specially  painful  from  the 
deep  personal  regard  and  attachment  (if  you  will  permit  me  the 
word)  which  I  have  so  long  felt  for  you.  .  .  . 

But  though  he  lamented  the  loss  of  Bright,  he  did  not 
share  his  disagreement  with  the  policy  of  the  Cabinet,  and 
when  the  news  of  Tel-el-Kebir  reached  him  at  Balmoral, 
where  he  was  on  duty  as  Minister  in  attendance,  he  tele- 
graphed the  good  tidings  to  his  wife,  and  writing  to  her 
the  same  day  said : 

BALMORAL  CASTLE,  September  15. —  .  .  .  Every  one  here  of  course 
in  highest  spirits.  We  had  a  jolly  dinner  last  night.  I  sat  between 
Princess  Beatrice  and  the  Duchess  of  Albany,  who  inquired  much 
after  you.  I  had  a  long  talk  after  dinner  with  the  Duchess  of 
Connaught,  who  is  very  charming.  She  has  been  very  anxious 
but  is  now  quite  happy.  She  promises  to  show  me  the  baby  and 
talked  much  of  her  illness. 

The  Queen  sent  for  me  immediately  on  my  arrival  and  I  had  a 
long  conversation  with  her.  She  is  quite  pleased  with  everything 
and  everybody  except  the  G.O.M.1  .  .  . 

1  The  authorship  of  the  sobriquet  "  Grand  old  Man  "  for  Glad- 
stone is  generally  attributed  to  Harcourt.  Sir  Henry  Lucy  in  his 
Diary  of  the  Salisbury  Parliament  says  :  "  The  honour  of  its  inven- 
tion belongs  to  Sir  William  Harcourt.  It  will  be  found  in  one  of 
his  early  addresses  to  his  constituents  in  Derby,  and  had  its  birth 
amid  the  exultation  that  followed  on  Gladstone's  return  to  power 
in  1880."  A  claim  for  Bradlaugh  has  also  been  set  up.  The  phrase 
appears  in  a  speech  made  by  him  in  1881. 


458  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1882 

The  cause  of  the  exception  is  revealed  in  another  letter 
to  his  wife  in  which  he  says  that  "  dear  Henry  "  (Ponsonby) 
"  tells  me  that  the  Queen  is  in  high  good  humour,  but  cross 
with  the  G.O.M.  who  in  writing  to  her  has  never  said  a 
word  about  the  Duchess  of  Connaught  "  (who  had  recently 
been  confined).  fr*-******^ / 

To  Spencer  next  day  Harcourt  writes  of  the  "  glorious 
Egyptian  news,"  and  says  : 

BALMORAL  CASTLE,  September  16.  — .  .  .  It  really  seems  as  if 
at  last  this  unfortunate  Government  was  about  to  have  a  turn  of 
luck.  It  has  all  been  very  well  done,  and  Childers  and  Northbrook 
deserve  the  highest  credit  for  the  way  in  which  they  have  organized 
victory.  The  business  of  the  settlement  will  be  a  difficult  one. 
The  Queen  is  very  urgent  that  "  we  should  keep  a  strong  hold  on 
Egypt — not  exactly'  annexation  '  " — but  evidently  as  near  to  it  as 
possible.  And  I  believe  the  country  will  expect  to  have  something 
for  its  money — though  what  that  something  is  it  is  not  very  easy  to 
describe.  I  fear  the  cracking  of  this  nut  portends  early  and  frequent 
Cabinets,  which  with  the  prospect  of  an  autumn  session  is  not 
agreeable,  though  I  feel  ashamed  to  grumble  to  you  who  have  no 
holiday  at  all.  .  .  . 

To  Gladstone  he  wrote  in  much  the  same  terms,  and  took 
the  opportunity  to  convey  a  hint  to  him  to  placate  the 
Queen.  "  And  I  rejoice  specially,"  he  said,  "  for  the  poor 
little  Duchess  of  Connaught  who  has  been  very  anxious, 
but  is  now  comforted  to  think  that  her  warrior  (the  Duke 
was  engaged  in  the  Wolseley  expedition)  is  eating  a  com- 
fortable dinner  at  Shepherd's  Hotel,  Cairo."  Harcourt,  like 
Disraeli,  knew  how  to  cultivate  royalty.  "I  sit  every  day 
at  dinner,"  he  wrote  to  his  son,  "  between  alternate  Prin- 
cesses, Beatrice,  Albany  and  Connaught.  I  have  a  good 
deal  of  baby  talk  with  the  Duchess  of  Connaught,  who  is 
a  very  charming  little  woman."  All  royalties,  however, 
were  not  charming,  and  he  tells  Gladstone  that  the  Prince 
of  Wales  is  bringing  to  Abergeldie  the  King  and  Queen  of 
Greece,  who  are  regarded  as  "  de  trop  in  the  Highlands." 

Gladstone  promptly  replied  to  the  hint  from  high  quarters 
about  annexation.  Writing  to  Harcourt  at  Balmoral,  he 
says  : 


i88a]  THE  QUEEN  AND   EGYPT  459 

Gladstone  to  Harcourt. 

HAWARDEN  CASTLE,  September  17. —  .  .  .  Were  we  not  pleased 
and  thankful  now,  what  would  make  us  so  ?  No  doubt  great 
difficulties  remain  :  and  we  have  great  questions  to  consider.  The 
first  of  them  is  whether  Egypt  is  to  be  hereafter,  and  whether  we  are 
now  to  lay  the  ground  for  her  being,  for  the  Egyptian  people,  or  for 
somebody  else  ?  I  say  for  the  Egyptian  people,  just  as  Bulgaria 
for  the  Bulgarian  people,  although  Egypt  cannot  at  the  moment 
undertake  so  large  a  share  of  self-government,  and  is  also  hampered 
with  definite  external  obligations  which  she  cannot  set  aside. 

The  Queen  expressed  to  me  at  Osborne  a  desire  that  Egypt 
should  be  independent.  There  was  not  then  as  much  temptation, 
as  there  is  now,  to  say  otherwise. 

The  great  question  of  British  interest  is  the  Canal,  and  this  turns 
on  neutralization,  aye  or  no.  Pray  turn  your  mind  to  it.  There 
is  much  difference  of  opinion  ;  and  we  must  endeavour  to  expiscate 
the  matter  thoroughly,  (you  are  a  Scot  for  the  time  being).  .  . 

The  hand  of  the  London  police  is  now  off  me  :  but  in  Flintshire 
(where  they  are  considerate  beyond  anything)  I  still,  to  my  serious 
regret,  weigh  heavily  upon  the  rates.  .  .  . 

Harcourt  was  in  an  awkward  position.  The  Queen  had 
assumed  that  his  quiescence  on  the  subject  of  the  Egyptian 
settlement  meant  acquiescence,  and  he  wrote  to  Granville 
for  a  lead  as  to  "  the  sort  of  tone  "  he  wished  him  to  take. 
To  Gladstone  he  wrote : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

BALMORAL  CASTLE,  September  18. —  ...  I  pointed  out  yesterday 
to  the  Queen  that  we  had  entered  into  obligations  of  disinterestedness 
to  Europe  from  which  we  could  not  in  honour  depart ;  that  your 
declarations  in  that  direction  were  in  fact  the  condition  of  the 
friendly  neutrality  of  Europe  in  the  recent  contest ;  and  that  there- 
fore it  was  out  of  the  question  that  we  should  claim  to  settle  the  matter 
out  of  hand  by  ourselves  and  with  regard  solely  to  our  own  interest. 
This  was  a  doctrine  which  I  found  not  at  all  palatable.  .  .  .  The 
Q.  is  very  anxious  for  the  execution  of  Arabi,  but  I  insisted  that  the 
death  of  Marshal  Ney  had  not  redounded  to  the  credit  of  the  Duke 
of  Wellington,  and  that  the  Government  of  the  U.S.  had  spared 
General  Lee  and  Jeff  Davis.  Altogether  I  should  be  very  glad  of 
some  indication  of  the  line  which  you  wish  to  be  adopted  on  these 
topics  as  I  am  to  be  here  till  the  26th.  .  .  . 

"  I  think  nothing  can  be  better  than  what  you  said 
to  the  Queen,"  replied  Gladstone.  In  answer  to  Har- 


460  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1882 

court's  request  for  a  lead  Granville  wrote  (September  18) 
that  : 

.  .  .  The  three  objects  should  be  not  to  throw  away  the  advan- 
tages we  have  gained,  to  avoid  any  just  accusation  of  having  aban- 
doned our  pledges,  and  to  enlist  the  sympathies  of  the  Egyptians 
with  us  and  not  against  us.  ... 

The  Queen,  however,  persisted,  and  the  day  before 
Harcourt  left  Balmoral  took  the  precaution  of  putting  her 
views  in  a  letter  in  which  she  said  : 

Queen  Victoria  to  Harcourt. 

^     BALMORAL  CASTLE,  September  22. — The  Queen  feels  very  anxious 

/  for  the  future  arrangements  about   Egypt,   and  hopes  Sir  Wm. 

Harcourt  will  impress  very  strongly  on  all  his  colleagues,  the  absolute 

necessity  as  well  as  importance  of  our  holding  a  high  tone,  and 

(short  of  annexation)  securing  to  ourselves  such  a  position  in  Egypt 

as  to  secure  our  Indian  Dominions  and  to  maintain  our  superiority 

in  the  East,  which  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  ourselves  as 

;much  as  for  civilization  in  general ! 

The  Queen  was  delighted  to  hear  of  the  idea  of  a  small  representa- 
tion of  the  Empress  of  India's  troops  being  brought  over  to  be 
presented  to  their  Empress.  She  cannot  forbear  from  observing 
how  remarkable  it  is  that  so  much  of  dear  Lord  Beaconsfield's  wise 
policy  (so  attacked  and  reviled,  she  cannot  conceal  from  Sir  Wm. 
Harcourt)  has  been  crowned  with  signal  success  :  viz.  the  great 
use  of  Cyprus  ;  the  employment  of  the  Indian  troops,  and  their 
being  brought  over  to  see  their  Queen  Empress — which  was  only 
not  done  three  or  four  years  ago — as  it  was  believed  the  Opposition 
would  make  such  an  outcry  ! 

The  days  at  Balmoral,  however,  were  not  wholly  devoted 
to  these  high  matters.  Harcourt  had  a  great  capacity  for 
enjoyment,  and  was  happy  at  Court  as  in  most  places. 
His  letters  to  his  wife  are  full  of  high-spirited  accounts  of 
his  doings  and  the  doings  of  others.  Thus  he  writes  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Wife. 

BALMORAL  CASTLE,  September  18. —  .  .  .  We  had  prayers  in  the 
dining-room  yesterday,  as  the  Q.  is  driven  away  from  church  by  the 
mob  of  tourists  who  come  here  to  look  at  her  through  opera-glasses. 
She  dined  in  private  yesterday,  being  in  much  distress  at  the  news 
of  the  fatal  illness  of  the  Dean  of  Windsor  on  whom  she  leans  a 
good  deal.  I  went  afterwards  to  the  Kirk  with  Lady  Enrol ;  she 
is  very  pious  and  has  undertaken  my  conversion.  On  the  other 


i882]  IN   THE   NEW   FOREST  461 

hand  she  is   lively  and  talks   whilst  Lady   Southampton    never 
uttered.  .  .  . 

September  21. —  ...  I  shall  be  glad  to  return  to  the  myrtles  of 
the  New  Forest.  .  .  .  These  royal  circles  are  dull.  .  .  . 

BALMORAL  CASTLE,  September  19. —  .  .  .  Yesterday  after  lun- 
cheon just  as  I  had  got  on  my  riding  boots  I  was  sent  for  by  the 
Queen.  I  proposed  to  wait  till  I  had  put  on  more  courtly  attire, 
but  was  ordered  at  once  into  the  presence  to  see  the  baby — so  I 
went  accoutred  as  I  was  and  found  the  Q.  and  the  Duchess  of 
Connaught  with  baby  which  is  a  fine  fat  infant  (weight  21  Ibs.)  with 
blue  eyes  and  very  solid  arms.  It  was  very  amiable  and  I  played 
with  it  some  time.  I  have  quite  lost  my  heart  to  its  mother — who 
is  the  dearest  little  woman  I  have  seen  for  a  long  time. 

At  4.30  I  started  off  to  ride  to  Fife's  at  Mar  Lodge  with  Byng  and 
Lord  Errol — it  is  26  miles  there  and  back — Lord  Errol,  who  is  a 
very  lively  saint,  leading  at  a  hard  gallop,  and  we  did  the  distance 
in  three  hours.  Fancy  what  a  performance  for  me,  especially 
as  it  was  performed  on  a  hill  pony  heavier  and  rougher  than  my  own 
cob.  Yet  I  am  alive  and  no  worse  though  I  was  rather  achy  last 
night.  .  .  . 

II 

But  these  courtly  duties  were  eating  up  the  brief  vaca- 
tion and  were  diverting  him  from  a  new  passion  of  place 
that  had  taken  a  strong  hold  on  him.  He  had  fallen  in 
love  with  the  New  Forest,  where  he  had  taken  Cumells, 
near  Lyndhurst,  the  home  of  Mrs.  Hargreaves,  Dean 
LiddelTs  daughter,  the  original  of  Alice  in  Wonderland. 
He  had  gone  thither  with  his  family  on  the  rising  of  Parlia- 
ment, and  his  letters  to  his  friends  resounded  with  praises 
of  the  Forest.  "  Don't  be  an  odious  snipe  in  the  ooze  of 
the  Thames,"  he  writes  to  Dilke,  "  but  come  down  here  at 
once  and  nurse  Bobby."  And  to  Bright,  who  had  made 
some  request  of  him,  he  writes  : 

LYNDHURST,  July  30. — You  may  be  sure  that  the  fact  of  your 
wishing  a  thing  is  the  strongest  reason  for  my  wishing  to  do  it. 
And  therefore  as  the  gentleman  said  to  Louis  XIV,  "  If  it  is  possible 
it  is  already  done,  if  it  is  impossible  it  shall  be  done." 

I  write  this  from  the  heart  of  the  New  Forest  on  a  delicious  Sunday. 
We  have  taken  a  nice  house  here  for  the  autumn,  where  I  hope  you 
will  visit  us  in  "  a  boundless  contiguity  of  shade  "  where  rumours 
of  wars  will  not  reach  you. 


462  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1882 

If  you  do  not  know  the  country  about  here  you  will  marvel  that 
such  a  place  could  still  exist  in  England. 

Harcourt  continued  in  occupation  of  Cufnells  throughout 
the  autumn,  and  among  his  visitors  there  were  the  Prime 
Minister  and  Mrs.  Gladstone.  Their  brief  stay  was  inter- 
rupted by  a  summons,  which  could  not  be  denied,  for  the 
host  and  hostess  to  dine  and  sleep  at  Windsor.  Lady 
Harcourt,  in  a  letter  (December  9)  to  her  sister,  Mrs. 
Sheridan,  describes  the  formal  proceedings  at  Windsor  and 
their  return  the  next  afternoon  to  their  guests.  "  It  has 
been  most  interesting,  Mr.  Gladstone  apparently  very  well 
and  pouring  out  his  mind  on  every  subject  in  a  way  that 
makes  me  wish  I  had  the  pen  of  a  ready  writer  to  write  it 
down  and  record  it.  ...  He  seems  equal  to  anything 
and  I  hope  will  long  continue  to  lead  the  Party." 

in 

But  apart  from  occasional  flying  visits,  Harcourt  had 
little  time  to  cultivate  his  new-found  pastime.  An  autumn 
session,  together  with  his  departmental  duties,  left  him 
with  small  leisure.  The  session  was  chiefly  concerned  with 
the  passing  of  the  new  rules  of  procedure,  and  the  sharpening 
of  the  new  instrument  of  the  closure.  On  this  subject 
Harcourt  took  a  stronger  view  than  some  of  his  colleagues, 
and  circulated  a  long  memorandum  (October  15)  to  the 
Cabinet  insisting  that  it  was  "  essential  to  secure  to  a 
majority  the  right  to  prevail  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of 
parliamentary  institutions."  Obstruction  was  a  new  fea- 
ture in  parliamentary  life,  which  the  old  rules  of  the  House 
did  not  contemplate.  Its  development  required  an  emphatic 
assertion  of  the  right  of  the  majority : 

To  recognize  in  one-third  or  one-quarter  of  the  House  an  absolute 
right  ...  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  decision  of  a  question  is, 
in  my  judgment,  to  give  a  formal  consecration  to  the  principle  of 
obstruction.  .  .  .  Why  is  it  to  be  assumed  that  the  minority  will  not 
abuse  their  veto  when  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  majority  will 
abuse  their  cloture.  ...  I  confess  I  am  not  convinced  by  Harting- 
ton's  argument  on  the  general  policy  of  conciliation.  I  have  no 
confidence  in  a  millennium  .  .  in  which  the  lion  will  lie  down 


i882]  MINISTERIAL  CHANGES  463 

with  the  lamb,  and  a  little  child  will  lead  Lord  Salisbury  and  Mr. 
Gladstone.  .  .  . 

He  devoted  a  speech  to  his  constituents  at  Derby  on 
November  4  mainly  to  this  subject.  His  view,  which 
coincided  with  that  of  Gladstone  except  in  regard  to  making 
the  reforms  a  temporary  expedient — a  difference  of  opinion 
on  which  events  declared  themselves  for  Harcourt — pre- 
vailed. The  need  of  the  reforms  was  emphasized  during 
the  session  itself,  which  was  marked  by  the  ebullience  of 
the  Fourth  Party  and  the  activities  of  Lord  Randolph 
Churchill.  Harcourt's  letters  to  his  wife  at  Cufnells  at  this 
time  make  frequent  reference  to  the  encounters  between 
Churchill  and  "  Staffy  "  (Northcote),  of  the  latter  of  whom 
he  always  speaks  with  peculiar  affection.  In  one  episode 
of  the  struggle  over  the  closure  Harcourt  came  to  grief. 
Henry  Fowler,  from  the  Liberal  side,  had  proposed  an 
amendment  denning  forty  members  as  a  "  competent  num- 
ber "  to  demand  an  adjournment  before  public  business 
began.  Harcourt  declared  hostility  to  the  amendment  in 
the  name  of  the  Government,  insisting  that  only  a  majority 
of  the  House  should  have  this  power  ;  but  later  in  the  day 
Hartington  rose  to  say  that  Harcourt  had  been  "  misunder- 
stood," and  Gladstone  himself  practically  conceded  the 
Fowler  suggestion. 

As  the  year  drew  to  a  close  the  question  of  the  recon- 
struction of  the  Ministry  became  pressing.  Bright 's  place 
at  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  had  not  been  filled,  and  Glad- 
stone found  it  necessary  to  give  up  the  Exchequer. 
Indeed,  there  had  been  hints  of  resignation.  Writing  to 
Spencer  after  Gladstone's  visit  to  Cufnells,  Harcourt  says, 
apropos  of  the  changes  in  the  Ministry : 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET. —  .  .  .  Poor  Gladstone  has  had  a  bad  time 
of  it  this  last  fortnight,  what  between  Windsor  and  the  various 
claimants.  I  think  both  he  and  Granville  overrate  the  value  of  the 
Derby  adhesion.  It  will  pacify  some,  but  it  will  irritate  more. 
For  myself  I  am  glad  of  it,  as  I  have  always  liked  Derby.  I  fear  that 
as  was  inevitable  in  the  new  arrangements  there  are  some  ambitions 
unsatisfied.  It  is  a  bad  thing  to  be  Home  Secretary,  a  worse  thing 
to  be  Lord- Lieutenant,  but  worst  of  all  to  be  Prime  Minister.  .  .  . 


464  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1882 

We  have  left  our  country  home  and  returned  to  London.  We 
closed  our  season  with  a  visit  from  Gladstone,  and  I  was  happy  to 
extract  from  him  an  assurance  that  he  would  not  carry  out  his 
intention  to  retire  at  present. 

But  the  vacancies  had  to  be  filled,  and  this  was  no  easy 
matter.  The  difficulty  centred  chiefly  in  the  case  of  Dilke. 
His  claim  to  inclusion  in  the  Cabinet  was  regarded  as  over- 
whelming ;  but  the  Queen  still  had  no  love  for  him,  though 
the  Prince  of  Wales  and  Prince  Leopold,  as  Harcourt 
informed  Gladstone  from  Balmoral,  were  very  friendly  to 
him.  Chamberlain  was  naturally  angry  at  the  objections 
to  Dilke.  Writing  to  Harcourt,  he  said : 

Chamberlain  to  Harcourt. 

HIGHBURY,  December  n. —  ...  I  am  very  glad  to  have  your 
letter  and  to  be  rid  of  the  nightmare  of  Mi.  G.'s  resignation.  It 
must  come  some  day,  but  the  later  the  better.  I  can  understand 
his  alarm  at  redistribution,  but  why  should  he  funk  County  Fran- 
chise ?  .  .  . 

I  wish  he  had  spoken  to  the  Q.  about  Dilke.  It  would  never  do 
to  be  left  in  the  lurch  with  Derby  in  and  Dilke  out.  The  latter 
sweetens  the  former  dose  with  many  of  us. 

I  do  not  myself  believe  in  Lord  Derby's  influence.  It  is  of  the 
wrong  sort  with  the  best  Liberals,  and  it  is  not  enough  to  convert 
the  Tories  to  the  side  of  the  Government,  and  it  is  another  Peer  ! 

Half  the  Cabinet  in  that  effete  institution  ! — to  which  some  day 
you  will  be  condemned  and  where  you  will  pine  and  dwindle  till 
you  are  as  thin  as  Lulu.  .  .  . 

It  was  agreed  that  the  vacancy  in  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster 
was  not  suitable  for  Dilke's  active  genius  for  administration, 
and  Chamberlain  very  handsomely  offered  to  take  the  Duchy 
himself  and  make  room  for  Dilke  at  the  Board  of  Trade. 
To  this  sacrifice  Harcourt  entered  an  energetic  protest,  both 
to  Gladstone  and  Granville.  He  spoke  of  Chamberlain's 
abilities  and  of  his  loyalty  to  the  Government,  said  that 
he  was  making  the  sacrifice  out  of  friendship  and  not  because 
he  desired  it,  and  pointed  out  that,  being  dissatisfied  with 
his  new  post,  his  activities  would  push  him  "  to  assert 
himself  and  his  principles  and  to  seek  rather  than  avoid 
occasions  of  resignation."  As  a  way  out  Harcourt  suggested 
that  Dodson  should  leave  the  Local  Government  Board 


i88a]         CHAMBERLAIN   AND   DILKE          465 

for  the  Duchy  and  be  succeeded  by  Dilke.     To  Chamberlain 
Harcourt  wrote  : 

Harcourt  to  Chamberlain. 

HOME  OFFICE,  December  17. —  .  .  .  Your  generosity  and  self- 
sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  Dilke  is  very  great,  but  will  surprise  no  one 
who  knows  you  as  well  as  I  do.  At  the  same  time  I  am  deeply 
dissatisfied  with  the  arrangement.  It  will  not  be  "  understanded 
of  the  people,"  and  will  give  rise  to  all  sorts  of  misconstruction. 

As  regards  the  Queen  herself  it  will  lead  to  all  kinds  of  comments 
which  should  be  avoided.  Besides  I  cannot  bear  the  thought  of 
your  being  relegated  even  for  a  time  to  a  place  altogether  unworthy 
of  your  great  powers  and  intellectual  position.  There  is  another 
arrangement  which  has  occurred  to  me  (and  I  understand  also  to 
you),  viz.  that  Dodson  should  go  to  the  Duchy,  you  to  Local  G. 
Board,  and  Dilke  to  B.  of  Trade.  Everybody  would  understand 
this  and  there  is  a  fitness  about  it  that  would  commend  it  to  the 
public  judgment.  .  .  . 

I  am  very  much  disturbed  in  my  mind  about  this  business.  I 
have  so  much  regard  for  you  that  I  cannot  endure  the  idea  that  you 
should  be  made  the  victim  in  the  business,  and  I  confess  I  can  hardly 
understand  how  anyone  could  accept  the  sacrifice  you  are  prepared 
to  make.  .  .  . 

To  this  Chamberlain  replied : 

Chamberlain  to  Harcourt. 

HIGHBURY,  December  18. — Your  letter  is  very  pleasant  to  me  and 
I  shall  never  forget  the  kindness  you  have  shown  at  this  time,  nor 
the  efforts  you  have  made  to  spare  me  what  will  certainly  be  a  most 
painful  sacrifice. 

Whatever  may  be  ultimately  decided,  I  am  comforted  to  know 
how  thoroughly  I  can  count  on  your  friendship  and  sympathy.  .  .  . 

In  the  end  Harcourt 's  suggestion  was  adopted,  and  the 
final  ministerial  changes  placed  Childers  at  the  Treasury, 
Hartington  at  the  War  Office,  Derby  at  the  Colonial  Office, 
Kimberley  at  the  India  Office,  Dilke  at  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Board,  and  Dodson  at  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster. 

Another  ministerial  matter  occupied  Harcourt's  pen  a 
good  deal  in  the  closing  days  of  the  year.  Lord  Rosebery 
had  now  been  associated  with  him  at  the  Home  Office  for 
eighteen  months.  The  position  had  always  been  regarded 
as  a  misfit  and  a  temporary  expedient,  and  in  practice  had 
proved  unsatisfactory.  The  relations  between  the  two  men, 

H  H 


466  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1882 

judging  from  their  correspondence,  was  thoroughly  good 
humoured,  and  Harcourt  had  no  more  witty  or  amusing 
correspondent  than  his  Under-Secretary. 

But  Lord  Rosebery  was  not  happy  in  his  place  nor  happy 
about  the  management  of  Scottish  business,  and  on  Decem- 
ber 23  Gladstone  sent  to  Harcourt  a  correspondence  which 
Rosebery  had  had  with  him  and  which  had  given  "  a  great 
deal  of  trouble  and  worry  at  Hawarden."  In  replying  to 
Gladstone,  Harcourt  recalled  the  attitude  of  Lord  Rosebery 
when  Carlingford  was  appointed  to  the  Privy  Seal ;  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which,  in  spite  of  the  obvious  objection,  he 
(Harcourt)  consented  to  his  appointment  as  Under-Secretary 
at  the  Home  Office ;  the  completeness  with  which  he  had 
surrendered  all  Scottish  business  to  his  hands  and  continued  : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

...  I  am  therefore  reluctantly  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
"  wrongs  of  the  Scotch  nation  "  are  not  the  real  cause  of  the  dissatis- 
faction which  unhappily  has  developed  itself.  I  deeply  deplore 
it  no  less  on  public  than  on  personal  grounds,  and  I  greatly  sympa- 
thize in  the  annoyance  which  it  must  cause  you  at  this  moment. 
I  should  be  very  glad  if  I  could  in  any  way  be  of  use  in  the  matter, 
though  I  confess  at  this  moment  I  do  not  see  my  way.  I  should 
always  have  been  glad  that  R.  should  have  had  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet, 
but  it  is  difficult  to  deal  with  such  a  demand  made  at  the  mouth  of 
the  pistol — and  indeed  at  the  present  moment  the  H.  of  Lords  is 
in  advance  of  the  H.  of  C.  in  the  balance  of  power  as  the  seats  of 
Argyll,  Forster  and  Bright  are  to  be  filled  by  two  Peers  and  one 
Commoner.  .  .  . 

"  Many  thanks  for  your  letter  on  the  painful  Rosebery 
correspondence,"  replied  Gladstone  (December  27).  "  The 
matter  is  I  hope  disposed  of  now — i.e.  put  aside  at  any 
rate  for  the  present."  That  day  Harcourt,  who  was  spending 
his  Christmas  alone,  wrote  to  Gladstone,  stating  that  he 
had  had  a  long  conversation  with  Rosebery,  and  had  "  ten- 
dered some  good  advice  which  I  could  not  well  have 
written."  He  added : 

.  .  .  Rosebery  has  promised  me  he  will  go  to  Hawarden  at  an 
early  day — which  is  far  the  best  thing  he  can  do.  I  who  know  your 
kindness  for  your  youthful  colleagues  am  well  aware  you  will  have 


i882]         GLADSTONE  AT  CUFNELLS  467 

the  robe  and  the  ring  and  the  fatted  calf  ready  for  him,  and  that  the 
mollia  tempora  fandi  will  blot  out  the  litera  scripta. 

"  Rosebery  will  be  most  welcome  here,"  replied  Gladstone 
(December  28).  "  It  is  a  most  singular  case  of  strong  self- 
|  delusion  :  a  vein  of  foreign  matter  which  runs  straight 
across  a  clear  and  vigorous  intellect  and  a  high-toned 
character."  To  Granville  Harcourt  wrote  at  length  his 
views  about  Lord  Rosebery's  threat  of  resignation,  and 
urged  his  strong  claims  to  advancement,  not  merely  on  the 
grounds  of  his  capacity  but  equally  on  the  grounds  of  his 
influence  in  Scotland. 

The  relations  between  Harcourt  and  his  Chief  had  become 
noticeably  warmer  for  some  time,  and  the  allusions  to 
Gladstone  in  Harcourt's  letters  began  to  have  that  note 
of  personal  affection  which  continued  to  mark  his  attitude 
to  his  leader  to  the  end  of  their  long  association.  The 
visit  of  Gladstone  to  Cufnells  seems  to  have  put  the  seal 
upon  the  new  tendency.  It  is  noticeable  that  about  this 
time  their  correspondence  tended  to  become  more  intimate 
and  of  wider  range  than  formerly,  passing  easily  from  the 
discussion  of  affairs  to  the  discussion  of  subjects  that  had 
arisen  in  conversation,  from  oysters  (which  Gladstone  loathed 
and  Harcourt  loved)  to  the  sea  route  of  the  Romans  to 
Britain,  or  the  character  of  "  Soapy  Sam."  Writing  to 
Gladstone,  Harcourt  says  : 

Harcourt   to   Gladstone. 

HOME  OFFICE,  December  27. —  ...  I  think  the  last  Vol.  of 
Wilber force's  Memoirs  must  have  satisfied  even  your  charitable 
mind  that  I  was  not  too  harsh  in  the  judgment  I  expressed  at  Cuf- 
nells— I  knew  him  well  from  my  boyhood  and  always  thought  him 
the  most  self-seeking,  false  and  malignant  of  human  beings,  fawning 
when  he  hoped  to  gain,  and  venomous  when  he  had  nothing  more 
to  expect.  Fancy  the  Queen  reading  his  report  of  his  conversation 
with  the  Dean  of  Windsor  as  to  bishoprics.  What  amuses  me  is 
that  I  had  heard  it  all  almost  in  ipsissimis  verbis  from  both  the 
Bishop  and  Ld.  Beaconsfield.  He  was  indeed  the  ideal  which  a 
bitter  Dissenter  forms  of  a  Prelate  full  of  "  envy,  hatred,  malice  and 
all  uncharitableness." 

I  hope  you  observe  that  you  are  going  to  place  two  more  Cam- 


468  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1882 

bridge  men  in  the  Cabinet  and  a  Cantab,  also  at  Canterbury — Vive 
Cambridge  !  ! 

But  Gladstone  was  faithful  to  his  old  friend.  "  When 
we  meet,"  he  replied  (December  28),  "  I  will  endeavour  to 
run  a  tilt  with  you  on  behalf  of  Bishop  Wilberforce ;  and 
I  hope  you  will  tell  me,  now  or  then,  what  was  Beaconsfield's 
version  of  a  most  curious  affair."  In  this  amiable  contro- 
versy we  may  leave  the  two  statesmen  in  their  mood  of 
relaxation  and  gossip. 


CHAPTER  XXI 
THE  "HEAD  DETECTIVE" 

Mr.  Gladstone's  health — Phoenix  Park  trials — Local  Government 
for  Ireland — Harcourt's  opposition — Protection  for  the  Queen 
— Irish  discussions  in  the  House — Vengeance  on  Carey — 
Lightning  passage  of  the  Explosives  Bill — Dynamite  scares — 
Sunday  Closing — London  Government  Bill — Difference  with 
Mr.  Gladstone  on  Metropolitan  Police — Lord  Rosebery's 
resignation — The  Whewell  Professorship — Holidays  in  the 
Highlands — Family  bereavements — The  new  Speaker — The 
building  of  Mai  wood. 

f   •  "A  HE  New  Year  opened  unpromisingly  for  the  Govern- 
ment.    Gladstone's  health  was  giving  anxiety 


1 


to  his  colleagues,  and  his  continued  sleeplessness 
rendered  rest  and  change  necessary.  Writing  to  Ponsonby, 
and  significantly  underlining  one  word  by  way  of  hint  for 
the  Queen,  Harcourt  said : 

HOME  OFFICE,  January  10,  1883. — The  "  grand  old  man  "  has 
had  a  bad  time  between  all  those  who  thought  they  ought  to  be  in 
office  and  those  who  thought  they  (i.e.  the  others)  ought  not.  I 
have  myself  been  the  depositary  of  many  woes  and  have  helped  to 
anoint  not  a  few  sores.  I  don't  gather  that  Gladstone  is  seriously 
ill,  but  want  of  sleep  is  unusual  with  him  and  always  an  ugly  symp- 
tom with  a  hard- worked  and  aged  brain.  We  have  had  great 
difficulty  to  prevent  his  bolting,  and  I  do  not  feel  that  we  are  at 
all  safe  yet.  There  are  some  people  I  think  who  have  not  realized 
how  much  more  uncomfortable  things  will  be  for  everybody  when 
he  is  gone.  After  all,  he  is  the  linch-pin  of  the  coach.  .  .  . 

To  Granville  he  was  more  outspoken.  On  January  17 
he  had  been  to  Charing  Cross  to  see  Gladstone  off  to  Cannes. 
He  found  him  "  worn  and  anxious,"  and  his  entourage 
more  disturbed  about  his  condition  than  they  had  yet 
been.  "  I  fear  his  mind  is  more  than  ever  turned  towards 

469 


470  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1883 

retirement,"  he  said  ..."  I  trust  Cannes  may  do  much 
for  him,  but  I  confess  I  have  great  misgivings.  The  Q.  and 
Rosebery  have  much  to  answer  for." 

They  were  not  the  only  personal  afflictions  that  Gladstone 
had  to  bear.  Harcourt  himself  was  often  not  a  light  load. 
The  Queen  herself  seemed  a  little  touched  by  the  news. 
Harcourt  had  accompanied  the  Italian  Ambassador  on  a 
visit  to  her  at  Osborne,  and  writing  to  Hartington  (Janu- 
ary 22)  said  : 

...  I  found  H.M.  at  Osborne  in  high  spirits  and  great  good 
humour.  I  never  saw  her  so  chatty  or  disposed  to  talk  at  her  ease, 
one  sign  of  which  was  that  she  sat  down  during  our  interview  which 
I  had  never  seen  before.  I  think  she  is  touched  by  Gladstone's 
illness  and  that  her  heart  is  softened  towards  him.  .  .  . 

In  the  absence  of  the  Prime  Minister  the  preparations  for 
the  new  Session  were  held  up.  Gladstone's  own  mind 
was  still  directed  towards  the  pacification  of  Ireland.  At 
Charing  Cross  he  had  said  to  Harcourt,  "  I  must  have  a 
""Local  Government  Bill  for  Ireland."  "  I  made  no  remark 
on  this,"  Harcourt  told  Granville,  "  because  I  quite  agree 
with  Hartington  and  Spencer  that  it  is  most  impolitic  to 
contract  this  year  to  so  thorny  a  subject  in  the  present 
condition  of  Ireland."  But  what  was  to  be  the  programme  ? 
"  I  have  of  course  my  London  Bill,  ^which  is  a  big  suet 
pudding,  as  a  stodgy  piece  de  resistance.  But  man  cannot 
live  on  such  food  alone.  In  my  opinion  we  ought  not  to 
touch  Ireland  at  all.  But  we  must  have  at  least  one  political 
measure  from  a  Party  point  of  view.  I  can  see  none  but 
either  Liquor  or  County  Franchise."  He  proceeded  : 

.  .  .  The  Derbys  and  H.  Bismarck  dined  with  us  last  night. 
Derby  seems  placid  and  content,  but  abnormally  silent  and  dull. 
I  think  he  is  infected  by  her  dreariness  which  is  doleful  beyond 
description.  The  failure  of  her  eyesight  oppresses  her,  and  she 
keeps  him  tied  to  her  apron  strings  in  a  most  cheerless  domestic 
circle  of  one.  His  logical  mind  is  disquieted  by  the  fact  that 
J  we  have  as  yet  settled  no  programme  of  measures  for  the 
Session.  .  .  . 

Granville,  replying  to  Harcourt,  said  he  had  seen  Glad- 


i883]  PHCENIX   PARK   AGAIN  471 

stone  off  at  Dover,  and  took  a  more  cheerful  view  of  his 
condition  : 

...  I  cannot  help  being  a  little  doubtful  about  the  extent  of  the 
sleeplessness.  A  really  good  sleeper  always  exaggerates  the  number 
of  hours  he  is  awake,  if  it  happens  to  him  at  all.  I  was  cured  of  the 
belief  that  I  did  not  sleep  at  all  by  moving  to  Carlton  Terrace,  and 
finding  that  I  only  heard  Big  Ben  once  or  twice  in  the  night.  .  .  . 

So  far  as  the  programme  of  the  session  was  concerned, 
he  told  Harcourt  that  he  shared  Gladstone's  view  as  to  an 
Irish  Local  Government  measure. 

But  a  few  days  before  an  event  had  happened  which  was 
destined  largely  to  shape  the  political  activities  of  the  year- 
A  police  raid  in  Dublin  on  January  13  resulted  in  the  capture 
of  seventeen  persons,  who  were  at  once  charged  with  con- 
spiracy to  murder  certain  Government  officials  and  other 
persons.  They  were  arrested  on  evidence  procured  by 
the  special  powers  given  by  the  Crimes  Act.  Three  more 
arrests  were  made  three  days  later.  When  the  prisoners 
were  brought  into  court  on  January  20,  it  was  stated  that 
one  of  their  number,  Robert  Farrell,  had  turned  informer. 
Farrell  described  the  inner  circle  of  the  Fenian  organization 
charged  especially  with  murder,  and  gave  details  of  the 
plot  which  had  been  directed  against  Mr.  Forster.  On 
February  10  Michael  Kavanagh,  the  car-driver  who  had 
driven  off  with  the  murderers  on  the  day  of  the  Phoenix 
Park  crime,  also  turned  informer,  and  declared  that  Carey 
gave  the  signal  for  the  murder.  Carey  was  a  town  councillor, 
and  was  a  member  of  the  secret  society,  the  Invincibles, 
who  acted  under  the  direction  of  the  mysterious  No.  I. 
This  man  now  turned  informer  to  save  his  own  life,  and 
the  full  details  of  the  plot  were  revealed. 

Meanwhile,  however,  there  had  been  a  hot  struggle  behind 
the  scenes  over  the  Local  Government  Bill  for  Ireland. 
Gladstone  was  still  at  Cannes,  and  the  programme  for  the 
year  was  unsettled.  "  I  am  terribly  hard  at  work  on  the 
London  Bill,"  wrote  Harcourt  in  a  letter  to  his  son,  who 
was  wintering  in  Madeira,  "  and  am  in  better  heart  about 


472  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1883 

it  and  am  beginning  more  to  believe  in  its  possible  success. 
Dilke,  Chamberlain  and  other  good  judges  are  well  pleased 
with  it.  If  I  get  through  it  with  credit  I  shall  consider  I 
have  done  a  good  job  and  accomplished  my  full  share  of 
the  programme."  The  approval  of  Chamberlain  had,  how- 
ever, only  been  won  after  a  struggle.  There  had  been  much 
discussion  and  correspondence  between  the  two  on  the 
character  of  the  New  London  which  the  Bill  was  to  establish. 
Harcourt  was  for  one  London,  with  the  City  Corporation, 
reformed  and  popularly  elected,  operating  over  the  whole 
metropolitan  area.  Chamberlain  was  hostile  to  enhancing 
the  authority  of  the  City  Corporation,  and  favoured  a 
central  City  Council,  with  borough  councils  elected  at  the 
same  time.  In  the  end,  however,  he  approved  of  Harcourt 's 
Bill,  which  he  said  would  strike  the  imagination  as  a  great 
scheme. 

The  prospects  of  the  Bill,  however,  were  clouded.  Glad- 
stone, though  absent,  was  determined  that  the  reform  of 
Irish  local  government  should  be  attacked,  and  wrote 
strongly  to  that  effect  to  his  colleagues.  "  The  argument 
that  we  cannot  yet  trust  Irishmen  with  popular  local  insti- 
tutions," he  wrote  to  Granville  (January  22),  "  is  the 
mischievous  argument  by  which  the  Conservative  Opposition 
to  the  Melbourne  Government  resisted,  and  finally  crippled, 
the  reform  of  municipal  corporations  in  Ireland."  1  He 
took  strong  exception  to  the  tone  of  Hartington's  speeches 
in  Lancashire  on  Irish  government,  and  a  grave  breach  in 
the  Cabinet  seemed  imminent.  "  From  your  account," 

^  wrote  Hartington  to  Harcourt  (February  3),  "  I  think  that 

^Granville  appears  to  be  about  the  only  supporter  Mr.  G. 

is  likely  to  have  in  his  wish  to  hand  over  the  Government 

of  Ireland  to  the  Fenians."     Spencer,  after  being  disposed 

to  support  Gladstone,  had  altered  his  mind,  holding  that 

y  a  good  Bill  was  impossible  and  a  bad  Bill  useless.     Mr. 
^Trevelyan,  however,  still  favoured  a  Bill.     Harcourt  was 
tireless  in  hostility.     Writing  to  Spencer,  he  said : 

1  Lord  Morley,  Life  of  Gladstone  (App.  to  vol.  iii.). 


i883]        IRISH   LOCAL   GOVERNMENT          473 

Harcourt  to  Spencer. 

January  29. —  .  .  .  To  create  local  bodies  of  a  representative 
character  in  Ireland  just  now  seems  to  me  little  short  of  madness. 
It  is  like  handing  revolvers  to  the  Dublin  assassins,  thinking  that  by 
"  placing  confidence  "  in  them  you  will  induce  them  to  behave  well. 
It  is  a  miserable  delusion.  "Whatever  power  of  this  kind  is  given 
will  only  be  a  new  weapon  which  will  be  turned  without  remorse 
against  the  English  Government.  Gladstone  still  cherishes  the  illu- 
sion that  the  feeling  of  the  people  is  changed,  and  that  Parnell  is 
really  converted.  But  the  leopard  has  not  changed  his  spots. 
And  the  Mallow  election  shows  what  is  the  real  feeling  of  the  people. 


He  admitted  that  Gladstone's  frame  of  mind  on  the 
subject  was  very  serious  and  that  he  would  make  a  great 
fight  for  it,  but  the  majority  of  the  Cabinet  would  be  against 
him,  and  he  (Harcourt)  implored  Spencer  to  "  stand  firm." 
Two  days  later  he  repeats  the  appeal.  "  Hartington, 
Northbrook,  and  I  are  all  staunch,  and  shall  not  swerve." 
He  added,  "  O'Donovan  Rossa  has  so  long  sworn  to  take  my 
life  that  I  have  almost  ceased  to  believe  in  him.  Neverthe- 
less I  take  precautions,  and  see  that  Hartington  is  protected." 
The  kind  of  precautions  he  took  are  indicated  in  a  letter 
to  his  son  (February  8)  in  which  he  says  : 

.  .  .  We  stayed  at  Richmond  Saturday  and  Sunday,  and  there 
is  a  violent  controversy  going  on  in  the  papers  as  to  whether  the 
house  at  Richmond  was  or  was  not  surrounded  by  detectives.  The 
crowds  of  these  retainers  by  whom  we  are  attended  is  necessary. 
I  went  to  meet  Spencer  and  Granville  at  Devonshire  House  the  other 
day,  and  I  think  there  were  six  of  them  in  the  hall.  .  .  . 

Chamberlain's  attitude  meanwhile  gave  Spencer  concern. 
"  I  almost  fear  the  way  is  being  paved  for  a  new  Party  on 
Gladstone's  retirement,"  he  wrote  to  Harcourt,  "  and  that 
J.  C.  will  try  and  split  us  up  on  the  two  subjects  of  (Free) 
Education  and  Ireland."  Harcourt  told  Spencer  not  to  be 
alarmed  about  "  J.  C.,"  who  had  "  a  much  cooler  head  than 
J.  Morley,"  and  must  not  be  charged  with  the  "  follies  " 
of  the  latter  in  the  Pall  Mall.  "  I  am  much  more  afraid 
of  Jupiter  hostis  at  Cannes  on  the  subject  of  Local  Govern- 
ment," he  added. 

But  the  danger  of  a  breach  in  the  Cabinet  was  dissipated 


474  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

by  the  course  of  events  in  Ireland  and  America,  which 
finally  disposed  of  Gladstone's  hopes  of  carrying  a  measure 
of  conciliation  that  Session.  The  revelation  of  Carey,  the 
informer,  created  an  entirely  new  atmosphere  inimical  to 
pacific  legislation.  Spencer  had  accepted  his  evidence  with 
repugnance,  and  Gladstone,  though  he  argued  that  it  must 
be  received,  said,  "  Still,  one  would  have  heard  the  hiss 
from  the  dock  with  sympathy."  Harcourt  was  urgent 
that  it  should  be  received,  even  though  it  meant  that  the 
wretch  escaped  the  hangman. 

.  .  .  The  great  importance  (he  wrote  to  Spencer)  of  getting  a 
man  in  his  position  to  avow  publicly  his  own  villainy  in  the  face  of 
the  world  and  betray  those  he  has  seduced  will  have  so  great  an 
effect  in  sowing  alarm  and  distrust  throughout  the  whole  conspiracy, 
in  which  no  man  will  feel  safe  hereafter,  that  it  is  worth  almost 
any  sacrifice  to  obtain  it.  The  existence  of  informers  is  the  best 
method  of  intimidation  we  possess  against  these  villains.  .  .  . 

From  Windsor,  as  the  terrible  story  was  revealed,  there 
came  almost  daily  notes  from  the  Queen  to  Harcourt,  of 
which  this  is  typical : 

WINDSOR  CASTLE,  February  20. —  .  .  .  Will  not  Mr.  Gladstone  be 
dreadfully  shaken  by  all  these  disclosures,  as  he  never  would  believe 
in  any  connection  between  this  Land  League  and  the  Fenians  ? 
The  Queen  thinks  Sir  Wm.  Harcourt  and  Lord  Spencer  judged 
right  in  accepting  the  evidence  of  Carey — but  he  is  a  villain  who  has 
instigated  so  much  of  the  whole,  and  will  cause  the  death  of  many 
— and  she  hopes  that  he  will  be  severely  punished.  .  .  . 

Harcourt  had  now  almost  succeeded  to  Disraeli's  place 
in  the  Queen's  admiration.  After  a  visit  to  Windsor  at 
this  time  he  wrote  to  his  son,  "  I  should  blush  to  write  the 
civil  things  that  Lady  Ely  says  the  Queen  is  always  saying 
of  me."  And  he  on  his  part  spared  no  pains  to  relieve 
her  of  alarm.  In  reply  to  her  inquiry  about  the  safety  of 
a  visit  to  London,  he  assures  her  (February  26)  that  the 
police  are  satisfied  there  is  no  risk  of  danger,  but  adds  : 

...  If  Sir  William  by  a  personal  attendance  on  Your  Majesty 
when  in  transit  from  place  to  place  could  give  Your  Majesty  any 
further  sense  of  security  he  would  be  most  glad  of  Your  Majesty's 
permission  to  attend  when  Your  Majesty  moves.  .  .  . 


i883]  POLICE   PROTECTION  475 

Occasionally  Harcourt's  alarm  about  the  Queen's  safety 
seemed  to  the  Queen  herself  alarming.  Thus,  on  March  5 
she  inquired  why  Sir  E.  Henderson,  the  Chief  of  Police, 
rode  with  her  carriage  from  Buckingham  Palace.  Finding 
there  was  no  special  ground  for  concern,  she  observed, 
"  point  de  zele."  Harcourt  replied  to  Ponsonby  that  he 
had  every  reason  to  believe  that  extraordinary  precautions 
should  be  adopted  : 

Harcourt  to  Ponsonby. 

.  .  .  But  whether  it  was  her  wish  or  not  it  was  a  thing  I  thought 
ought  to  be  done,  and  therefore  I  did  it.  I  was  attacked  yesterday 
in  Downing  Street  for  the  police  protection  I  insist  on  for  Mr. 
Gladstone.  I  am  very  sorry  to  displease  both  my  mistress  and  my 
master.  But  until  I  receive  my  month's  warning,  like  a  faithful 
domestic  I  shall  do  what  I  think  best  for  the  establishment.  It  is 
foolish  to  expect  any  gratitude  for  all  the  trouble  one  takes  for  other 
people — for  one  is  not  likely  to  get  it.  But  it  is  a  little  embarrassing 
to  be  constantly  worried  first  of  all  to  do  a  great  deal  which  is 
unnecessary,  and  then  to  be  blamed  for  doing  what  is  prudent.  If 
you  want  a  horse  to  carry  you  over  such  a  stiff  country  as  we  are 
now  hunting  you  must  give  him  his  head  and  sit  firm,  and  not  be 
always  nagging  at  his  mouth  and  checking  his  head  just  as  he  is 
about  to  take  his  fences.  I  must  endure  the  reproach  of  having 
protected  the  Queen  too  much,  but  I  shall  not  face  the  blame  of 
having  protected  her  too  little.  Because  the  last  would  be  a  just  and 
the  first  is  an  unjust  censure. 

A  few  days  later  he  had  his  revenge.  The  cock-and-bull 
story  of  an  attack  by  armed  men  on  Lady  Florence  Dixie 
near  Windsor  Castle  created  great  panic  in  the  royal  circle, 
and  Harcourt  was  deluged  with  inquiries.  He  discredited 
the  story  from  the  first  and  was  soon  able  to  convince  the 
Court  that  it  was  a  pure  invention. 

ii 

Meanwhile  every  day  was  adding  to  the  magnitude  of  the 
disclosures  in  Dublin,  and  Spencer  was  now  sending  Harcourt 
a  warning  to  "  take  care  of  Hartington  "  and  of  himself, 
and  now  a  new  list  of  supposed  criminals — Byrne  and  Walsh, 
who  had  escaped  to  France,  and  Sheridan,  who  was  in 
America.  There  followed  prolonged  attempts  to  secure  their 


476  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1883 

extradition  ;  but  these  failed  for  lack  of  proof.  The  nervous 
tension  that  prevailed  in  all  circles  at  this  time  is  illustrated 
by  the  following  passage  in  a  letter  from  Harcourt  to 
Spencer : 

February  18. —  ...  I  will  tell  you  a  very  extraordinary  thing. 
Herbert  Gladstone  came  in  here  (Home  Office)  just  now  saying  that 
Justin  McCarthy  and  Barry  had  been  to  him  in  great  terror  assuring 
him  that  F.  Byrne  (who  is  secretary  of  their  association)  went  to 
Cannes  a  fortnight  ago  on  the  ground  of  ill-health,  and  imploring 
Herbert  to  take  precautions  for  his  father's  life  against  their  own 
secretary.  Byrne,  I  am  told,  and  Parnell  occupy  adjoining  rooms 
in  the  same  office  in  Victoria  St.  and  are  always  together.  .  .  . 

In  Parliament  the  debate  on  the  Address  turned  largely 
upon  the  Irish  revelations,  and  the  Government  were 
fiercely  attacked  (February  20),  especially  by  John  Gorst, 
for  changing  their  policy  from  remedial  legislation  to 
coercion  and  for  the  Kilmainham  negotiations,  which  were 
alleged  to  have  been  carried  on  behind  Forster's  back. 
Gorst  particularly  attacked  Harcourt  for  having  denied 
knowledge  of  the  notorious  Sheridan,  and  for  having  said 
in  his  "  usual  exaggerated  and  random  way  "  that  he  would 
accept  assistance  from  everybody  in  the  cause  of  law  and 
order  in  Ireland.  Harcourt 's  reply  disposed  in  a  good- 
tempered  way  of  the  allegation  that  he  was  an  incompetent 
Home  Secretary  because  he  had  not  been  aware  of  the 
complete  history  of  Sheridan.  As  to  the  Kilmainham 
negotiations,  he  repudiated  the  suggestion  that  they  had 
been  carried  on  without  Forster's  knowledge. 

.  .  .  Sir,  there  was  no  communication  made  to  the  prisoners  in 
Kilmainham  except  with  the  full  knowledge,  aye,  and  under  the 
actual  direction  of  my  Rt.  Hon.  Friend  the  member  for  Bradford. 

Forster  was  the  principal  party  to  those  communications. 
It  was  nonsense  to  say  that  the  Government  should  not 
have  accepted  the  assurances  of  the  suspects.  Forster  was 
as  willing  as  they  to  accept  them.  The  difference  between 
them  was  as  to  whether  those  assurances  were  sufficient. 
He  concluded  by  saying  that  the  Opposition  should  either 
condemn  the  policy  of  the  Government  in  Ireland  or  support 


1883]  CABINET  DISSENSIONS  477 

it.  The  most  injurious  thing  they  could  do  was  to  keep 
in  office  a  Government,  especially  the  Government  in  Ireland, 
which  they  were  labouring  in  every  way  to  weaken  and  to 
discredit. 

On  the  previous  day  there  had  been  an  informal  Cabinet 
which  Dilke  records  in  his  diary  x  as  follows  : 

.  .  .  Harcourt  fought  against  Lord  Granville,  Kimberley,  North- 
brook,  Carlingford,  and  Childers,  in  favour  of  his  violent  views  about 
the  Irish.  At  last  Carlingford,  although  an  Irish  landlord,  cried 
out :  "  Your  language  is  that  of  the  lowest  Tory."  Haxcourt  then 
said,  "  In  the  course  of  this  very  debate  I  shall  say  that  there  must 
be  no  more  Irish  legislation,  and  no  more  conciliation,  and  that 
Ireland  can  only  be  governed  by  the  sword."  "  If  you  say  that," 
replied  Carlingford,  "  it  will  not  be  as  representing  the  Government, 
for  none  of  your  colleagues  agree  with  you."  It  was  only  temper, 
and  Harcourt  said  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  made  an  excellent 
speech  [that  in  reply  to  Gorst]. 

To  Spencer  Harcourt  wrote  with  great  indignation 
(February  25)  about  "  the  disgraceful  bear-fight  "  that  was 
going  on  in  Parliament,  in  which  the  Tories  were  far  more 
anxious  to  damage  us  than  to  put  down  murder. 

Harcourt  to  Spencer. 

As  Bright  says,  "  They  dislike  assassins  much,  but  the  Govern- 
ment more.  .  .  ."  Of  course  we  decided  at  the  Cabinet  yesterday 
to  put  our  foot  down  tirm  and  refuse  not  only  a  committee,  but 
a  day  for  its  discussion  on  the  Kilmainham  transaction. 

.  .  .  Forster,  I  think,  meant  to  do  as  much  harm  as  he  dared  and 
could,  and  the  Party  are  very  wroth  with  him.  The  more  this 
matter  is  understood  it  is  perceived  that  he  resigned  not  because 
he  was  not  to  be  supported,  but  because  a  Chief  was  to  be  put  over 
him. 

Chamberlain  made  an  admirable  speech  at  the  close  of  the  debate. 
It  was  a  difficult  position  for  him,  but  he  acquitted  himself  as  well 
as  possible,  and  did  himself  and  the  Party  much  good. 

Parnell's  speech,  though  detestable,  was  well  conceived  from  his 
point  of  view.  He  had  no  wish  to  stand  well  with  the  House  of 
Commons  or  England,  but  he  spoke  to  Ireland,  and  posed  as  a  man 
who  would  admit  nothing,  apologize  for  nothing,  and  give  up  no 
one — which  is  just  what  the  Irish  admire.  ...  It  is  a  mercy,  I 
think,  that  we  have  had  the  Irish  business  out  before  the  return 
from  Cannes,  which  is  to  be  next  Thursday.  .  .  . 

1  Life,  ii.  520. 


478  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1883 

The  trials  of  the  prisoners  began  in  April.  Brady,  Curley, 
Fagan,  and  Kelly  were  found  guilty,  and  were  sentenced  to 
death.  Caffrey  and  Delaney  pleaded  guilty,  and  were 
sentenced  to  death.  Delaney's  sentence  was  commuted  to 
penal  servitude  for  life.  The  five  others  were  hanged. 
Two  more  were  sentenced  to  penal  servitude  for  life,  and 
the  rest  of  the  prisoners  were  sentenced  to  various  periods 
of  penal  servitude. 

Carey's  evidence  did  not  implicate  the  Land  League  in 
the  crimes  of  the  Invincibles,  but  some  members  of  it  were 
involved.  The  Annual  Register  of  the  year,  in  commenting 
on  the  revelations,  says  that  the  evidence  clearly  showed 
that  the  murder  of  Lord  Frederick  was  not  decreed.  The 
assassins  were  out  to  murder  Mr.  Burke,  having  failed  to 
kill  Mr.  Forster,  and  did  not  even  know  who  his  companion 
was.  "  It  reads,"  says  the  writer,  "  like  the  grimmest  of 
satires  on  Mr.  Forster's  term  of  office  to  know  that  at  a 
time  when  the  gaols  were  choking  with  the  number  of  his 
'  suspects,'  when,  according  to  his  own  belief,  he  had  every 
dangerous  man  in  the  Island  under  lock  and  key,  his  own 
life  was  in  incessant  danger  at  the  hands  of  men  of  whose 
existence  he  was  guilelessly  unaware." 

James  Carey  did  not  escape.  He  was  kept  in  Kilmainham 
for  some  time,  and  then  took  ship  to  South  Africa.  But 
he  was  shot  on  board  the  boat  by  a  man  named  O'Donnell, 
who  was  brought  home  for  trial  and  condemned  to  death. 
The  American  Government,  on  the  plea  that  O'Donnell 
might  be  an  American  subject,  asked  for  time  and  special 
consideration  of  his  case  in  a  very  remarkable  diplomatic 
document.  Charles  Russell  took  up  the  case,  and  Victor 
Hugo  appealed  to  the  Queen  to  "  spare  O'Donnell  and  earn 
the  praise  of  the  world."  Harcourt  stated  his  reasons  for 
declining  to  intervene  in  a  long  memorandum  to  Gladstone 
(December  12),  and  in  acknowledging  his  Chief's  "  kind 
and  considerate  "  reply  said  : 

.  .  .  It  is  on  these  occasions  that  your  lieutenants  have  occasion  to 
be  grateful  for  the  strong  arm  with  which  their  Chief  always  sustains 
them  when  they  are  right  and  helps  them  when  they  are  wrong. 


i883]  THE   FENIAN   SCARE  479 

O'Donnell  was  executed  a  few  days  later.  While  the 
public  mind  was  filled  with  the  Dublin  disclosures,  another 
series  of  incidents  occurred  which  created  widespread 
panic.  Writing  to  Spencer  on  March  10,  Harcourt  said : 

You  will  have  heard  by  this  time  of  the  first  act  of  retaliation  in 
London.  I  was  at  dinner  in  the  House  of  Commons  when  we  heard 
a  loud  report.  Several  of  them  at  the  table  said,  "  It  is  an  explosion." 
I  rejoined,  "  I  have  heard  so  much  of  explosions,  I  have  almost 
ceased  to  believe  in  them."  In  about  quarter-of-an-hour  the 
office-keeper  of  the  Home  Office  came  over  with  the  news.  It  is 
quite  clear  what  happened.  .  .  . 

Ill 

All  this  was  the  beginning  of  a  campaign  of  outrage  that 
lasted  throughout  the  summer  and  spread  to  all  parts  of 
the  country.  It  inflamed  Harcourt 's  combustible  mind  to 
irresistible  activity.  Already  events  had  absorbed  him  on 
the  police  side  of  the  Home  Office  to  the  exclusion  of  almost 
everything  else.  He  was  still  going  on  with  his  London 
Municipality  Bill,  taking  his  share  in  the  general  parlia- 
mentary battle  over  the  Bradlaugh  case  and  other  questions 
that  arose,  receiving  deputations  on  London  government, 
the  exactions  of  the  water  companies,  and  so  on.  But 
his  mind  was  filled  with  the  Terror  and  the  measures  for 
combating  it.  He  induced  the  Cabinet  to  transfer  a  larger 
part  of  the  ordinary  business  of  his  Office  to  Dilke  at  the 
Local  Government  Board,  in  order  to  leave  him  free  for 
the  battle.  "  I  noted,"  comments  Dilke,  "  that  Harcourt 
thought  himself  a  Fouche,  and  wanted  to  have  the  whole 
police  work  of  the  country,  and  nothing  but  police."  With 
the  arrest  of  the  dynamite-plotters  on  April  5  he  wrote  an 
urgent  letter  to  Gladstone  insisting  on  immediate  legislation 
to  deal  with  explosives.  The  facts  had  revealed  an  alarming 
organization  for  the  manufacture  and  use  of  nitre-glycerine 
in  this  country,  and  there  was  damning  evidence  of  the 
connection  of  the  organization  with  the  Fenian  Brotherhood 
in  America.  "  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  we  are  in  the 
midst  of  a  large  and  well-organized  and  fully  equipped  band 
who  are  prepared  to  commit  outrages  all  over  the  country 


480  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1883 

on  an  immense  scale,"  wrote  Harcourt  to  Gladstone.  The 
latter  yielded  to  his  imperious  demand  for  authority  to 
rush  a  Bill  for  preventive  measures.  "  The  most  panic- 
stricken,"  commented  the  Annual  Register,  "  were  somewhat 
taken  aback  by  the  headlong  zeal  of  Sir  William  Harcourt 
to  protect  society  at  the  expense  of  parliamentary  proce- 
dure." 

His  impetuosity  anticipated  the  experience  of  August 
1914.  He  introduced  his  Explosives  Bill  on  April  9,  and 
in  the  space  of  about  an  hour  and  a  half  it  had  been  put 
through  its  three  readings  and  was  sent  up  to  the  House 
of  Lords,  where  the  same  astonishing  haste  was  continued. 
In  bringing  in  the  Bill  Harcourt  dwelt  on  the  grave  and 
imminent  peril  to  society.  He  paid  a  tribute  to  the  diligence 
and  skill  of  the  police,  and  explained  the  necessity  of 
strengthening  the  law  of  1875.  For  the  sake  of  the  "  moral 
effect  "  Harcourt  had  set  his  heart  on  getting  the  Royal 
Assent  that  same  night,  and  at  Windsor  the  Queen  was 
waiting  up  to  give  it,  but  the  officials  at  the  Crown  Office 
charged  with  the  arrangements  for  the  commission  to  go 
down  by  special  train  to  Windsor  had  gone  home,  and  the 
scheme  broke  down.  Harcourt,  "  boiling  with  indignation  " 
as  he  said,  wrote  to  Granville  a  furious  letter  on  the  "  miser- 
able sinecurists  "  who  defeated  Parliament  and  affronted 
Majesty : 

.  .  .  We  have  pledged  ourselves  to  Rylands  and  Economy,  and 
I  think  we  cannot  do  better  than  begin  with  the  Clerk  to  the  Crown, 
which  is  a  splendid  example  of  the  old  English  sinecure  where  a 
man  is  appointed  at  a  high  salary  with  very  little  to  do,  who  gets  a 
deputy  appointed  at  a  somewhat  lower  salary  to  whom  he  transfers 
his  business  and  who  in  his  turn  does  nothing  at  all. 

Turning  aside  from  these  exciting  occupations,  we  find 
Harcourt  writing  to  Gladstone  (April  26)  to  urge  the 
support  by  the  Government  of  Wilfrid  Lawson's  Local 
Option  motion.  He  was  now  thoroughly  converted  to 
this  method  of  dealing  with  the  drink  question.  He 
indicated  his  own  argument  on  the  subject,  and  asked 
Gladstone  whether  he  might  put  it  forward  on  behalf  of 


ir883] 


LOCAL  OPTION  481 


the  Government  instead  of  as  a  personal  view.  The 
resolution  did  not  commit  them  to  the  principle  of  a 
plebiscite  on  liquor,  but  favoured  the  control  being  in  the 
hands  of  the  same  representative  body  which  is  charged  with 
the  administration  of  local  affairs.  "  I  feel  sure  that  if  we 
pdo  not  give  Lawson  a  substantial  support  there  will  be 
great  dissatisfaction  in  the  Party."  He  ended  with  a 
tribute  to  Gladstone's  speech  two  nights  before  on  the 
Affirmation  Bill : 

...  I  cannot  write  to  you  to-night  without  expressing  to  you 
the  gratitude  and  admiration  with  which  I  am  still  inspired  under 
the  influence  of  the  noblest  effort  of  human  oratory  which  my 
memory  can  recall  either  in  written  or  spoken  words. 

Gladstone  replied  thanking  Harcourt  for  his  kind  words 
about  "  my  rather  Alexandrian  speech  last  night,"  but  he 
would  only  admit  that  it  contained  one  fine  passage,  the 
allusion  being  to  a  quotation  from  Lucretius.  He  added  : 

.  .  .  Your  instincts  of  kindliness  in  all  personal  matters  are  known 
to  all  the  world.  I  should  be  glad,  on  selfish  grounds,  if  I  could  feel 
sure  that  they  had  not  a  little  warped  your  judicial  faculty  for  the 
moment. 

Harcourt 's  suggestion  that  in  supporting  the  Local  Option 
resolution  he  should  speak  for  the  Government  was  agreed 
to.  Commenting  on  his  speech  in  the  House  on  April  27, 
The  Times  said  it  had  put  the  question  on  an  entirely 
new  basis.  "  Local  option  in  some  form  will  be  granted ; 
the  time  and  manner  alone  remain  to  be  determined." 
Harcourt 's  advocacy  of  the  local  control  of  the  liquor 
question  also  expressed  itself  in  a  speech  on  May  24  to  a 
deputation  from  various  counties  which  were  promoting 
Sunday  Closing  Bills,  and  a  few  days  later  (May  30)  he 
spoke  in  support  of  the  Bills  in  the  House. 

In  the  meantime  the  trial  of  the  dynamite  conspirators 
was  proceeding,  and  on  its  conclusion,  which  resulted  in 
Dr.  Gallagher,  Whitehead,  Wilson,  and  Curtin  being 
sentenced  to  penal  servitude  for  life,  Harcourt  wrote  to 
Spencer : 

HOME  OFFICE,  June  14. —  .  .  .  All  the  information  that  reaches 

I  I 


482  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1883 

me  is  that  the  neck  of  the  business  is  broken  so  far  as  violence  is 
concerned  in  Ireland  and  Great  Britain.  But  the  perpetual  reserve 
of  crime  in  America  and  the  sally-port  they  have  there  prevent  our 
eradicating  the  roots  of  the  mischief,  and  I  do  not  feel  as  if  things 
were  ever  really  safe  so  long  as  these  horrid  ruffians  can  safely  come 
to  and  fro.  .  .  . 

IV 

But  although  the  "  neck  of  the  business  "  had  been  broken 
by  Harcourt's  energetic  action,  there  continued  sporadic 
outbreaks  throughout  the  year,  explosions  at  Glasgow  and 
elsewhere,  captures  of  explosives  at  Westminster,  arrests 
and  trials,  incidents  and  alarms  of  varying  gravity.  The 
crisis,  however,  had  passed,  and  the  police  activities  of 
Harcourt  became  less  absorbing.  It  was  this  preoccupa- 
tion, however,  that  was  largely  responsible  for  the  most 
serious  disagreement  he  had  with  Gladstone.  Harcourt, 
as  we  have  seen,  had  been  engaged  on  a  Bill  for  the  reform 
of  London  government.  When  on  February  3  Ritchie 
had  pressed  him  in  the  House  of  Commons  to  deal  with  the 
London  Water  Supply,  Harcourt  declared  that  the  rate- 
payers should  make  their  own  bargain.  He  held  that  it 
would  be  nearly  as  much  trouble  to  tackle  the  water  supply 
of  London  as  to  create  a  new  government  for  London, 
and  those  who  opposed  his  Municipality  Bill  were  really 
the  people  responsible  for  holding  up  the  water  arrangements. 
His  intentions  were  indicated  in  a  clearly  inspired 
article  in  The  Times  just  before  the  opening  of  Parliament. 
The  existing  Corporation,  reformed  and  elected  on  a  direct 
basis,  was  to  be  the  governing  body  of  the  whole  metropolis. 
The  metropolitan  area  was  to  be  a  county  by  itself  for 
general  judicial  and  financial  purposes,  with  its  own 
magistrates,  etc.,  but  the  police  were  to  remain  under  the 
Home  Office. 

It  was  on  this  last  proposal  that  the  conflict  arose  which 
prevented  the  production  of  the  Bill.  In  a  memorandum 
which  he  circulated  to  the  Cabinet,  Harcourt  insisted  that 
the  Home  Office  must  retain  control  of  the  London  police 
on  account  of  the  danger  of  a  Fenian  outbreak.  In  such 


i883]       CONFLICT  WITH   GLADSTONE         483 

a  case  action  could  not  be  delayed  to  await  the  decision  of 
the  London  Watch  Committee.  "  To  this  language  " — 
says  Dilke,  commenting  on  what  he  called  "  the  violent  and 
anti-popular  language  "  of  the  memorandum — "  neither 
Mr.  Gladstone  nor  Chamberlain  nor  I  yielded."  From 
Cannes  Gladstone  wrote  to  Granville  strongly  insisting  on 
the  municipal  control  of  the  police,  and  Harcourt  replied 
protesting  that  in  his  original  memorandum  in  December 
1 88 1  he  had  taken  the  contrary  view,  that  he  had  had  no 
reason  to  suppose  it  was  objected  to,  and  that  he  had 
proceeded  with  his  plans  on  that  assumption.  To  Spencer 
he  wrote  (March  4)  that  if  Gladstone's  proposal  were  insisted 
on  he  would  have  no  course  but  resignation.  With  the 
return  of  Gladstone  from  Cannes  the  conflict  became 
critical.  If  the  Bill  was  to  be  produced  it  must  be  put  in 
the  forefront  of  the  programme.  The  London  members 
were  clamorous,  and  the  London  public,  angry  at  the 
extortions  of  the  water  companies,  was  becoming  impatient 
of  delay.  Harcourt  was  naturally  anxious  to  produce 
his  Bill,  but  he  would  not  yield  on  the  police  question. 
Writing  to  Gladstone,  he  says  : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  March  23,  1883. —  .  .  .  Unless  we  are 
agreed  amongst  ourselves  upon  this  there  is  no  use  thinking  of  the 
introduction  of  the  London  Bill.  I  am  sure  that  you  will  believe 
me  when  I  say  that  nothing  could  be  more  repugnant  to  my  feelings 
than  that  under  any  circumstances  I  should  be  placed  in  an  attitude 
of  opposition  to  opinions  which  you  strongly  entertain.  ...  I  do 
not  write,  however,  to  argue  that  question  now,  as  I  think  all  has 
been  said  upon  it  pretty  nearly  that  has  to  be  said.  What  I  wished 
to  express  to  you  was  my  strong  desire  to  avoid  by  all  means  any 
appearance  of  conflict  or  even  of  controversy  with  you,  whose  heavy 
burthen  I  desire  to  lighten  and  not  to  increase.  And  therefore  if, 
as  I  fear,  it  is  not  likely  that  your  opinion  on  this  subject  will  be 
changed  I  see  no  better  road  out  of  the  difficulty  than  to  abandon 
the  Bill.  .  .  . 

Gladstone  was  as  uncompromising  as  Harcourt,  who  in 
a  second  letter  insisted  that  "  a  popular  body  was  alto- 
gether unfit  to  conduct  such  a  machinery "  as  the  police, 
concluding,  "  I  fear  you  will  consider  my  heresies  so  gross 


484  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1883 

and  my  creed  so  heterodox  that  I  am  past  salvation. 
If  so  there  is  nothing  for  it  but  to  '  ride  for  a  fall '  (as 
the  hunting  men  say) — a  fall  either  of  the  Bill  or  of 
its  author."  Gladstone  wanted  neither,  and  suggested 
as  a  way  out  that  the  City  police  should  remain  in  the 
hands  of  the  new  municipality  and  that  the  rest  of  the 
metropolitan  force  should  still  be  under  the  control  of  the 
Home  Office.  Harcourt  was  unmoved.  "  Your  letter," 
he  replied,  "  convinces  me  more  than  ever  that  the  Bill 
cannot  go  on — at  least  in  my  hands."  Gladstone  was  still 
persuasive.  Let  the  Bill  be  produced  with  an  open  mind 
on  the  disputed  point.  "  I  fear  that  the  ram  you  have 
provided  in  the  thicket  in  the  shape  of  postponement  will 
not  save  my  Isaac  from  the  sacrificial  knife,"  replied 
Harcourt  (April  6),  and  he  insisted  that  if  he  was  to  father 
the  Bill  the  whole  metropolitan  police  must  be  in  the  hands 
of  the  Home  Office.  A  few  days  later  he  formally  intimated 
to  Gladstone  that  he  could  not  go  on  with  the  Bill,  offering 
as  his  official  reason  the  strain  of  dealing  with  the  Fenian 
conspiracy  here  and  in  America,  which  made  it  impossible 
to  pilot  a  difficult  measure  through  the  House  : 

.  .  .  Every  available  moment  of  my  time  which  I  can  spare 
from  the  regular  routine  of  my  office  (which  is  multifarious  enough), 
I  have  to  devote  to  this  subject.  I  want  time  to  think  of  it  as  well 
as  to  act  in  it.  And  I  feel  that  if  I  am  to  do  justice  to  the  require- 
ment of  this  case  I  must  give  up  my  whole  time  to  it.  I  have  indeed 
for  the  last  few  weeks  had  necessarily  to  be  my  own  Chief  of  Police.  .  . . 

The  conflict  continued  in  innumerable  letters,  brief  on 
Gladstone's  side,  lengthy  on  Harcourt's.  Gladstone  (now 
at  Hawarden)  suggested  (May  14)  as  a  compromise  the 
prolongation  of  the  present  powers  for  five  years  and 
"  until  Parliament  shall  otherwise  provide,"  but  Harcourt 
resisted  all  evasions  of  the  issue.  He  was  "  very  sorry  to 
appear  so  obstinate,"  but  he  was  immovable.  Fenianism 
filled  his  mind  with  fears.  To  this  letter  Gladstone  replied 
at  length,  ignoring  the  question  of  merit  ("as  to  which 
I  take  it  we  are  both  past  praying  for  "),  and  arguing  with 
Harcourt  on  the  expediency  of  the  measure,  its  practicability, 


r883]  LONDON   BILL  DEAD  485 

ind  the  limits  of  Cabinet  unity  on  a  detail  of  a  measure. 

'  I  must  say,"  he  said,  "  that  I  think  the  conditions  you 

lay  down  as  to  unity  of  opinion  are  such  as  would  go  far 
|:o  render  co-operation  of  independent  minds  in  the  Cabinet 

impracticable."     He  declined  to  treat  Fenian  plots  "  as  a 

permanent  institution  of  the  country  "  which  should  govern 
pot  merely  present  action,  but  action  five  years  hence.  He 
imggested  that  Harcourt  should  meet  his  colleagues,  a 
bourse  which  was  followed,  Harcourt  reporting  that  they 

agreed  that  the  Bill  should  be  proceeded  with.  "  As 
(to  the  police  question,  we  were  all  of  opinion  that  the  Bill 
should  be  promoted  in  its  present  shape  without  alteration." 

"  I  thank  you  for  your  letter,  though  it  sorely  disappoints 
me,"  replied  Gladstone  (May  24).  "  You  do  not  say  whether 
the  Ministers  you  assembled  read  my  letter  from  Hawarden  ? 
Or  heard  it  ?  If  not,  I  will  send  it  them."  A  few  days 
later  at  a  full  Cabinet  the  police  difficulty,  in  Dilke's 
phrase,  "  finally  slew  the  Bill." 

v 

While  this  struggle  was  going  on  between  Harcourt  and 
his  Chief,  an  official  relationship  in  his  own  department  was 
in  process  of  dissolution.  The  appointment  of  Lord 
Rosebery  as  Under-Secretary  at  the  Home  Office  had  not 
been  a  happy  experiment.  It  did  not  offer  a  suitable 
field  for  the  exercise  of  Lord  Rosebery's  gifts,  and  it  removed 
the  Under-Secretary  from  the  House  of  Commons  where 
he  was  chiefly  needed.  Harcourt  agreed  to  the  arrangement 
as  a  temporary  expedient  for  including  the  brilliant  young 
Scottish  peer  in  the  Ministry,  but  the  appointment  had 
been  prolonged  beyond  expectation.  The  control  of  the 
Scottish  business  of  the  Home  Office  had  been  committed 
to  Lord  Rosebery's  hand,  but  he  was  dissatisfied  with  the 
administration  of  Scottish  affairs  as  an  incident  of  the 
Home  Office,  and  pressed  for  a  Local  Government  Board 
of  Scotland.  In  this  he  was  supported  by  Harcourt,  who, 
in  replying  (May  4)  to  a  memorandum  of  Gladstone's  putting 
Forward  four  alternative  proposals  for  dealing  with  Scottish 


486  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1883 

affairs,  strongly  advocated  a  new  department  under  a 
privy  councillor.  In  the  course  of  his  letter  he  said, 
referring  to  this  scheme  : 

...  It  is  the  only  one  which  will  avert  Rosebery's  resignation, 
and  if  Rosebery  resigns  the  whole  question  will  become  unmanage- 
able and  pass  out  of  our  hands.  I  regard  the  loss  of  R.  as  a  very 
serious  matter  not  only  from  a  personal  point  of  view  which  you 
I  know  would  feel  as  I  do.  But  I  think  in  the  present  state  of  the 
Party  it  would  have  a  most  mischievous  effect  in  the  most  loyal  of 
all  our  battalions,  the  Scotch  contingent.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
he  is  much  looked  up  to  in  Scotland,  and  the  idea  that  he  had  suffered 
in  their  cause  would  produce  the  worst  impression.  .  .  . 

But  the  long-threatened  resignation  was  not  avoided. 
There  was  a  Home  Office  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons 
on  May  31,  and  the  next  day  Lord  Rosebery  wrote  to 
Gladstone  saying  that  after  that  discussion  as  to  the 
undesirableness  of  the  Under-Secretaryship  of  the  Home 
Department  being  held  by  a  peer,  he  could  no  longer 
hold  the  office.  A  statement  was  made  in  the  Standard 
that  the  resignation  was  due  to  personal  disagreements 
between  Harcourt  and  Lord  Rosebery,  and  Harcourt 
suggested  to  Lord  Rosebery  that  a  denial  of  the  suggestion 
should  be  sent  to  the  newspapers.  Lord  Rosebery  was 
against  writing  to  the  newspapers,  but  advised  a  question 
in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  subject,  which  would 
enable  Harcourt  to  dispose  of  the  suggestion  of  personal 
disagreement.  The  question  was  duly  asked  on  June  7, 
and  answered  in  this  sense.  J.  T.  Hibbert  was  appointed 
to  succeed  Lord  Rosebery,  and  a  Local  Government  Board 
(Scotland)  Bill,  was  brought  in  on  June  29,  but  got  no 
further  than  its  second  reading.  Real  progress  was  delayed 
until  1885,  but  the  fall  of  the  Government  prevented 
legislation  for  Scotland,  which  was  once  more  deferred. 

At  this  time  Harcourt  still  retained  the  Chair  of  Inter- 
national Law  at  Cambridge,  although  since  holding  office 
he  had  ceased  to  lecture.  As  some  dissatisfaction  was 
expressed  on  the  subject,  he  appointed  T.  J.  Lawrence  of 
Downing  College  as  his  deputy,  but  his  attachment  to 
Cambridge  and  his  rooms  in  Neville's  Court  at  Trinity  was 


A  YACHTING  TRIP  487 

too  strong  to  permit  him  to  break  the  connection  altogether. 
He  had  discovered  in  the  rooms  some  fine  Queen  Anne 
panelling,  covered  by  layers  of  canvas,  paint  and  wall- 
paper. He  restored  the  panelling  and  put  in  fine  ceilings 
with  the  Harcourt  and  Vernon  arms  and  crests.  When 
the  Prince  of  Wales's  eldest  son  went  to  Cambridge  Harcourt 
offered  his  rooms  for  his  use  ;  but  the  floor  above  had  been 
taken  for  him,  and  the  Harcourt  rooms  were  used  instead 
for  the  Prince  of  Wales  on  the  occasion  of  his  visits  to  hi 
son.  The  rooms,  left  as  Harcourt  restored  them,  are  now 
used  as  the  College  guest  rooms. 

In  the  midst  of  the  alarms  and  excursions  of  these 
summer  days  Harcourt  was  able  to  snatch  occasional 
distractions.  Writing  to  his  son,  he  says  : 

Harcourt  to  his  Son. 

July  1 8. —  .  .  .  Did  I  tell  you  that  Donald  Currie  lent  me  his 
big  yacht  (600  tons)  from  Friday  to  Monday  last  with  leave  to  ask 
six  friends.  I  had  settled  it  all  and  we  were  going  to  have  a  fine 
cruise  to  the  Channel  Islands,  when  I  was  summoned  on  Saturday 
morning  by  telegraph  to  dine  and  sleep  at  Windsor  that  night  ! 
Pretty  short  notice  !  So  I  had  to  put  all  off,  but  bolted  off  early 
on  Sunday  morning  to  Southampton,  and  went  to  sea  for  the  night 
by  myself  sailing  westwards.  It  is  a  splendid  vessel  about  three  times 
as  big  as  the  Fingall,  beautifully  fitted,  crew  twenty-six  men,  speed 
twelve  miles.  In  the  morning  when  I  was  going  to  breakfast  the 
skipper  told  me  the  Palatine  (Wolverton's  yacht)  was  in  sight,  so  I 
signalled  "  personal  communication  is  desired,"  and  W.  sent  off 
Bob  Duff  (the  Whip)  in  a  boat  which  conveyed  me  to  breakfast  on 
board  the  Palatine,  and  so  we  sailed  in  company  up  to  Portsmouth 
and  back  by  train  to  London.  I  got  twenty  hours  of  good  sea  air  and 
enjoyed  it.  I  think  her  Ladyship  and  I  shall  go  a  cruise  with 
Wolverton  next  Saturday. 

There  is  an  invite  for  you  to  the  P.  of  Wales's  garden  party  on 
Thursday  next,  but  I  suppose  you  will  prefer  salmon. 

There  is  "  the  devil  to  pay  and  no  pitch  hot  "  over  Suez  Canal, 
but  I  think  we  shall  wriggle  out  of  it  though  not  without  eating 
a  good  deal  of  dirt.  At  one  time  it  looked  as  if  it  was  all  U.P. 

The  allusion  to  the  Suez  Canal  had  reference  to  the 
critical  situation  in  regard  to  a  rival  scheme,  in  regard  to 
which  Harcourt  at  this  time  wrote  a  letter  to  Gladstone 
dealing  with  the  position  of  the  Egyptian  Government 


SIR   WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1883 

and  the  claim  of  Lesseps  to  exclusive  monopoly  rights.     Two 
days  later  Harcourt  writes  again  to  his  son  : 

.  .  .  Lily  (Lady  Harcourt)  and  I  had  good  fun  at  the  fisheries  I 
Bazaar  where  the  P.  and  Princess  of  Wales  and  the  rest  of  the  royal 
family  sold  strawberries  and  roses  for  £i  a  piece.  Ah1  the  world 
and  his  wife  were  there,  and  we  amused  ourselves  much.  I  however 
spent  the  fortune  of  my  children  there,  and  so  you  will  have  to  live 
on  bread  and  water  hereafter.  Lily  and  I  go  to-morrow  for  a  yacht- 
ing lark  with  Ld.  Wolverton  in  the  Palatine  till  Monday.  .  .  . 

With  the  rising  of  Parliament  Harcourt  took  his  customary 
flight  to  the  North.  He  anticipated  his  visit  to  his  familiar 
haunts  in  Skye,  as  he  told  Gladstone,  with  some  concern, 
for  that  island  had  been  the  scene  of  great  disturbance 
among  the  crofters.  "  It  is  the  fault  of  the  silly  lairds 
who  have  brought  it  to  this,"  he  had  written  to  his  son  in 
Madeira.  On  a  small  scale  it  was  the  Irish  land  question 
again  with  evictions,  no  rent  and  all  the  rest  of  the  symptoms 
of  agrarian  discontents.  The  trouble  ended  in  the  despatch 
of  the  Jackal  with  marines  to  the  island  and  the  surrender 
of  the  ringleaders  of  the  attack  on  the  police  and  sentences 
at  Edinburgh  which,  fortunately  for  his  reputation  in  Skye, 
Harcourt  had  got  reduced  before  his  arrival  there.  In 
spite  of  this  cloud  on  the  horizon,  Harcourt  looked  forward 
to  his  tour  with  eagerness.  "  We  go  to  Oban  to-night," 
he  wrote  to  Spencer  (September  10),  "  where  I  expect  to 
meet  the  Prime  Minister.  When  I  once  get  on  board  my 
yacht  I  think  I  shall  steam  away  into  space  and  not  come 
back  again."  But  his  anticipations  suffered  a  common 
fate.  A  week  later  he  was  back  at  the  Home  Office  writing 
to  the  Queen  of  the  great  grief  which  had  overtaken  him 
by  the  death  of  his  "  beloved  sister,  Lady  Morshead,"  and 
the  Queen  wrote  in  reply  : 

"  Sir  William  Harcourt  only  does  her  justice  in  saying  she  feels 
with  and  for  others  in  their  sorrows  and  bereavements,  for  she 
does  so  most  truly.  .  .  .  The  tearing  and  rending  asunder  of  ties 
of  the  tenderest  affection  and  friendship  is  terrible  to  endure. 
The  heart -sickness  and  yearning 

"  For  the  touch  of  a  vanished  hand 
And  the  sound  of  a  voice  that  is  still  " 


i883]  FAMILY   BEREAVEMENT  489 

is  agonizing.  The  only  comfort  is  in  the  thought  of  that  Eternal 
Home  where  there  will  be  no  more  partings,  and  in  the  support  of 
Him  who  has  seen  fit  to  chasten  us.  ... 

Harcourt  returned  to  the  Hebrides,  but  domestic  afflic- 
tion pursued  him,  and  writing  from  Loch  Alsh  to  Gladstone, 
who  had  invited  him  and  Lady  Harcourt  to  Hawarden, 
he  said : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

LOCH  ALSH,  October  21. —  ...  I  cannot  say  anything  at  present 
about  public  meetings.  Death  has  been  busy  with  our  race.  The 
death  of  a  beloved  sister  has  been  a  great  blow  to  me.  And  yester- 
day I  received  the  intelligence  of  my  Uncle  Egerton  Harcourt 's 
death.  He  was  well  stricken  in  years,  but  he  is  the  last  of  the 
Archbishop's  ten  sons  and  was  always  a  kind  and  true  friend  to  us 
all,  and  the  break-up  of  all  associations  is  saddening.  .  .  . 

I  shall  be  glad  to  get  South,  for  I  have  been  and  am  very  anxious 
about  my  poor  brother  who  has  been  lying  for  some  weeks  in  great 
danger  from  a  sort  of  typhoid  fever  which  he  caught  at  Cowes. 
He  has  now,  I  am  glad  to  say,  been  moved  to  Nuneham,  and  I  hope 
now  is  on  the  road  to  recovery,  but  he  has  been  in  imminent  danger. 
I  had  meant  to  rest  on  my  road  South  at  Birnam  with  Millais,  when 
I  was  to  have  shot  capercailzie  with  the  Attorney-General,  and  should 
have  heard  all  your  secrets  by  anticipation,  but  domestic  trouble 
makes  me  hurry  home. 

The  affectionate  relations  between  the  two  brothers  at 
this  time  are  shown  in  a  letter  written  by  the  invalid  from 
Cowes  on  October  9,  in  which,  after  a  full  account  of  the 
state  of  his  health,  he  says,  "  I  wish  you  at  the  end  of  my 
four  weeks  here  in  bed  to  know  what  my  feelings  are,  as  my 
best  friend  in  the  world." 

The  question  of  the  Speakership  was  again  the  subject 
of  speculation,  and  Harcourt 's  name  having  been  men- 
tioned in  the  newspapers  in  connection  with  it,  Lewis 
Harcourt,  who  was  at  Hawarden,  informed  his  father 
that  Mrs.  Gladstone  had  ridiculed  the  reports,  saying 
"  as  if  it  was  likely  that  any  man  of  your  father's  age  and 
powers  of  speaking  (without  taking  into  consideration  his 
administrative  abilities)  would  be  likely  to  go  into  a  volun- 
tary retirement  of  that  kind."  "  She  suddenly  asked 
me,"  he  continued,  "  whether  you  would  like  to  be  Lord 


490  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1883 

Chancellor,  and  though  I  could  honestly  have  said  I  did 
not  know,  I  thought  we  were  getting  on  rather  delicate 
ground,  so  broke  off  the  conversation." 

Meanwhile  the  dynamite  alarms  had  revived  under  the 
stimulus  of  explosions  .in  the  Underground  railway  in 
London,  and  Harcourt,  writing  to  his  son  at  Hawarden 
(November  i),  said,  "  You  may  tell  Mr.  Gladstone  that 
we  are  all  of  the  opinion  that  things  were  never  worse  than 
they  are  now  in  respect  of  the  anticipation  of  outrage  and 
crime.  ...  I  went  with  Lily  to  the  hospital  to-day  to 
see  the  sufferers.  ...  It  is  amazing  how  the  carriages 
could  be  (as  they  were)  blown  to  pieces  with  so  little  injury 
to  the  passengers."  Of  his  anxieties  at  this  time  there  is 
a  glimpse  in  a  letter  to  Ponsonby  : 

Harcourt  to  Ponsonby. 

HOME  OFFICE,  November  21. —  ...  I  was  very  glad  to  get  news 
this  morning  of  H.M.'s  safe  arrival.  I  had  one  of  the  usual  scares 
last  night  about  your  journey.  (Police  Inspector)  Williamson  at 
12.30  a.m.  came  in  with  a  letter  fresh  from  the  U.S.  describing  the 
machine  with  which  and  the  manner  in  which  you  were  to  be  blown 
up  on  your  way  from  Balmoral.  As  Hartington  and  the  Attorney- 
General  were  sitting  with  me  we  consulted  what  to  do  on  this  agree- 
able intelligence,  but  as  you  were  already  supposed  to  be  half-way 
through  your  journey  it  was  not  easy  to  know  what  course  to  take. 
However  I  sent  Williamson  to  Euston  and  Paddington  to  direct 
that  an  additional  pilot  engine  should  be  run  at  a  longer  interval 
in  front  of  you  as  soon  as  possible,  as  the  intelligence  pointed  to 
bombs  to  be  deposited  after  the  passage  of  the  ordinary  pilot  engine. 
I  presume  this  was  done  but  I  daresay  you  were  not  conscious  of  it. 
I  thought  if  there  was  any  danger  at  all  it  would  be  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Preston  and  of  Birmingham.  I  had  police  at  Euston  and 
Birmingham  to  report  to  me  all  night  how  you  were  getting  on, 
and  was  proportionately  relieved  when  I  heard  you  were  safe  and 
sound  at  Windsor.  .  .  . 

Happily  Majesty,  as  Ponsonby  duly  reported,  slept  through 
the  journey  undisturbed  by  the  alarms  which  kept  her 
faithful  knight  awake  to  receive  the  reports  of  her  progress. 
During  this  year  Harcourt  had  begun  a  domestic  enter- 
prise which  became  one  of  the  chief  joys  of  his  later  years. 
His  stay  in  the  New  Forest  in  the  previous  year  had  made 
him,  in  the  words  that  were  frequently  on  his  lips,  hunger — 


i883]  BUILDING  OF  MALWOOD  491 

For  a  lodge  in  some  vast  wilderness, 
Some  boundless  contiguity  of  shade, 
Where  wars  and  rumours  of  oppression 
Shall  never  reach  me  more. 

And  in  the  New  Forest  he  found  the  solitude  he  sought. 
Ever  since  1870  he  had  been  actively  associated  with  Mr. 
I  Shaw  Lefevre  (Lord  Eversley),  James  Bryce  (Lord  Bryce), 
i  and  the  other  members  of  the  commons'  preservation  group, 
I  and  had  played  a  leading  part  in  the  movement  for  main- 
taining the  public  rights  in  open  spaces.     The  preservation 
!  of  the  New  Forest  and  later  of  Epping  Forest  owed  much 
to  his  active  support.     He  was  twitted  in  the  Press  for 
choosing  to  make  his  home  in  the  Forest  and  selecting  as 
his  site  the  historic  spot  where  the  lodge  stood  in  which, 
according  to  tradition,  Rufus  slept  the  night  before  he  was 
murdered.     Here  he  built  Malwood.     The  first  intimation 
of  the  scheme  is  in  a  letter  to  Granville  in  which  he  says : 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  May  8. — The  folly  of  youth  is  women,  that 
of  old  age  is  building  houses.  I  am  ripe  for  the  latter.  In  choosing 
a  wife  one  should  never  take  advice,  in  selecting  an  architect  aliter. 

I  am  therefore  going  to  ask  your  opinion  of  D ....  I  have 

almost  got  to  the  point  of  plans,  and  have  secured  on  a  ninety-nine 
years'  lease  from  the  Crown  twenty-two  acres  of  the  choicest  spot 
in  the  New  Forest — I  should  like  one  day  to  show  it  to  so  great  a 
connoisseur  as  yourself. 

I  don't  mean  to  spend  more  than  ^5,000  on  my  building,  so  that 

perhaps  D would  not  condescend  to  such  a  bicoque,  except  that 

he  did  less  for who  lives  only  two  miles  from  my  site. 

The  preparations  for  "  Malwood "  were  an  agreeable 
diversion  from  his  conflicts  with  the  Fenians  and  his 
colleagues  during  the  summer.  Writing  to  his  son  at  Glen 
Quoich,  Invergarry,  he  says : 

July  10. —  ...  I  was  commanded  to  Windsor  last  Saturday  for 
the  night,  but  begged  off,  and  we  all  went  down  to  Southampton, 
Lady  H.,  Bobby,  Jameson  and  Aunt  Emmie  to  view  Castle  Malwood. 
We  had  a  delicious  day  on  Sunday,  driving  from  Southampton 
to  "  the  Castle  "  where  we  picnicked  with  Bobs,  and  Bell  met  us 
with  a  carriage  and  we  spent  the  rest  of  the  day  in  the  Forest  very 
pleasantly.  Bobby  was  in  great  delight  in  his  "  country  house," 
and  it  did  my  heart  good  to  see  him. 

We  discussed  plans  a  good  deal,  but  have  not  got  much  forrader, 


492  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1883 

Jameson  went  on  Monday  with  a  note  to  —  —  to  look  at  it.  But 
the  more  I  think  of  it  the  more  I  am  satisfied  a  tall  boxy  house  will 
not  look  well  there,  and  that  we  must  have  more  of  a  cottagey 
building.  On  looking  at  the  plans  made  for  Bushey  more  closely 
I  think  they  are  more  the  thing  we  want.  The  rooms  are  nearly 
the  size  we  want.  The  estimate  was  for  that  £2,800  complete  !  1 
Of  course  it  has  not  double  walls  and  other  things,  but  I  think  another 
£2,000  added  would  make  it  all  we  want  for  £5,000  tout  complet. 
I  am  about  to  work  this  out  and  will  send  you  plans  when  they 
are  drafted. 

As  usual  in  such  circumstances,  Harcourt's  modest  estimate 
of  the  cost  bore  little  relation  to  the  actual  expenditure ; 
but  the  result  was  to  him  "a  joy  for  ever."  The  house, 
Queen  Anne  in  style,  and  "  cottagey  "  in  feeling,  was  the 
product  of  infinite  thought  on  the  part  of  Harcourt  and  his 
son,  the  latter  of  whom  devoted  to  the  task  all  the  spare 
time  his  work  as  private  secretary  to  his  father  allowed, 
staying  in  a  little  farm  cottage  at  Malwood  for  the  purpose. 
The  professional  advice  they  sought  was  given  by  Evan 
Christian,  architect  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners. 
When  the  house  was  built  Harcourt  spent  most  of  his 
leisure  there.  "  I  never  pass  through  this  gate  without 
feeling  that  I  am  coming  to  a  haven  of  rest,"  Lady  Harcourt 
records  him  as  saying,  and  when  events  in  public  life  wounded 
or  grieved  him,  he  was  accustomed  to  remark,  "  But  I 
am  happy  in  my  home ;  all  my  life  long  I  have  been  so 
happy  in  my  home."  He  delighted  in  the  gardens  which 
he  had  created,  and  when  showing  his  visitors  round  well- 
kept  borders,  would  stop  at  intervals  to  remark  with 
benign  satisfaction,  "  What  can  be  more  enjoyable  ?  " 
He  prided  himself  on  his  practical  knowledge  of  horticulture. 
To  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  his  creepers  who  remarked 
one  day,  "  Sir  William,  Providence  has  been  very  good  to 
you,"  he  replied,  "  My  dear  lady,  it  is  not  Providence,  it 
is  pig-manure  !  "  He  asked  for  no  more  active  interest 
than  gardening,  an  economy  of  physical  activity  which  he 
shared  with  one  at  least  of  the  many  visitors  whose  names 
filled  the  visitors'  book  at  Malwood,  Joseph  Chamberlain. 
Chamberlain's  signature  in  the  visitors'  book,  by  the  way, 


i883]  SCIENTIFIC   FARMING  493 

is  the  subject  of  a  little  story  which  may  be  worth  recording. 
His  visit  followed  immediately  after  the  Round  Table 
conference,  and  when  he  came  to  write  his  name  he  found 
that  the  page  of  the  book  was  complete.  "Now,  Mr. 
Chamberlain,"  said  Lewis  Harcourt,  who  was  beside  him, 
"  you  have  a  chance  to  turn  over  a  new  leaf."  "I'm 

d d  if  I  will,"  replied  Chamberlain,  and  turning  back 

to  the  full  page  he  signed  at  the  side. 

Harcourt  was  not  only  interested  in  his  garden,  but  in 
agriculture,  had  theories  on  scientific  farming,  and  entered 
into  correspondence  with  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society 
on  rye  grass  on  chalk  and  clover  on  clay  lands.  But  he  had 
the  experience  common  to  scientific  farmers  in  those  days. 
"  I  have  had  a  good  year  on  my  farm  "  (at  Malwood), 
he  said  to  Spencer  on  one  occasion.  "  How  good  ?  " 
asked  Spencer.  Harcourt :  "I  think  I  have  not  lost  more 
than  £3  or  £4  per  acre.  I  make  my  farm  accounts  balance 
by  adding  to  them,  '  For  health,  pleasure  and  occupation/ 
an  amount  sufficient  to  off-set  any  loss." 


CHAPTER  XXII 
A  DIVIDED  CABINET 

The  County  Franchise — Harcourt  as  peacemaker  between  the  two 
wings  of  the  Cabinet — Impending  split  on  Ireland — Difference 
with  the  Lords  on  the  Franchise  Bill — Duel  with  Lord  Salisbury 
— London  Government  Bill — Dynamite  in  London — Debate 
on  the  Maamtrasna  murders — A  Cruise  in  the  Sunbeam — Lord 
Rosebery  enters  the  cabinet — Gladstone  talks  of  retiring. 

"  ?  •  ^HE  Cabinet  is  just  over,"  wrote  Harcourt  to 
his  wife  on  January  4,  1884.  "  All  is  well  and 
JL  my  labours  of  the  last  fortnight  have  not  been 
in  vain.  This  is  a  vast  relief  to  my  mind."  He  added  that 
he  was  giving  a  dinner  that  night  to  the  "  G.O.M.,"  to  which 
he  had  invited  the  Cabinet.  It  was  a  dinner  of  reconcilia- 
tion between  the  Whig  and  Radical  sections  of  the  Cabinet 
who  had  been  in  sharp  antagonism  as  to  the  introduction 
of  a  County  Franchise  Bill  during  the  coming  Session.  The 
subject  had  long  been  in  the  air,  and  the  Radical  wing  had 
begun  to  force  the  pace  in  the  previous  autumn.  In  a 
speech  at  Newcastle  Mr.  John  Morley  had  called  for  the 
assimilation  of  the  borough  and  county  franchises ;  at 
Bristol  Chamberlain  had  declared,  personally,  for  manhood 
suffrage,  and  insisted  that  the  extension  of  the  household 
suffrage  to  the  counties  should  have  precedence  over  every 
other  measure.  The  other  measures  in  contemplation 
were  Harcourt's  Bill  for  the  reform  of  London  government 
and  a  Local  Government  Bill  for  the  counties.  Hartington, 
as  the  leader  of  the  Whigs,  was  opposed  to  the  Franchise 
Bill  because  (as  he  explained  at  Manchester)  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  excluding  Ireland  from  its  operation,  and  because 
the  inclusion  of  Ireland  would  increase  the  strength  of 

494 


i883]       HARCOURT  AS   PEACEMAKER        495 

the  party  hostile  to  English  rule.  Chamberlain  and  the 
Radicals  pressed  their  view,  and  "  One  man  one  vote  """ 
became  the  slogan  of  their  Party.  A  rupture  which  would 
probably  have  brought  the  Government  down  seemed 
imminent,  and  throughout  the  Christmas  season  there  was 
a  ceaseless  agitation  behind  the  scenes  in  which  Harcourt 
played  the  part  of  peacemaker  between  the  two  wings. 
Writing  to  Granville,  he  says  : 

Harcourt  to  Granville. 

NUNEHAMPARK,  December  i6, 1883. —  .  .  .  I  have  seen  Hartington 
a  good  deal  this  last  week  and  hoped  I  had  made  some  impression  on 
him.  But  from  what  R.  Grosvenor  [the  Chief  Whip]  told  me  last 
night  I  fear  he  is  as  bent  as  ever  on  secession.  I  have  not  tried  upon 
him  the  argument  of  the  way  his  own  personal  position  will  be 
affected  because  he  is  above  being  actuated  by  such  a  consideration. 
But  I  have  begged  him  to  reflect  on  the  ruin  he  will  bring  on  the  cause 
of  moderate  Liberalism  of  which  he  is  chief  representative,  and  the 
false  position  in  which  he  will  place  all  of  us  who  have  laboured  hard 
for  the  last  ten  years  to  place  him  where  he  is,  and  to  sustain  him 
in  the  high  position  of  authority  which  he  has  won  for  himself 
in  the  estimation  of  the  country.  But  I  fear  that  there  is  more  than 
meets  the  eye,  and  that  besides  the  particular  difficulties  which  he 
professes  to  feel  there  is  a  rooted  disinclination  to  assume  the  posi- 
tion which  he  will  have  to  occupy  when  Gladstone  goes — which  he 
fears  (perhaps  justly)  will  be  made  impossible  for  him  by  others.  .  .  . 

Hartington  had  promised  Harcourt  before  he  went  down 
to  Lancashire  not  to  commit  himself,  but  Chamberlain's 
speech  at  Bristol  the  day  before  (November  26)  had  caused 
his  indignation  to  master  his  discretion.  Harcourt  was  in 
despair  at  the  prospect  of  Hartington's  secession  and  the 
break-up  of  the  Government.  He  implored  Granville  to 
use  his  influence  with  "  Mr.  G.,"  who  "  regards  the  rest  of 
us  as  children  to  whom  he  is  most  indulgent,  but  by  whose 
opinion  he  is  not  likely  to  be  guided.  .  .  .  He  cannot  wish 
his  great  career  to  culminate  in  what  will  be  in  effect 
annihilation  for  years  of  the  Liberal  Party  as  a  whole." 
He  was  angry  with  Hartington  and  more  angry  with 
Chamberlain,  who  "  thinks  the  universe  is  only  a  replica 
of  a  provincial  town,"  and  announced  that  he  was  going 
on  Monday  to  Birmingham  to  see  him — "  he  is  always 


496  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1883 

frank  to  me  " — on  Tuesday  to  Chats  worth  to  see  Harting- 
ton,  and  on  Wednesday  to  Hawarden  to  see  Gladstone  and 
Childers.  "  I  shall  go  round  all  the  patients  of  the  Cabinet 
and  examine  their  tongues  and  feel  their  pulses,"  he  wrote 
to  his  son  in  Madeira.  The  records  of  these  breathless 
activities  during  the  Christmas  season  fill  countless  letters 
to  his  wife,  his  son,  Spencer,  Granville  and  other  colleagues. 
"  We  (himself  and  the  Chief  Whip)  pounded  away  at  the 
Marquis  (Hartington)  all  night,"  and  made  a  hopeful 
impression  ;  and  at  Hawarden — where  "  nothing  could  be 
more  delightful  and  kind  than  the  dear  old  man  was  " — he 
succeeded  in  extracting  an  important  promise  from  Glad- 
stone. He  explained  to  him  that  one  cause  of  Hartington's 
opposition  was  that  he  feared  that  if  the  Franchise  Bill 
were  passed  without  a  concurrent  Redistribution  Bill, 
Gladstone  would  then  retire  and  leave  redistribution  to  him 
with  Chamberlain  and  the  Radicals  on  his  flank.  Gladstone 
therefore  expressed  his  willingness  "  to  remain  and  be 
responsible  for  redistribution  after  the  franchise."  Har- 
tington was  relieved  by  the  concession,  but  was  still  difficult. 
"  I  told  him,"  wrote  Granville  to  Harcourt  (December  17), 
"  that  if  as  was  not  improbable  it  might  be  necessary  to  have 
a  fight  with  Chamberlain,  why  choose  the  moment  when 
Chamberlain  had  Gladstone,  the  Cabinet  and  the  Irish 
Government  on  his  side." 

In  this  feverish  conflict,  Gladstone  was  singularly  patient 
and  conciliatory  with  the  "  phantoms  which  have  been 
scaring  Hartington's  usually  manly  mind."  Writing  to 
Harcourt,  who  just  before  Christmas  had  taken  a  group  of 
Derby  working  men  to  Hawarden  to  present  a  gift  of  Derby 
china  to  the  Prime  Minister,  Gladstone  said  : 

December  26. —  ...  It  will  be  a  blow  to  me  if  I  have  to  mortgage 
another  piece  of  my  small  residue  of  life :  but  I  will  not  allow  any 
personal  consideration  (except  inability)  to  be  a  bar  to  a  favourable 
arrangement. 

But  if  Hartington  would  not  concur  in  the  Cabinet's  policy, 
Gladstone  indicated  that  he  would  press  him  to  assume  the 
responsibility  of  trying  his  own  "  with  all  the  support  we 


HARTINGTON'S  POSITION  497 

"give  him,  rather  than  wreck  the  ship  by  ^ng'?*  by 
letting  others  send  us,  to  the  country  in  £°^£    The 
That  P^S^SS^A  tTe  Franchise  Bill, 
vas  the.  shadow  that  hung  over  this 


though  he  had  little  s^on 
S'rG^ne^o^oi  Hartinon,  position. 

he  said  :  ' 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 


r  Ppfnrm  Bill  'wUl  give  to  Parnell  all  or  neariy  *^j  - 
our  rceiorm  xsui  «"•  o  _,       !„  -mokes  more  consui^u- 

*  _1 ^^r,i-.^i  *-^T  \\J  f*          nOlQ         tllC          JiAwT  •!•"••"•* 


larger  than  he  found  ^^tf  require 

-at 


requires  to  keep  ^!!  f  communication  with 


6y  ^  £ng/zsA  and  Sco^cA  majority  ^n  **?"*    ^  it  is  true. 
Ml  this  sounds  very  stocking  and  J?^^^^^  making 


SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          ^83 

?6^!'  °u  C:  £Awit  there  is  a  ^y^  section  °f  Irish  members.     I  beieve 

that  to  be  unpracticable  and  if  it  could  be  accomplished  it  woul*  be 

nefiectual      If  Hartingt^  could  get  his  minority  representation  in 

Ulster  what  would  it  give  ni^  ?     Ten  or  at  most  twenty  Irish 

loyahst  M.P.  s      ParneU  would  still  have  his  eighty  or  ninety.    Is 

rt  worth  while  to  make  great  sacrifices  of  principle  affecting  Great 

Britain  in  order  to  secure  such  an  ixnfinitesimal  advantage  ?     The 

interests  of  the  loyalists  in  Ireland  cannot  be  defended  by  a  small 

fraction  of  the  Irish  representation.     ATOM  tali  auxilio.  .  The 

real  safeguard  of  the  unity  of  the  Empire  and  the  fate  of  the  Irish 

loyalists  will  depend  not  upon  whether  Ulstw  -has  ten  votes  more 

or  less,  but  upon  the  fact  that  we  can  place  if  accessary  two  corps 

I      d  armee  in  Ireland,  and  that  we  can  carry  into  the  lobby  550  English 

(_^and  Scotch  members  against  Mr.  ParneU  and  his  Supporters 

There  is   only  one  of   Hartington's  apprehensions  which  I  fully 
share  and  that  is  the  dread  lest  on  this  or  any  other  question  the 
•  Liberal  Party  should  be  betrayed  into  anything  whitOi  looks  like  an 
/  alliance  covert  or  avowed  with  ParneU.     I  am  as  re&dy  and  eager 
I       as  he  can  be  to  make  the  breach  between  us  and  Par&eU  as  open 
as  conspicuous  and  as  incurable  as  possible.     It  is  on  frhis  subject 
Oat  1  dread  the  tendencies  of  Chamberlain  who  seems  to,  me  to  be 
always  hankering  after  a  poUcy  which  should  secure  the  l?arnellite 
vote.  .  .  . 

You  wiU  see  my  views,  if  not  sanguine,  are  at  least  defined  I 
do  not  doubt  myself  that  Ireland  wiU  break  up  this  Government 
and  this  Party  as  it  has  done  so  many  Governments  and  Rarties 
,efore— and  wiU  continue  to  do  so  untU  its  real  condition  is  recog- 
nized, avowed  and  acted  upon  by  all  Parties  alike.  We  are  fast 
approaching  this  issue,  and  the  sooner  we  reach  it  I  think  the  better. 

"  I  am  glad  the  time  has  not  come,"  wrote  Gladstone  to 
Harcourt  the  next  day,  "  when  new  points  of  departure 
in  Irish  legislation  have  to  be  considered,  and  that  good 
old  Time,  who  carries  me  kindly  on  his  back,  will  probably 
plant  me  before  that  day  comes  outside  the  range  of 
practical  politics." 

II 

The  hope  was  not  realized,  but  the  immediate  danger 
passed.  While  the  Cabinet  was  sitting  on  January  3, 
Harcourt  wrote  to  his  son,  "  Things  are  going  well,"  and 
next  day  he  was  able  to  repeat  that  the  differences  were 
settled  and  "  we  all  hang  together,"  and  that  in  honour 
of  the  event  he  had  arranged  a  Cabinet  dinner  at  Grafton 
Street  for  that  night—"  ordered  at  twelve  hours'  notice." 


THE   COUNTY   FRANCHISE  499 

There  were  to  be  present  Gladstone,  Derby,  Granville, 
Hartington,  Chamberlain,  Childers,  Dodson,  Attorney- 
General  and  "  Self."  "  So,"  he  wrote  to  his  son,  "  you  see 
all  the  lambs  and  the  lions  will  lie  down  together  and  I, 
like  a  little  child,  shall  lead  them."  The  dinner  was  a 
great  success.  "  We  parted  good  friends  and  kissed  all 
round,"  and  the  public  knew  nothing  about  the  battle 
royal  of  which  it  was  the  agreeable  conclusion. 

The  prolonged  struggle  over  the  Franchise  Bill  does  not 
belong  to  this  narrative.  Harcourt  had  played  his  part  in 
composing  the  differences  in  the  Cabinet,  and  until  the 
conflict  with  the  Lords  in  the  autumn  he  was  mainly 
employed  on  other  issues.  It  is  enough  here  to  say  that 
the  Bill,  the  net  effect  of  which  was  to  give  a  vote  to  the 
head  of  every  household  in  the  counties  as  was  the  case  in 
(the  boroughs,  was  introduced  by  Gladstone  on  February  29 
i  with  the  promise  that  a  measure  of  redistrioution  would 
follow.  The  Bill  passed  its  final  stages  in  the  House  of 
Commons  on  June  26.  In  the  House  of  Lords,  however, 
it  met  with  a  resistance  which  brought  about  a  consti- 
•tutional  crisis  of  a  severe  kind.  Lord  Salisbury  very 
astutely  took  the  ground  which  Hartington  had  taken 
f,  during  the  struggle  in  the  Cabinet  at  Christmas  time.  He 
argued  that  the  passing  of  the  Franchise  Bill  without  a 
:oncurrent  measure  of  redistribution  meant  that  redis- 
tribution would  probably  be  left  to  a  new  Parliament 
sleeted  on  the  new  franchise.  By  this  means  he  was  able 
i  to  oppose  the  Bill  without  denying  the  inherent  justice 
:>f  the  reform. 

The  wrecking  amendment  of  Lord  Cairns,  based  on  the 
Salisbury  case,  was  carried  in  the  House  of  Lords  by  205 
to  146  votes,  and  Gladstone  at  once  took  up  the  challenge  and 
declared  the  intention  of  the  Government  to  proceed  with 
the  Bill  in  an  autumn  Session.  Harcourt  strongly  endorsed 
this  view,  urging  Gladstone  (July  9)  to  "  clear  the  decks  for 
iction  at  once  and  get  rid  of  all  lumber  of  all  descriptions  " 
)  rn  order  to  keep  "  the  Bill  and  nothing  but  the  Bill  "  before 
:he  country.  During  the  fencing  and  skirmishing  that 


500  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1884 

preceded  the  renewal  of  the  parliamentary  battle,  Harcourt 
was  all  for  forcing  the  fight  with  a  high  hand  and  cany- 
ing  the   constitutional  issue  to  the  country.     "  I  think  , 
if  Gladstone    was  to  resign  and  Salisbury  was  to  come  I 
in  and  dissolve,"  he  wrote  to  Granville  (September  14), 
"  we   should  beat  the  latter  into  a  cocked  hat  in  the  con-  j 
stituencies  whose  blood  would  be  up.     I  should  therefore 
ride  for  a  resignation."      But  negotiations  were  going  on! 
at  Balmoral, x  where  Hartington  was  in  attendance,  and  we 
find  Ponsonby  writing  to  Harcourt  (October  n)  imploring  ' 
him  to  be  "  conciliatory  "  in  his  coming  speeches  in  the  I 
country,  and  "  trembling  at  what  Lord  Salisbury  may  say! 
at  Kelso  to-day.     For  negotiation  while  big  guns  are  firing  • 
is  difficult."     But  the  big  guns  went  off  with  full  charges,! 
and  there  was  no  more  resounding  incident  of  the  struggle! 
than  the  duel  between  Salisbury  and  Harcourt.     The  latter! 
replied  to  Salisbury  at  Derby  on  October  10,  1884,  in  one  j 
of  the  most  forcible  deliverances  of  his  career.     Declaring  I 
that  the  whole  impasse  rested  with  one  man,  Lord  Salisbury,! 
he  devoted  a  speech  occupying  nearly  a  page  of  The  Times! 
to  a  pitiless  criticism  of  his  political  philosophy  and  public! 
policy : 

...  I  do  not  impeach  his  motives  (he  said)  ;  I  am  ready  to  admit  1 
that  he  acts  with  sincerity  and  courage,  as  we  all  claim  to  act  forli 
that  which  we  believe  to  be  for  the  advantage  of  our  country  and  I  i 
our  Party  ;   but  Lord  Salisbury  is  what  the  French  call  a  fatal  man  I 
— that  is  a  man  who  is  fatal  to  the  men  he  leads  and  the  cause  he  \\ 
espouses.     He  is  very  fond  of  historical  illustrations.     He  talked 
the  other  day  about  the  Empire  of  Rome  and  the  Empire  of  France  ; 
but  I  will  give  him  an  illustration  nearer  home.     The  origin  of  Lord    j 
Salisbury's  race  belongs  to  the  famous  epoch  when  the  modern 
greatness  of  England  was  founded,  but  Lord  Salisbury  has  nothing    ; 
of  the  masculine  confidence  in  the  fibre  of  the  English  people  which    : 
distinguished  the  councils  of  Elizabeth  :   his  statesmanship  belongs 
to  a  later  period  and  is  founded  upon  the  model  of  the  Stuart  type. 
His  statecraft  is  that  of  Laud  and  his  temper  that  of  Strafford. 
They  were  all  sincere,  high-couraged  men  ;   but  a  Charles  destroyed 
the  monarchy  of  which  he  was  the  chief  ;  a  Laud  ruined  the  Church 

1  For  a  tribute  by  Harcourt  to  the  Queen's  share  in  securing 
an  accommodation  between  the  parties,  see  his  letter  to  her  of 
Sept.  23,  1884  (P.  533). 


i884]  DUEL  WITH  SALISBURY  501 

over  which  he  presided,  and  a  Went  worth  lost  his  order  and  him- 
self. .  .  .  The  desperate  resistance  which  they  offered  brought  them 
within  twenty-four  hours  of  revolution  and  the  twenty-four  hours 
expired.  And  if  Lord  Salisbury  has  imbibed  their  spirit  and  intends 
to  imitate  their  example  he  is  as  likely  as  they  were  to  destroy  the 
Party  which  he  leads  and  the  order  to  which  he  belongs. 

In  a  lighter  vein  he  said  that  Lord  Salisbury  reminded  him 
!of  the  old  ladies  who  never  went  to  bed  without  looking 
[for  burglars  underneath  the  bed  :  "He  never  sees  a  voter, 
especially  a  Liberal  voter,  added  to  a  constituency  without 
thinking  he  is  going  to  have  his  pocket  picked  or  that  he  is 
going  to  be  robbed  of  some  darling  privilege."  As  to  the 
demand  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Lords  to  dissolve  the 
House  of  Commons,  it  was  "  opposed  to  the  whole  principle 
of  this  country.  It  has  never  been  admitted,  it  has  never 
been  tolerated  and  it  shall  never  be  allowed." 

Salisbury  retaliated  no  less  vehemently  at  Kelso,  declaring 
that  Harcourt  had  reduced  English  political  controversy 
to  an  American  level — a  characteristically  insular  reflection 
upon  the  political  manners  of  another  nation.  But  in  spite 
of  this  heavy  cannonading,  the  negotiations  went  on.  As 
the  crisis  drew  near  it  became  evident  that  the  Lords  were 
not  disposed  to  force  a  constitutional  conflict  with  the 
representative  House,  and  as  the  Government  agreed  to 
introduce  a  Seats  Bill  as  a  guarantee  that  it  would  be 
proceeded  with  in  the  next  Session,  the  Franchise  Bill,  on 
being  re-introduced  by  Gladstone,  went  smoothly  through 
its  various  stages,  was  accepted  by  the  Lords,  and  became 
law  before  Christmas. 

In  his  voluminous  letters  in  the  spring  to  his  son  in 
Madeira  Harcourt,  in  the  midst  of  social  and  political 
gossip  about  snap  divisions  in  the  House,  visits  to  that 
"  sportive  place  Windsor  Castle,"  the  prospects  of  the 
Government  and  so  on,  is  mainly  concerned  with  his  London 
Bill.  "  I  am  buried  up  to  my  eyes  day  and  night  on  the 
London  Government  Bill  and  see  and  hear  of  nothing  else," 
he  says.  Sometimes  he  is  doubtful  whether  it  will  come 
to  birth,  but  he  has  "all  its  baby  clothes  and  nursery 


502  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1884  • 

apparatus  ready."     Even  when  he  introduced  the  Bill  on 
the  eve  of  the  Easter  holidays,  he  was  not  very  hopeful. 
"  I  approach  the  task  (he  said)  with  the  feelings  of    a 
navigator  who  enters  a  sea  strewn  with  many  wrecks,  and  •' 
whose  shores  are  whitened  with  the  bones  of  many  previous  -i 
adventurers."     He  knew  that  he  was  attacking  many  vested 
interests  which  would  fight  hard  for  their  life.    The  Bill  • 
which  he  foreshadowed  was  a  bold  handling  of  a  complicated  3 
problem.     It  conceived  of  London  as  a  unit,  not  broken 
up  into  separate  boroughs,  but  administered  by  a  single  - 
council,  of  which  the  City  Corporation,  popularly  elected  1 
by  municipal  districts,   was  to  be  the  foundation.     The    ' 
Metropolitan  Board  of  Works  and  the  Vestries  would  dis-  ' 
appear,  and  the  local  administration  would  be  carried  out  I 
by  local  district  councils,  not  having  independent  authority  I 
like  the  vestries,  but  exercising  authority  delegated  to  them  1 
by  the  Central  Council.     The  police  question  which  had  1 
been  the  subject  of  so  much  controversy  between  Gladstone  I 
and  Harcourt  in  the  previous  year  had  been  settled  on  the  ] 
basis  of  the  City  police  being  under  the  new  Council,  and  ' 
the  Metropolitan  police  remaining  under  the  Home  Office,  j 
In  his  speeches  on  the  first  and  second  readings,  Harcourt 
exposed  the  evils  of  the  existing  government  of  London, 
and  argued  powerfully  against  the  administration  of  this 
great  unit  in  "isolated  areas  "  of  the  rich  and  of  the  poor. 
Writing  to  Gladstone  on  this  point  he  quoted — replying  to 
the  Opposition  argument  of  the  general  health  of  the  whole 
area — the  .shocking  comparison  between  the  mortality  in 
the  poor  areas  and  the  mortality  in  the  rich  as  a  reason  for 
central  sanitary  control.     On  this  point  he  was  enthusias- 
tically supported  by  Gladstone. 

But  the  Opposition  was  powerful  and  came,  not  only 
from  the  Tory  Party,  but  from  the  vested  interests,  the 
City  Corporation,  the  Board  of  Works  and  the  Vestries. 
With  the  conflict  over  the  Franchise  Bill  developing,  the 
prospects  of  Harcourt's  scheme  going  through  became  dim. 
"  It  is  too  kind  of  you  to  offer  to  throw  your  shield  over  the 
London  Bill,"  he  writes  to  Gladstone  on  July  5.  "It  will 


•, 


i884]  INFERNAL  MACHINES  503 

at  all  events  give  it  euthanasia  and  throw  a  halo  over  its 

setting  sun."    On  the  second  reading  Gladstone  made  a 

memorable  speech  in  support  of  the  Bill ;  but  by  this  time 

I  its  fate  had  been  sealed.    The  attitude  of  the  Lords  on  the 

Franchise  Bill  had  now  become  clear,  and  resolving  to 

I  stake  their  whole  existence  on  the  passage  of  that  measure, 

;  the  Government,  in  Harcourt's  words,  "  cleared  their  decks 

:  for  action,"  and  among  the  lumber  that  was  thrown  into 

the  sea  was  the  measure  which  had  occupied  so  much  of 

I  Harcourt's  time  and  thought  for  two  years  past. 

in 

But  Ireland  rather  than  London  was  still  the  dominating 
I  concern  of  Harcourt's  official  life.  "  I  have  sunk  now  into 
I  a  mere  head  detective  and  go  nowhere  and  see  nothing," 
I  he  wrote  to  his  son  in  Madeira  (February  29).  The  remark 
I  was  apropos  of  a  new  series  of  dynamite  scares  which  had 

alarmed  the  public.    An  explosion  had  taken  place  the 

previous  day  at  Victoria  Station,  shattering  the  roof  and 
!  doing  serious  damage.     The  dynamite  was  contained  in  a 

portmanteau  left  in  the  cloak-room  and  timed  by  a  clockwork 
I  detonator.     The  similar  infernal  machines  found  at  Charing 

Cross  and  Paddington  did  not  explode.     Writing  to  the 
I  Queen,  Harcourt  said : 

Harcouyt  to  Queen  Victoria. 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  February  29,  1884. — The  origin  of  these 
1  devilish  schemes  is  certain.  They  are  planned,  subsidized  and 
I  executed  by  the  assassination  societies  of  American  Fenians,  who 
I  announce  their  intentions  and  advertise  them  openly  in  newspapers 
I  published  without  the  smallest  restraint  in  the  United  States. 

Your  Majesty  will  remember  that  the  Government  addressed  to 

i   the  Government  of  the  United  States  a  strong  remonstrance  on  this 

|  subject  in  the  spring  of  last  year.     To  this  no  reply  was  made  at  the 

time,  but  at  the  end  of  last  month  a  reply  of  a  most  unfriendly 

i   character  was  sent  through  Mr.  Lowell,  to  which  it  is  now  proposed 

at  once  to  send  an  energetic  rejoinder  in  particular  relative  to  the 

i  recent  transactions.     No  other  civilized  country  in  the  world  does 

or  would  tolerate  the  open  advocacy  of  assassination  and  murder.  .  .  . 

Later,  in  connection  with  other  outrages,  Harcourt  recurs 
to  the  same  subject  in  writing  to  the  Queen  (June  7) : 


504  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1884 

Our  remonstrances  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  (he 
says)  have  led  to  no  practical  results,  and  with  the  election  of 
President  impending  neither  Party  will  risk  a  quarrel  with  the 
Irish  vote. 

Im  a  further  letter  (June  25)  he  dismisses  the  suggestion  of 
the  offer  of  rewards  as  futile.  "  In  the  case  of  the  Phoenix 
Park  murders  we  offered  £10,000  without  obtaining  a  scrap 
of  information.  ...  It  is  from  this  source  alone  (infor- 
mers) that  we  can  hope  for  success.  They  are  not  tempted 
by  these  public  offers.  They  know  where  to  go  with  valuable 
information  if  they  possess  and  are  willing  to  communicate 
it."  Meanwhile  the  Queen  was  disturbed  about  her  own 
safety.  On  the  one  hand,  she  was  "  rather  sour,"  said  Pon- 
sonby,  at  Harcourt's  insistence  on  her  being  shadowed 
when  her  carriage  left  the  grounds  at  Windsor ;  and  on 
the  other,  she  complained  (July  13)  through  Ponsonby  that 
"  the  terrace  above  the  departure  station  was  unguarded 
yesterday  at  the  Great  Western  Railway,  Paddington." 
Ponsonby  added  that  the  Queen  insisted  that  he  should 
write  "  because  you  advised  her  always  to  have  equerries 
here  (Windsor),  where  there  is  nobody,  and  leave  her 
exposed  in  London."  Harcourt's  reply  may  be  guessed 
by  Ponsonby 's  comment  on  it  next  day — "  I  will  explain 
the  first  part  of  your  letter  to  H.M.  I  won't  show  it,  for 
the  latter  part  will  not  elicit  peace-on-earth  remarks." 
The  Queen  was  not  the  only  source  of  the  "  head  detective's  " 
worries.  While  she  was  complaining  on  the  one  hand, 
Gladstone  was  renewing  his  protests  on  the  other.  He  had 
always  objected  to  police  protection  at  Hawarden,  and  now 
finally  put  down  his  foot,  telling  Harcourt  through  E.  W. 
Hamilton  (May  24)  that  he  would  "  give  orders  to  have  the 
gates  closed  "  against  the  constables.  He  was  "  ashamed 
of  the  expense  he  had  already  been  the  cause  of  inflicting 
on  his  fellow  ratepayers,"  and  he  would  "  tolerate  it "  no 
longer. 

Throughout  the  summer  outrages  and  arrests  continued, 
and  Harcourt's  depression  about  the  Irish  situation  deep- 
ened. Writing  to  Spencer,  he  said  : 


i884]  MAAMTRASNA   MURDERS  505 

September  21 . —  .  .  .  As  you  know  I  have  always  been  a  pessimist 
I  on  the  subject  of  Ireland,  and  I  confess  I  see  no  ray  of  light  in  the 
I  future.  It  is  idle  to  conceal  from  ourselves  that  we  do  and  only 
I  can  hold  the  country  by  force.  I  am  afraid  the  via  media  of  con- 
I  ciliation  is  impossible — there  is  no  alternative  between  separation 
i  and  coercion.  . 


I  There  was  at  this  time  a  formidable  revival  of  an  old  theme — 
I  the  Maamtrasna  case.     It  will  be  remembered  that  Myles 
I  Joyce,   one  of  the  three  men  executed  for  that  crime, 
1  declared  his  innocence  on  the  scaffold  and  was  exonerated 
1  by  his  two  companions.     His  execution  was  alleged  by 
I  the  Irish  to  be  a  "  judicial  murder,"  and  in  August  1884 
feeling  in  the  case  was  revived  by  the  fact  that  Thomas 
Casey,  one  of  the  approvers  on  whose  evidence  Joyce  was 
convicted,  sought  an  interview  with  the  Archbishop  of 
Tuam,  and  informed  him  of  his  desire  to  make  reparation 
by  a  public  confession  for  the  double  crime  of  murder 
|  and  perjury  (against  Myles  Joyce,  whom  he  now  declared 
to  be  innocent)  committed  by  him  in  connection  with  the 
Maamtrasna  trials.     Spencer  told   Harcourt    (August   18) 
that  he  was  convinced  that  the  confession  was  a  complete 
lie,  forced  from  Casey  by  the  pressure  of  his  wife  and  others, 
and  said  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance  to  meet  the  case 
promptly  as  "  the  real  motive  is  to  try  to  upset  the  convic- 
tions and  throw  discredit  on  the  administration  of  the 
law."     Harcourt  agreed  (August  21)  with  Spencer  that  the 
demand  for  an  inquiry  based  on  the  recantation  of  the 
informers  must  be  refused.     "  It  is  the  contradictory  oath 
of  the  same  men  with  relation  to  the  same  facts,  and  no 
conceivable  inquiry  could,  as  far  as  they  are  concerned, 
elicit  whether  their  lying  is  in  their  present  or  their  former 
statement." 

When  Parliament  met  in  the  autumn,  the  Irish  Party 
moved  an  amendment  to  the  Address  calling  for  an  inquiry. 
A  significant  circumstance,  the  first  foreshadowing  of  a 
momentous  change  in  the  attitude  of  parties  on  the  Irish 
question,  was  that  Lord  Randolph  Churchill  and  the  Fourth 
Party  supported  Parnell's  demand.  There  was  another 


506  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1884 

significant  circumstance.  Harcourt  spoke  in  the  debate 
on  October  27.  Replying  to  a  suggestion  from  Gladstone 
in  the  morning  of  that  day,  Harcourt  said  he  quite  agreed 
with  his  Chief,  and  that  "  I  mean  to  say  little  or  nothing 
personally  against  the  Irish  M.P.'s.  I  propose  to  give  them 
entire  credit  for  their  desire  to  absolve  men  whom  they 
believe  to  be  innocent,  but  to  point  out  that  for  that  purpose 
it  was  wholly  unnecessary  and  unjust  to  accuse  the  Judiciary 
and  Executive  of  Ireland  of  a  wilful  and  deliberate  perver- 
sion of  justice,  which  is  really  the  charge  and  the  motive." 
In  his  speech  he  surveyed  the  evidence  in  the  Maamtrasna 
case,  and  declared  that  he  had  carefully  investigated  the 
circumstances  before  Spencer  replied  to  the  Archbishop's 
letter,  and  had  no  hesitation  in  telling  Spencer  that  he 
considered  there  was  no  justification  for  interfering  with 
the  sentence.  "  Hon.  members  opposite,"  he  said,  "  asked 
the  House  to  believe  that  the  witnesses  were  perjured,  that 
the  juries  were  packed,  and  that  the  judge,  the  crown  counsel, 
the  resident  magistrates  and  Lord  Spencer  were  engaged 
in  a  common  conspiracy  to  do  to  death  men  of  whom  they 
knew  nothing."  If  such  an  indictment  were  endorsed  by 
the  House  of  Commons  they  would  paralyse  government 
in  Ireland  and  revive  the  reign  of  terror  which  the  firm  and 
just  administration  of  Lord  Spencer  had  broken  down.  The 
debate  was  resumed  the  following  night,  Gladstone  defending 
the  Government's  action,  and  the  motion  was  lost  by  170 
votes.  Writing  to  Spencer  on  the  debate,  Harcourt  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Spencer. 

October  29. —  ...  It  would  have  done  your  heart  good  to  hear 
the  cheers  with  which  Gladstone's  panegyric  on  you  was  hailed. 
The  Irishmen  howled  at  us  like  hyenas  all  through  the  debate,  but 
their  extreme  violence  of  behaviour  and  language,  especially  their 
abuse  of  you,  destroyed  the  chance  they  had  of  detaching  some  of 
our  Radicals  on  the  specious  pretext  of  inquiry.  Everybody  saw 
they  wanted  no  inquiry,  but  were  hunting  for  blood. 

The  division  I  hope  you  will  consider  satisfactory.  The  number 
of  the  minority  was  smaller  than  was  expected,  containing  no 
Liberals  except  such  as  Cowen,  Gourley,  Labouchere,  Storey  and  a 
queer  fellow  of  the  name  of  Thompson,  M.P.  for  Durham. 

The  bid  of  Lord  Randolph  Churchill  for  the  Irish  vote  was  most 


i884]          CRUISE   IN  THE   SUNBEAM         507 

barefaced.  He  had  hardly  any  actual  followers  into  the  Lobby 
except  Gorst  and  Clarke,  and  two  or  three  odd  fish  like  Aylmer, 
C.  Kennard,  Maclver  and  Eardley  Wilmot.  Even  his  jackal  Wolff 
did  not  vote  with  him.  .  .  . 

IV 

The  year  was  not  without  its  relaxations,  mostly  enjoyed 
at  sea.  In  May,  Harcourt  went  for  a  few  days'  cruise  in 
the  Trinity  House  yacht,  Galatea,  among  the  Channel 
Islands,  accompanied  by  Loulou  and  Chamberlain,  and 
his  letters  to  his  wife  are  a  pleasant  record  of  his  experiences. 
He  anchors  at  Alderney  "  which  is  a  black  dismal  place 
with  a  ruined  breakwater  and  hardly  any  people  "  ;  goes 
to  the  trial  of  "  a  poor  wretch  of  a  sailor  for  insubordination," 
and  hears  him  "  unjustly  sentenced  to  a  month's  imprison- 
ment .  .  .  four  times  as  much  as  he  would  have  got  if 
H.S.  had  not  been  present  "  ;  at  Guernsey  goes  with  Loulou 
in  state  to  Church  in  the  Governor's  pew  ;  drives  round  the 
island  and  finds  it  unimpressive ;  calls  at  Malwood  on  his 
way  home  to  see  the  progress  of  building  and,  back  in  Lon- 
don, has  with  Loulou  "  a  grand  tidying  up,  emptying  boxes 
and  arranging  letters  for  the  last  thirty  years.  ...  I  have 
come  across  many  memories  which  touch  me  deeply." 

When  Parliament  rose  he  and  Loulou  set  out  on  a  cruise 
in  the  Sunbeam  with  Lord  Brassey.  "  We  started  (from 
Cowes)  Wednesday  evening  amidst  some  rain,"  he  wrote 
to  his  wife  (August  16),  "  and  found  our  other  passengers 
on  board — the  two  Liddell  girls  both  very  natural  and 
lively,  and  the  grass  widow  of  a  Captain  of  a  man-of-war 
who  is  detained  aboard.  She  is  not  seriously  dangerous 
especially  as  she  sings  beautifully.  Our  skipper  is  most 
hospitable  and  kind.  At  midnight  on  Wednesday  we 
abandoned  our  steam.  Brassey  cannot  bear  the  kettle, 
and  we  have  depended  wholly  on  sail  since,  which  has  made 
our  passage  slow.  ..."  They  went  down  the  Channel, 
calling  at  Budleigh  Salterton  "  to  telegraph  to  you  and 
H.O.,"  and  at  Plymouth  to  find  his  official  boxes.  But 
the  messenger  who  was  to  bring  them  "  being  I  suppose  as 
usual  drunk,  went  to  Falmouth  instead.  So  I  have  not 


508  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1884 

had  a  box  since  I  left."  They  tisited  the  Scillies,  to  see 
"  the  Monarch,  Smith-Dorrien,  and  his  wife  and  beautiful 
gardens.  .  .  .  We  thought  the  male  and  female  sovereigns 
rather  bored  with  their  dominions  which  we  did  not  envy 
them."  Leaving  the  Scillies,  a  fine  breeze  sprang  up,  and 
"  we  are  bowling  along  before  it  into  Holyhead."  Thence 
to  the  Isle  of  Man  when  "  I  must  do  a  whole  week's  boxes." 
After  that  away  to  Oban  and  on  to  Balmacarra,  where  he 
was  to  join  his  wife  and  "  Bobs." 

At  Invercauld  he  met  Gladstone  who,  he  writes  to  Gran- 
ville,  "  is  here  in  great  physical  force  after  Midlothian.  .  .  . 
The  popularity  of  G.,  in  this  country  at  least,  is  greater 
than  ever  it  was.  It  does  not  alter  my  opinion  that  there 
will  be  resignation  of  Government  before  Christmas.  The 
blow  is  struck  which  is  to  bring  R.  (Rosebery)  into  the 
Cabinet.  It  was  an  awkward  business,  but  I  think  necessary.' 

The  "  awkward  business  "  referred  to  was  the  difficulty 
of  getting  rid  of  Carlingford  to  make  room  for  Lord  Rose- 
bery as  Lord  Privy  Seal.  "  Nothing  except  absolute  and 
hard  negatives  have  been  obtained  from  the  receiver  of 
the  letter  (to  Carlingford)  which  you  saw  at  Invercauld,' 
wrote  Gladstone  to  Harcourt  (September  17).  The  question 
was  whether  a  minister  could  be  removed  if  he  did  not 
choose  to  go,  and  Carlingford  did  not  choose  to  go.  Har- 
court, replying  to  Gladstone,  said : 

Harcourt  to  Gladstone. 

LOCH  ALSH,  September  22. —  ...  I  confess  I  have  never  doubted 
that  Cabinet  offices  were  held  durante  bene  placato  of  the  Prime 
Minister.  No  doubt  when  it  comes  to  an  open  breach  as  between 
Pitt  and  Thurlow  the  direct  interposition  of  the  Crown  may  have 
to  be  invoked,  and  the  removal  would  be  at  the  Sovereign's  command. 
But  in  the  ordinary  working  of  a  Cabinet  I  have  always  supposed  that 
the  Prime  Minister  had  the  same  authority  to  modify  it  as  he  has 
to  construct  it.  ... 

In  my  opinion  it  is  no  more  open  to  the  head  of  a  department  in  the 
Cabinet  to  say  to  the  potter  that  he  will  be  an  urceus  or  an  amphora 
than  it  is  to  a  Commander  of  a  Division  to  say  to  the  Commander  - 
in-Chief  that  he  will  not  be  superseded  in  the  command  by  another 
officer.  The  interests  at  stake  are  far  too  serious  to  admit  of  the 
doctrine  of  fixity  of  tenure. 


i884]  LEWIS   HARCOURT  509 

That  this  must  be  so  is  obvious  because  the  first  Minister  can 
always  say  to  any  other  member  of  the  Administration,  "  if  you 
don't  go  I  will."  But  it  is  incredible  that  things  should  ever  be 
pushed  to  such  a  point  as  that.  Good  feeling  as  well  as  good  sense 
forbids  it.  And  a  man  must  be  pachydermatous  indeed  who  is 
incapable  of  accepting  the  first  hint  that  his  room  is  wanted  whether 
he  is  on  a  visit  or  in  a  Cabinet.  I  am  sure  much  less  than  you  have 
said  would  have  made  me  pack  up  my  traps.  .  .  . 

It  was  not  until  later  in  the  year,  and  after  other  changes 
had  taken  place  in  the  Ministry,  that  Carlingford  was  at 
last  induced  to  retire,  making  way  for  Lord  Rosebery. 

This  year  saw  the  first  appearance  of  his  son  on  a  public 
platform.  It  took  place  at  a  meeting  at  Derby,  and  Har- 
court  wrote : 

Harcourt  to  his  son  Lewis. 

October  27. —  .  .  .  We  are  delighted  with  the  accounts  of  your 
speech  ;  you  may  believe  how  anxious  I  am  that  you  should  do  well, 
though  I  did  not  like  to  show  it  too  much,  or  to  interfere  too  much 
with  your  own  bent. 

I  always  knew,  my  darling,  that  you  would  do  well  when  you 
were  tried,  and  that  your  head  is  as  sound  as  your  heart — only  a 
good  deal  harder.  I  have  no  joy  like  that  of  your  happiness  and 
success.  You  have  been  and  are  all  in  all  to  me,  and  grow  dearer 
to  me  every  day  as  you  fulfil  all  my  cherished  hopes  and  expectations. 

Still  I  wish  you  were  a  little  boy  still  and  were  not  bound  to  be 
plunged  into  the  stormy  seas  of  politics,  about  which  I  feel  as  anxious 
for  you  as  I  do  in  the  equinoctials  of  the  West  Coast,  and  sometimes 
feel  disposed  to  get  you  ashore.  Such  is  the  timidity  of  old  age  and 
the  fondness  of  a  father.  But  you  will  understand  and  sympathize 
with  both.  .  .  . 

His  not  infrequent  differences  with  Gladstone  did  not 
diminish  the  warmth  of  Harcourt's  feelings  towards  him. 
Writing  to  his  wife,  he  says : 

December  2. —  .  .  .  Gladstone  talks  more  seriously  than  ever  of" 
retirement.     I  fancy  he  means  at  once — great  as  the  blow  will  be  to 
us  I  have  hardly  the  heart  to  remonstrate  against  it  as  he  can  now 
retire  at  the  zenith  of  his  glory,  and  the  next  year's  struggles  will 
be  neither  pleasant  nor  glorious. 

And  a  few  days  later  he  sends  a  characteristic  expression 
of  his  goodwill  to  his  Chief,  to  whom  he  writes : 


510  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1884 

Harcourt  to   Gladstone. 

HOME  OFFICE,  December  17. — The  borough  of  Derby  is  principally 
celebrated  for  three  things,  its  china,  its  members  of  Parliament 
and  its  rounds  of  beef.  You  have  shown  such  an  indulgent  apprecia- 
tion of  the  first  two  productions  that,  remembering  your  approval 
of  the  cold  boiled  beef  at  Invercauld,  I  wish  you  to  make  experience 
of  the  third. 

A  round  of  beef  prepared  after  the  Derby  fashion  will  I  hope  reach 
Hawarden  some  time  next  week,  and  I  hope  it  may  find  a  place  on 
your  Christmas  sideboard. 

You  have  always  been  so  kind  in  your  inquiries  after  my  brother 
that  you  will  be  glad  to  hear  that  he  is  fairly  well  restored  to  health, 
and  that  we  are  going  with  the  whole  family  to  spend  Christmas  with 
him  at  Nuneham. 

Redistribution  seems  to  be  marching  merrily  and  Proportional 
Representation  to  be  nowhere. 

In  his  reply  Gladstone  said  "  the  promised  round  of  beef 
will  be  perfect  if  you  and  Lady  Harcourt  will  come  here 
to  eat  it,"  and  referring  to  Proportional  Representation, 
adds : 

.  .  .  The  waters  of  Redistribution  are  at  present  marvellously 
smooth,  but  Courtney,  young  and  sanguine,  sends  me  with  exultation 
a  letter  from  the  O'Conor  Don,  which  he  thinks  must  settle  the  con- 
troversy in  his  favour 


CHAPTER  XXIII 
KHARTUM   AND   GORDON 

Fall  of  Khartum — Har court's  Memorandum  to  the  Cabinet  on  Egypt 
— Speech  on  the  Vote  of  Censure — Chamberlain  and  the  Unau- 
thorized Programme — Demand  for  the  renewal  of  the  Crimes  Act 
— Cabinet  divisions  on  Irish  Local  Government — The  Dynamite 
Scare — Diplomatic  correspondence  with  Washington — More 
Dissension  in  the  Cabinet  on  Ireland — Defeat  on  the  Wine  and 
Spirit  Duties — Resignation — Harcourt's  criticism  of  Churchill 
— To  the  Queen  on  Party  Government — The  Skye  Crofters. 

THE  new  year  opened  under  the  shadow  of  an  event 
that  shook  the  Government  to  its  foundations  and 
that  still  reverberates  through  history.  Khartum 
fell  on  January  26,  and  the  fall  was  made  momentous  by 
the  murder  of  Gordon.  The  disaster  was  the  climax  of  a 
tragic  entanglement  in  which  the  Government  had  become 
involved  as  a  consequence  of  the  Egyptian  policy  they  had 
taken  over  from  the  Disraelian  Government,  and  from 
which  they  had  found  themselves  unable  to  disengage^ 
themselves.  The  withdrawal  of  France  from  the  joint 
control  of  Egypt,  and  the  sequence  of  events  had  left  Great 
Britain  sole  suzerain  over  that  country.  The  Government 
did  not  want  the  burden,  and  regarded  it  only  as  a  temporary 
expedient  into  which  they  had  drifted  unwillingly  and  from 
which  they  would  escape  when  they  could  do  so  with  honour 
and  advantage  to  the  country.  [  Their  responsibilities  were 
limited  to  Egypt,  but  unfortunately  the  Khedive's  rule 
extended  to  the  vast  region  south  of  Egypt,  known  as  the 
Sudan,  and  in  this  region  the  Khedive's  government  was 
little  more  than  a  system  of  wringing  "  money,  women  and 

511 


512  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1884 

/drink  from  a  miserable  population"  (Wingate,  Mahdi-ism 
I  and  the  Egyptian  Sudan,  pp.  50,  51). 

The  result  of  this  atrocious  misgovernment  was  a  rebel 
movement,  led  by  a  native  of  Dongola  who  proclaimed 
himself  the  Mahdi.  It  began  in  religious  fanaticism,  but 
'it  gathered  to  itself  all  the  political  discontents  of  the 
tribes  who  were  groaning  under  the  exaction  of  the  Khedive's 
rule,  and  assumed,  in  Gladstone's  phrase,  the  character  of 
"  a  people  rightly  struggling  to  be  free_JV  At  the  inspiration 
of  the  Khedive's  advisers,  an  expedition  was  sent  under 
General  Hicks,  who  had  been  appointed  on  the  staff  of  the 
Egyptian  army,  to  quell  the  rebellion  and  on  November  5, 
1883,  Hicks's  force  was  cut  to  pieces  by  the  dervishes  of 
the^Mahdi.  The  British  Government,  whose  sphere  of 
influence  did  not  extend  to  the  Sudan,  would  have  been 
wise  if  they  had  checked  the  adventure  at  its  inception. 

s  failure  made  the  course  clear.     All  competent  opinion, 

icTuding  that  of  Sir  Evelyn  Baring  (Lord  Cromer),  the 
British  representative  in  Egypt,  agreed  that  the  evacuation 
of  the  Sudan  was  necessary.  Its  reconquest  by  the  resources 
at  the  command  of  the  Egyptian  Government  was  impos- 
sible, and  Gordon  himself,  in  a  letter  to  Granville  (January 
22,  1884),  described  it  as  a  useless  possession,  and  said  the 
Queen's  Ministers  were  "  fully  justified  in  recommending 
evacuation."  But  the  question  of  evacuation,  in  the  face 
of  the  victorious  dervishes,  was  difficult.  It  involved  the 
withdrawal  of  the  scattered  Egyptian  garrisons,  and  after 
the  opposition  of  Baring  had  been  overcome,  Gordon  was 
despatched  to  carry  out  the  task. 

It  was  an  unfortunate  choice,  suggested  to  Hartington 
by  Wolseley,  consented  to  by  Granville,  Northbrook  and 
Dilke,  and  endorsed  by  Gladstone  on  the  day  (Jan.  18) 
of  Gordon's  interview  at  the  War  Office,  but  only  ap- 
proved by  the  Cabinet  as  a  whole  four  days  after  the 
event./  Gordon  was  a  brave  and  high-minded  man,  a 
(  blend  of  the  soldier  and  the  mystic,  but  moved  by  sudden 
\  impulses,  lacking  in  sanity  and  not  easy  to  control.  He 
\  had  favoured  evacuation,  and  had  been  sent  out  to  report 


i884]  GORDON   AT   KHARTUM  513 

on  the  best  means  of  carrying  it  out  without  the  employment  1 
of  British  forces  ;  but  once  in  Khartum  he  was  seized  with  I 
the  idea  of  "  smashing  the  Mahdi  "  by  means  of  British  1 
and  Indian  troops,  and  declared  that  to  leave  outlying  \ 
garrisons  to  their  fate  would  be  "an  indelible  disgrace." 
As  Hartington,  then  War  Minister,  pointed  out,  we  had  no 
moral  obligations  in  regard  to  Egyptian  garrisons  in  the 
Sudan.  We  had  not  sent  them  there,  and  were  not  respon- 
sible  for  their  safety. /The  defiance~6T1tEe  authority  and 
instructions  on  which  he  had  been  sent  out  should  have 
been  followed  by  the  recall  of  Gordon,  but  though  Gladstone 
favoured  this  course,  he  was  overborne  by  his  colleagues, 
and  through  the  spring  and  summer  of  1884  the  problem 
of  what  was  to  be  done  occupied  the  Government  and  the 
War  Office.  Gordon  had  indiscreetly  allowed  the  Khedive's 
secret  firman  announcing  the  total  abandonment  of  the 
Sudan  to  become  known,  and  the  news  destroyed  any  moral 
influence  he  might  have  exercised  over  the  tribes.  The 
Mahdi's  forces,  inspirited  by  the  fact,  advanced  northwards. 
Berber  fell  in  May,  and  a  little  later  Khartum  was  enveloped. 
There  followed  in  England  the  popular  clamour  natural 
in  such  circumstances.  Gordon  had  struck  the  imagination 
of  the  people,  and  his  perilous  situation  aroused  wide- 
spread anxiety.  It  became  increasingly  doubtful  whether 
he  could  escape,  and  the  question  of  his  relief  overshadowed 
all  other  considerations  in  the  public  mind.  A  fierce  con- 
troversy raged  in  military  circles  as  to  the  best  route  by 
which  a  relief  expedition  should  be  sent. 

In  the  end  the  Nile  route  was  chosen,  and  an  expedition 
under  the  command  of  Wolseley  reached  Wady  Haifa  on 
October  5,  and  commenced  the  campaign.  The  advance, 
delayed  by  the  navigation  of  the  shifting  channels  of  the 
river  with  its  sandbanks  and  cataracts,  by  the  difficulties 
of  camel  transport  and  by  the  perils  of  the  Bayuda  desert, 
infested  with  sleepless  enemies,  was  slow,  and  in  spite  of 
the  military  successes  at  Abu  Klea  and  Kirbekan,  it  was 
not  until  January  28,  1885,  that  the  first  steamer  of  the 
relief  force  came  in  sight  of  Khartum,  only  to  learn  that  the 

LL 


514 


SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 


[1885 


town  had  fallen  two  days  before  and  that  Gordon  was 
among  the  slain.  The  blow  fell  with  crushing  effect  upon 
a  Government  which,  apart  from  the  military  enterprise, 
was  rent  with  dissension  on  the  question  of  Egyptian  policy 
and  confronted  with  the  disquieting  attitude  of  the  conti- 
nental Powers  on  the  subject.  The  record  of  all  this  does 
not  belong  to  my  subject ;  but  the  confusion  within  the 
Cabinet  may  be  illustrated  by  a  few  passages  from  the 
Journal : 

November  17,  1884. — W.  V.  H.  this  morning  circulated  a  memor- 
andum1 to  the  Cabinet  on  Egypt  and  advocates  our  informing  the 
Powers  that  we  shall  only  stay  there  long  enough  to  get  Gordon 
>away,  and  that  our  occupation  will  cease  within  twelve  months, 
v  at  the  end  of  which  time  Europe  must  make  some  joint  provision 
for  carrying  on  the  Government  and  administration  of  Egypt.  .  .  . 

W.  V.  H.  said  at  the  Cabinet  the  other  day,  "  the  only  thing  for 
us  to  do  is  to  get  out  of  Egypt  as  soon  as  possible  " — on  which  Sel- 

rne  observed,  "  that  is  the  opinion  of  one  member  of  the  Cabinet," 
to  which  Mr.  Gladstone  replied,  "  you  had  better  say  two."  .  .  . 

January  3, 1885. —  .  .  .  ChamberfauTis-very  jingo  on  the  Egyptian 
question,  and  wants  "  to  have  a  go  in  "  at  Bismarck  and  France,  by 
which  I  suppose  he  means  a  European  war.  .  .  . 

January  20,  1885. — Chamberlain  laid  up  with  an  abscess  in  the 
jaw.     W.  V.  H.  and  I  went  to  see  him  in  Prince's  Gardens.     We 
found  him  in  great  pain,  and  he  is  to  have  several  old  stumps  taken 
out  under  chloroform  this  afternoon.     He  said,  "  You  Peace  at  any 
Price  people  ought  to  be  glad  that  I  am  laid  up  as  I  suppose  you 
get  your  wicked  way  at  the  Cabinet  this  afternoon.".    He  wants 
.    to  threaten  and  coerce,  and  if  necessary  fight  France,  but  at  the  same 
\    time  has  no  idea  of  staying  an  indefinite  time  in  Egypt  or  declaring 
J  a  protectorate  or  guaranteeing  the  debt.  .  .  . 

Dinner  at  7,  Graf  ton  Street  to-night :  Mr.  Gladstone,  Lord  Car  ling- 
ford,  Lady  Stanley  of  Alderley  and  Lyulph  Stanley.  Gladstone  in 
very  good  spirits,  talked  chiefly  about  crofters,  education,  school 
boards  and  the  Croker  Papers.  .  .  .  Afrer  dinner  a  yellow  box  arrived 
for  Gladstone  with  a  letter  in  it  from  Hartington.  I  guess  that  at 
last  he  has  resigned. 

January  21. — I  was  right ;  Hartington  has  resigned  and  North- 
brook  will  probably  go  with  him.  .  .  .  Gladstone  said  last  night 
to  W.  V.  H.  that  even  if  Hartington  goes  nothing  will  induce  him 
to  give  up 

January  22. — W.  V.  H.  and  I  went  to  see  Chamberlain  to-da5 
The  operation  has  been  successful  and  he  is  in  less  pain.     They 

1  Printed  as  Appendix  II  to  this  volume. 


i88s]       A   TOTTERING   GOVERNMENT         515 

Egyptian  affairs  steadily  for  about  an  hour  and  a  half.  .  .  .  He 
(Chamberlain)  was  in  favour  of  writing  what  he  calls  a  "  Palmerston- 
ian  Despatch  "  to  Lyons  which  should  be  shown  confidentially  to 
Ferry  with  an  intimation  that  if  the  French  Government  did  not 
give  way  the  despatch  would  be  sent  officially.  Chamberlain  said 
that  he  is  quite  convinced  that  France  would  not  fight  as  the  Chinese 
War  is  already  very  unpopular  there,  and  there  is  no  chance  of  a 
European  combination  against  us  ;  that  Germany  would  not  join 
France,  as  Bismarck  has  said,  "  You  settle  with  France  and  then  I 
will  settle  with  you."  W.  V.  H.  said  there  were  as  many  policies  for 
Egypt  as  there  were  men  in  the  Cabinet,  but  Chamberlain  replied, 
"  No,  there  are  not  more  than  three  or  four  men  capable  of  making 
one,  and  there  are  only  three  practical  ones  before  us.  There  is 
Hartington's  with  his  '  Pay  and  stay.,'  yours,  which  is  '  Pay  and 
scujile,'  and  mine,  which  is  '  Scuttle  and  repudiate.* "...  [H.] 

The  news  of  the  fall  of  Khartum  created  a  wave  of  public 
anger,  and  Gladstone  himself  expected  that  his  Government 
would  not  survive.  Harcourt  had  expressed  the  view  that 
the  end  was  near  for  some  time,  and  in  letters  to  Spencer, 
his  wife  and  others  had  discussed  the  alternatives — a  Harting- 
ton  Ministry  or  the  handing  of  affairs  over  to  Salisbury. 
"  The  divisions  of  opinion  on  Egyptian  policy,"  he  had 
written  to  Spencer  (January  4),  "  have  brought  things  into 
such  a  deplorable  state  of  confusion  in  the  Cabinet  that  it 
is  impossible  to  conjecture  when  the  coup  de  grace  may  come. 
The  only  thing  which  seems  certain  is  that  things  cannot 
go  on  as  they  are.  No  one  who  attended  the  Cabinets  on 
Friday  and  Saturday  could  wish  that  they  should."  He 
himself  had  been  hostile  to  the  whole  course  of  development 
in  Egypt.  During  the  discussions  in  the  previous  year  he 
had  twice  drawn  up  memoranda  to  the  Cabinet  declaring  for 
a  policy  of  withdrawal  from  Egypt.  The  second  of  these 
memoranda  (November  16,  1884)  will  serve  to  indicate  his 
general  attitude  on  the  subject  of  the  occupation  of  Egypt. 
He  had  disapproved  of  the  choice  of  Gordon  for  the  task  of 
evacuating  the  Sudan,  and  had  anticipated  an  unhappy 
issue  of  that  adventure. 

But  the  course  of  events  modified  his  view  as  to  the 
necessities  of  the  situation,  and  writing  to  Mr.  (Sir)  G.  O 
Trevelyan  (February  14)  he  insisted  on  the  need  of  Wolseley 


SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 


[1885 


going  forward  "  to  destroy  the  Mahdi's  power  at  Khartum." 
Like  his  Chief,  to  whom  the  Queen  on  the  news  of  Gordon's 
death  addressed  a  rebuke  not  in  cipher  but  en  clair,  Harcourt 
had  frequent  intimations  from  Osborne  of  the  royal  indigna- 
tion. "  She  read  the  telegram  to  me,"  wrote  Ponsonby, 
"  and  said  '  Too  late  again.'  '  Harcourt  was  anxious  about 
her  indisposition,  and  inquired  whether  she  had  been  made 
nervous  about  "  the  American  telegram "  (reporting  an 
offer  by  the  Fenians  of  10,000  dollars  for  the  body  of  the 
Prince  of  Wales  dead  or  alive),  and  Ponsonby  replied, 
"  No,  but  the  events  in  the  Sudan  and  her  indignation 
with  the  Ministers  aggravated  her  indisposition."  Next  day 
(February  18)  Ponsonby  reported  to  Harcourt  that  she 
was  better,  but  "  her  indignation  greater." 

ii 

In  the  debate  on  Northcote's  Vote  of  Censure,  which 
lasted  several  nights,  the  liveliest  interest  centred  in  Har- 
court's  reply  (February  28)  to  the  attacks  of  Goschen. 
"  Right  or  wrongly,"  said  the  Annual  Register  in  its  review 
of  the  debate,  "  Sir  William  Harcourt  had  been  assumed  to 
be  the  chief,  perhaps  the  sole  representative  in  the  Cabinet 
of  the  policy  of  '  scuttling  '  out  of  Egypt,  and  consequently 
would  have  been,  it  would  be  supposed,  the  last  person 
chosen  to  give  a  satisfactory  explanation."  But  his  defence 
of  the  Government  was  generally  admitted  to  be  a  powerful 
and  convincing  achievement.  He  had  two  attacks  from 
opposite  quarters  to  meet — the  frontal  attack  of  the  Opposi- 
tion on  the  ground  of  failure  to  support  Gordon,  and  the 
more  dangerous  attack  from  the  Radicals  on  the  ground 
that  the  advance  to  Khartum  should  not  be  pursued. 
Declining  to  take  notice  of  the  charges  of  treachery  01 
intentional  neglect  of  Gordon,  he  repudiated  the  errors  of 
judgment  and  waste  of  time  with  which  the  Cabinet  he 
been  charged.  He  reviewed  the  story  of  the  enterprise 
begun,  with  Gordon's  concurrence,  as  a  peaceful  mission, 
relying  on  Gordon's  own  personal  influence  with  the  tribe 
and  converted  chiefly  by  his  action  into  a  policy  of  "  smash- 


1885]       DEFENDS   EGYPTIAN   POLICY         517 

ing  the  Mahdi."  He  pointed  out  that  in  every  step  taken 
the  Government  had  been  governed  by  expert  opinion,  that 
the  choice  of  the  Nile  route  was  a  military  decision,  and 
that  the  relief  would  not  have  been  too  late  but  for  the 
treachery  of  Ferhat  Pasha.  '  You  may  say,"  he  said, 
"  that  treachery  is  the  thing  that  might  have  been  expected. 
Yes,  it  might,  just  as  much  on  the  day  after  Gordon  arrived 
in  Khartum  as  the  day  on  which  he  died.  There  was  no 
period  when  he  was  not  exposed  to  treachery. ' '  In  answering 
the  Radical  hostility  to  the  continuance  of  the  advance  on 
Khartum,  he  said  : 

...  I  would  never  have  consented  to  go  to  Khartum  with  the 
intention  of  annexing  or  occupying  the  Sudan,  or  any  part  of  it, 
for  Egypt  or  for  England.  I  never  would  have  consented  to  go  to 
Khartum  for  the  mere  purpose  of  vengeance  for  the  death  of  Gordon. 
We  should  have  shown  very  little  appreciation  of  Gordon's  character 
if  we  did — it  would  have  been  a  very  ill  monument  to  his  memory. 
The  only  reason,  in  my  opinion,  that  justifies  our  going  to  Khartum 
since  the  death  of  Gordon — the  primary  object  was  the  saving  of 
Gordon — and  there  were  secondary  objects  referred  to  by  the  Prime 
Minister — is  that  it  is  the  only  manner  in  which  the  evacuation  of 
the  Sudan  can  be  safely  accomplished  consistently  with  the  safety 
of  Egypt.  .  .  . 

As  to  the  future  he  regarded  "  the  permanent  occupation 
of  Egypt  as  the  most  dangerous  policy  that  could  be  con- 
ceived."    England    could    not    administer    Egypt,    whefe"^ 
several   nations   had  interests,   as   she   had   administered  / 
India  ;    and  the  longer  we  remained  in  Egypt  the  greater  I 
would  be  the  responsibilities  we  should  incur.     The  Govern- 
ment did  not  go  thither,  he  said,  with  the  idea  of  remaining  ;     \   p 
and  if  the  House  wished  them  to  do  so,  it  must  bear  in  mind 
that  it  would  necessitate  the  annexation  of  both  Egypt     ) 
and  the  Sudan.     The  speech  saved  the  Government.     Lord  "^ 
Morley,  who  was  prominent  in  the  attack  on  the  Khartum 
advance,  has  left  it  on  record  that  "  it  satisfied  the  gentle- 
men below   the  gangway,"  and  with  the  support  of  the 
Radicals  the  Government  defeated  the  Vote  of  Censure, 
though  only  by  the  narrow  majority  of  fourteen. 

For   a   moment   the    Government   halted   between   the 


5i8  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1885 

alternatives  of  resignation  and  continuance  in  office,  but 
events  dictated  the  decision.  Clouds  were  gathering  on 
the  Afghan  frontier,  towards  which  Russia  had  made  menac- 
ing advances  which  culminated  in  the  Penjdeh  incident 
and  the  Vote  of  Credit  with  which  Gladstone  met  the 
challenge.  In  the  presence  of  this  new  danger,  the  Sudan 
enterprise  assumed  a  secondary  place.  There  was  a  sharp 
controversy  on  the  proposal  that  Wolseley  should  be 
Governor-General  of  the  Sudan — a  proposal  made  by  Wolse- 
ley and  Baring.  The  Cabinet  refused  to  accede  to  the 
suggestion,  and,  through  Ponsonby,  the  Queen,  who  was 
"  in  great  wrath,"  sent  an  indignant  protest  (March  15) 
to  Harcourt,  as  one  of  those  who  "  belong  to  that  section 
of  the  Cabinet  which  objects  to  these  requests  of  Lord 
Wolseley.  Her  Majesty  commands  me  to  ask  whether  you 
do  not  think  that  the  refusal  to  listen  to  our  agents  places 
them  in  a  most  serious  position,  and  that  it  will  lead  to 
the  ruin  of  all  that  is  requisite  for  the  honour  and  safety 
of  this  country."  In  replying  Harcourt  denied  that  there 
was  disagreement  in  the  Cabinet  on  the  subject,  and  said : 


Harcourt  to  Ponsonby. 
HOUSE  OF  COMMONS,  March  17. —  .  .  .  Such  a  measure  would 
have  been  greatly  misunderstood  both  at  home  and  abroad,  and 
would  have  led  to  the  belief  in  England,  Egypt  and  Europe  that  we 
intended  to  remain  there.     We  have  really  no  claim  to  the  Sudan 
either  in  right  or  in  fact.     In  right  it  belongs  either  to  Turkey  or 
to  Egypt.     In  fact  we  only  occupy  a  small  corner  of  it.     General 
..Gordon  was  sent  to  evacuate  the  Sudan  by_peaceful  mean?— LorcT" 
I  Wolseley  has  been  commissioned  tcTeffect  the  same  object"  T>y  force 
(jof  arms.     For  this  purpose  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  that  he  should 
be  invested  with  what  is  after  all  a  purely  nominal  title,  viz.  Gover- 
nor-General of  the  Sudan — which  includes  vast  territories  he  has 
never  seen  and  never  will  see.     When  the  Duke  of  Wellington  was 
in  Spain  and  in  France  he  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  declare  himself 
Governor-General  of  those  countries.  . 


It  soon  became  apparent,  however,  that  the  reconquesl 
I  of  the  Sudan  was  impracticable  without  long  and  costly 
|  preparation,  and  the  advance  was  abandoned,  only,  how- 
M  ever,  after  a  severe  struggle  in  the  Cabinet,  in  which  Glad- 


v 


1885]       UNAUTHORIZED   PROGRAMME        519 

stone,  Harcourt,  Granville,  Derby  and  others  were  opposed 
by  Hartington,  Selborne  and  Northbrook.  At  one  moment, 
indeed,  there  was  imminent  risk  of  a  break-up  of  the  Cabinet, 
and  Gladstone  wrote  to  Harcourt : 

10,  DOWNING  STREET,  May  8. —  ...  I  hope  that  in  the  con- 
versation which  you  prosecuted  with  so  much  vigour  this  evening 
on  the  Bench  you  were  not  under  the  impression  that  some  degree 
of  secession  from  within  the  Cabinet  would  as  a  matter  of  course 
have  the  same  effect  on  our  position  as  defeat  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. It  would  be  a  deplorable,  an  ominous,  perhaps  a  fatal 
event ;  but  I  for  one  do  not  think  it  would  in  itself  have  any  of  the 
absolving  force  which  would  belong  to  a  vote  of  the  House.  .  .  . 

Ill 

In  the  meantime  the  eternal  problem  of  Ireland  haunted 
the  Government  like  a  spectre.  There  had  never  been 
agreement  in  the  Cabinet  on  the  policy  to  be  pursued, 
and  now  the  process  of  disintegration  began  to  reveal  itself 
in  public.  Chamberlain  raised  the  issue  in  the  country  in 
a  series  of  Radical  speeches  which  spread  alarm  amongst 
his  colleagues.  He  had  been  interrupted  in  his  campaign 
by  an  abscess  in  his  jaw,  and  Harcourt  wrote  (January  18) 
warning  him  that  if  he  went  about  slaughtering  the  landed 
Philistines  he  must  expect  to  suffer  in  his  jaw,  and  that 
he  would  have  to  say  with  Thiers,  when  he  suffered  from 
a  disease  in  his  tongue,  "  Je  suis  puni  par  ou  j'ai  peche." 
Chamberlain  gaily  replied  that  no  weakness  would  prevent 
him  from  speaking,  and  proceeded  to  set  the  political  world 
agog  by  his  Unauthorized  Programme,  preaching  manhood 
suffrage,  a  wide  scheme  of  land  reform,  the  graduation  of 
taxation  and  the  removal  of  its  burdens  from  the  shoulders 
of  the  poor.  The  sanctity  of  public  property,  he  claimed, 
took  precedence  of  the  sanctity  of  private  property.  He 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  theory  that  the  working 
classes  should  show  becoming  meekness.  And  so  on.  The 
Whigs  were  in  a  panic,  but  in  the  country  Chamberlain's 
bold  bid  for  leadership  aroused  an  abundant  response.  In 
regard  to  Ireland,  he  declared  against  the  renewal  of  the 
Crimes  Act.  The  right  whig  of  the  Cabinet  demanded  the 


520  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1885 

renewal,  but  proposed  to  accompany  it  by  a  Land  Purchase 
Act  and  by  a  limited  extension  of  local  government.  Here 
again  Chamberlain  and  the  Radicals  were  in  opposition. 
They  were  against  Land  Purchase  and  demanded  a  strong 
measure  of  local  government. 

In  this  confusion  of  counsels,  Harcourt  still  had  not 
changed  his  opinion  that  the  only  alternatives  were  separa- 
ytion  or  government  by  force,  and  he  desired  the  renewal 
•  of  the  Crimes  Act  on  more  drastic  lines  than  those  urged 
by  Spencer,  who  wanted  a  mild  Act  and  a  handsome  measure 
of  local  government,  together  with  the  abolition  of  the 
lord-lieutenancy,  which  mischievously  associated  the  Crown 
with  party  politics.  For  the  Lord  Lieutenant  he  would 
substitute  a  Secretary  of  State.  He  also  suggested  an 
Irish  Balmoral.  Harcourt,  while  resisting  the  watering 
down  of  the  Crimes  Act,  agreed  (January  25)  to  an  experi- 
ment in  local  government  and  to  the  reform  of  the  vice- 
royalty  and  "  the  Castle."  "  But  for  the  Duke  of  Welling- 
ton," he  said,  •"  it  would  have  been  done  long  ago."  But 
he  feared  that  the  time  for  an  Irish  Balmoral  had  gone 
by.  The  Whigs,  under  Hartington,  were  opposed  to  any 
measure  of  local  government ;  but  Gladstone  himself  was 
moving  with  increasing  momentum  towards  the  conclusion 
to  which  his  mind  had  been  trending  for  years  past.  He 
agreed  without  enthusiasm  to  the  renewal  of  the  Crimes 
Act,  but  he  told  Granville  (May  6)  that,  "  independently 
of  all  questions  of  party,  of  support,  or  success  "  he  looked 
upon  the  extension  of  a  strong  measure  of  local  government 
to  Ireland  as  "  the  only  hopeful  means  of  securing  Crown 
and  State  from  an  ignominious  surrender  in  the  next  Parlia- 
ment." In,  this  attitude  Gladstone  was  supported  by 
Spencer,  who  was  now  reinforced  in  the  Irish  Government 
by  Campbell-Bannerman,  who  had  succeeded  Mr.  (Sir)  G.  O. 
Trevelyan  as  Irish  Secretary. 

With  these  cross-currents  running  strongly  the  Govern- 
ment moved  rapidly  to  dissolution.  It  is  not  remarkable 
that  at  this  time  Gladstone  anticipated  that  when  the 
split  came  he  would  have  Chamberlain  with  him  and  Har- 


i885]  FENIANS   FROM   ABROAD  521 

court  against  him.  Chamberlain  had  throughout  repre- 
sented the  most  advanced  opinion  on  the  Irish  question, 
while  Harcourt  had  been  most  insistent  on  force.  His 
frame  of  mind  was  undoubtedly  due  to  his  official  experience 
and  his  constant  preoccupation  with  the  dynamite  danger 
in  England.  He  had  become  the  "  head  detective,"  and 
his  mind  was  filled  with  his  task  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
schemes  of  conciliation.  Every  day  was  beset  with  new 
anxieties,  threats  from  across  the  Atlantic,  correspondence 
with  the  secret  police,  precautions  for  the  safety  of  the 
Queen,  of  ministers  and  of  public  buildings,  and  in  the 
midst  of  this  whirl  of  duties  coercion  presented  itself  to  his 
mind  as  the  only  possible  policy. 

An  examination  of  the  Home  Office  archives  in  connection 
with  this  time  will  sufficiently  explain  the  anxieties  amidst 
which  he  lived  and  the  despair  with  which  he  surveyed  the 
future.  The  outlook  had  never  been  more  disquieting  than 
now.  There  were  explosions  in  Westminster  Hall,  the  House 
of  Commons  and  the  Tower.  "  Our  enemies  are  making 
rapid  progress  in  the  arts  of  attack,  we  none  in  those  of 
defence,"  he  wrote  to  Spencer  (January  25).  "  O'Donovan 
Rossa  and  Ford  send  their  men  over  when  they  like,  and 
do  just  what  they  like."  In  America  there  poured  out 
through  the  United  Irishman  a  stream  of  virulent  incitement 
to  murder  and  outrage,  and  though  diplomatic  protests 
were  made  they  had  no  influence  against  the  weight  of 
Irish  sentiment  in  the  United  States.  President  Arthur, 
it  is  true,  recommended  to  Congress  "  that  the  scope  of 
the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States  be  so  enlarged  as 
to  cover  all  patent  acts  of  hostility  committed  in  our  territory 
and  aimed  against  the  peace  of  a  friendly  state."  Arthur 
was  then  going  out  of  office  and  could  afford  to  be  courageous, 
but  his  successor  was  as  little  likely  as  he  had  been  to  press 
this  virtuous  view  in  the  face  of  the  most  powerful  political 
caucus  in  the  country.  It  was  in  vain  that  Harcourt  kept 
the  Foreign  Minister  and  the  Lord  Chancellor  supplied  with 
ammunition  on  the  subject,  urging  now  this  form  of  protest, 
now  that,  and  offering  the  Most  case  as  an  example  to  the 


522  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1885 

United  States  of  the  conduct  of  our  own  Government  in 
similar  circumstances.  Following  the  outrages  came  sug- 
gestions from  the  Queen  to  Harcourt  that  Westminster 
Abbey,  St.  Paul's,  the  British  Museum,  South  Kensington 
and  other  places  should  be  closed  to  the  public.  Harcourt 
did  not  adopt  this  course,  but  he  sent  out  elaborate  instruc- 
tions to  the  police  for  protective  measures.  Sometimes  a 
little  gaiety  enlivened  these  activities.  Writing  to  the 
Lord  Chancellor  (Selborne),  he  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Selborne. 

January  31. — I  have  to-night  the  mem.  from  Sir  E.  Henderson 
on  the  subject  of  the  Law  Courts.  This  mem.  begins  by  stating 
that  the  building  offers  every  possible  facility  for  the  perpetration  of 
outrages,  and  concludes  with  the  following  paragraph  : 

"  The  Lord  Chancellor's  Secretary  has  undertaken  to  supervise 
and  enforce  the  regulations  inside  the  building.  Non  equidem  in- 
video,  miror  magis. 

I  am  a  great  admirer  of  civil  courage  and  this  splendid  daring  on 
the  part  of  your  private  secretary  seems  to  me  worthy  of  Sidney 
Smith's  character  of  Lord  John  Russell,  who  would  operate  for  the 
stone  or  take  command  of  the  Channel  fleet  at  a  moment's  notice.  .  .  . 

However,  I  need  not  say  that  I  am  very  glad  that  you  should 
take  this  responsibility  off  my  hands.  I  am  not  surprised,  however, 
that  the  judges  should  feel  some  trepidation  at  knowing  that  their 
lives  are  at  the  mercy  of  a  posse  comitatus  of  aged  ushers,  and 
that  if  anything  happened  at  all  events  the  dignity  of  the  super- 
intendent will  have  been  saved.  Anyhow  it  may  lead  to  rapid 
promotion  in  the  Bar  which  is  always  a  good  thing. 

And  when  another  "  humble  application  "  came  from  the 
Prime  Minister's  secretary  requesting  that  "  Mr.  G."  may 
be  relieved  from  further  affliction  by  dragons  (detectives), 
Harcourt  replied,  "  The  master  of  many  legions  will  do  as 
he  pleases.  But  as  far  as  I  am  concerned  I  shall  go  on 
just  the  same,  and  if  necessary  place  him  in  irons."  Quite 
in  another  vein  were  the  stream  of  messages  from  Windsor. 
"Is  no  notice  to  be  taken  of  the  open  monstrous  threat  in 
a  newspaper  published  in  America  by  Irish  to  kill  the  Prince 
of  Wales  ?  "  was  a  cipher  telegram  typical  of  these  com- 
munications to  Harcourt,  who  meanwhile  was  writing 
(February  15)  to  G.  W.  Smalley,  an  American  correspondent 


i885]  IRISH   CROSS-CURRENTS  523 

in  London,  urging  him  to  bring  the  facts  of  the  Most  case 
before  the  American  public  for  their  enlightenment  as  to 
our  own  policy  towards  incendiary  aliens. 

IV 

The  dissensions  in  the  Cabinet  reached  a  crisis  in  May. 
The  grounds  of  disagreement  were  Egypt,  Ireland  and  the 
Budget,  and  the  Journal  becomes  a  daily  and  almost  hourly 
record  of  resignations  and  withdrawals  and  all  the  premoni- 
tions of  catastrophe.     On  the  7th  Selbfcrne  and  Noraibrook 
sent  in  their  resignations  on  account  of  the  final  decision  to 
evacuate  Dongola,  and  on  the  same  day  Dilke  and  Chamber- 
lain intimated  that  if   Childers  remained  and  continued 
with  his  Budget  they  would  go.     But  it  was  Ireland  which 
was  the  rock  on  which  the  Cabinet  was  going  to  pieces. 
The  question  of  the  renewal  of  the  Crimes  Act,  which  would 
expire  in  August,  brought  the  whole  issue  of  Irish  govern- 
ment under  review,  and  made  disruption  inevitable.     The 
cross-currents  were  so  numerous  and  so   intense  that  the 
task  of  reconciling  them  in  a  common  policy  had  become 
impossible.    There  were  three  main  courses  in  view — the 
renewal  of  the  Crimes  Act,  the  adoption  of  a  scheme  of 
self-government  under  a  Central  Board  in  Dublin,  and  a 
Land  Purchase  Bill.     The  Whigs  would  not  have  the  Central 
Board  ;  the  Radicals  who  wanted  the  Central  Board  would 
not  have  the  Land  Purchase  Bill  and  would  only  consent 
on  terms  to  a  very  attenuated  Crimes  Act ;  Gladstone,  who 
disliked  the  Crimes  Act,  was  anxious  to  have  both  the 
Central  Board  and  Land  Purchase  ;   Spencer  and  Harcourt 
were  primarily  concerned  about  the  Crimes  Act,  but  were, 
in  differing  measure,  ready  to  support  the  Central  Board 
and  Land  Purchase,    *>* 

The  situation  was  made  more  obscure  by  a  new  develop- 
ment. The  section  of  the  Tory  Party  led  by  Churchill, 
formidable  in  influence  if  few  in  number,  had  begun  a 
flirtation  with  the  Irish  vote,  and  through  their  leader 
expressed  alarm  at  the  prospect  of  the  renewal  of  govern- 
ment by  coercion.  It  was  this  factor  in  the  situation  which 


524  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1885 

largely  influenced  the  change  which  now  became  apparent 
in  Harcourt's  attitude  on  Ireland.  He  had  always  main- 
tained that  there  were  only  two  alternatives,  separation  or 
government  by  force.  But  the  second  course  involved 
practical  agreement  among  the  English  parties.  Already 
the  powerful  Radical  element  of  the  Liberal  Party  was 
hostile  to  force,  and  if  the  most  aggressive  section  of  the 
Conservative  Party  had  begun  to  make  terms  with  the 
Nationalists  he  saw  that  coercion  as  a  policy  could  no  longer 
1  be  maintained.  At  the  Cabinet  meeting  on  May  9,  Chamber- 
lain produced  his  Central  Council  scheme  for  Ireland,  which 
Parnell  and  the  Irish  bishops  were  willing  to  accept,  and 
which  Gladstone  endorsed,  but  the  majority  of  the  Cabinet 
were  hostile,  and  with  its  rejection  the  last  chance  of  holding 
the  Ministry  together  disappeared. 

Extracts  from  the  Journal  will  serve  to  indicate  the 
commotion  and  conflicts  that  preceded  the  fall  of  the  Govern- 
ment : 

*S 

May  9. — Cabinet  at  2  to-day,  which  went  ofi  well.     Hartington 

has  drawn  up  a  statement  which  he  will  make  on  Monday  announcing 
the  entire  and  complete  abandonment  of  Khartum  and  the  Sudan. 
Northbrdolc  has  now  no  intention  of  resigning,  and  during  the  whole 
discussion  Selborne  said  nothing,  and  seemed  "as  if  absorbed  in 
inward  prayer." 

Gladstone  came  to  Grafton  Street  at  6.30  to  tell  W.  V.  H.  that 
after  he  had  left  the  Cabinet  (which  he  did  not  do  till  he  thought 
all  the  business  was  concluded)  somebody  asked  what  had  been  settled 
by  the  Cabinet  Committee  on  the  Crimes  Bill,  and  Chamberlain 
said  that  if  they  had  five  minutes  to  spare  he  would  explain  his  scheme, 
which  he  did  from  Mrs.  O' Shea's  MS.  All  the  peers  in  the  Cabinet 
and  Hartington  at  once  said  that  they  would  not  agree  to  this,  but 
it  seems  that  Gladstone,  Dilke,  Shaw-Lefevre,  Trevelyan  and 
Childers  are  more  or  less  inclined  to  support  Chamberlain.  Gladstone 
had  come  to  say  that  he  thought  the  position  impossible,  and  now 
had  finally  made  up  his  mind  to  resign  as  he  would  not  consent  to 
/the  renewal  of  the  Crimes  Act.  He  said  his  retirement  would  not 
be  on  that  ground,  and  no  one  need  know  anything  of  the  disagree- 
ments on  the  question,  as  he  should  resign  simply  on  the  ground  of 
old  age  and  of  having  completed  the  work  for  which  he  came  into 
office — the  passage  of  parliamentary  reform. 

May  10. —  .  .  .  He  (Chamberlain)  believes  that  his  scheme  of  the 
Central  Council  offers  a  way  out  of  the  certain  break-up  of  the  Party, 


i885]  MISUNDERSTANDINGS  525 

which  the  Whigs  ought  gladly  to  accept  and  told  me  that  after 
yesterday's  Cabinet  Gladstone  said  to  him,  "  Did  you  ever  see  such 
men  ?  If  God  spares  them  for  three  years  they  will  be  on  their 
knees  repenting  that  they  have  not  agreed  to  this."  He  says  the 
most  honest  course  to  pursue  would  be  for  the  Cabinet  to  accept 
his  scheme  in  toto,  or  else  let  him  and  Dilke  and  Shaw-Lefevre 
/resign,  and  then  carry  the  renewal  of  the  Crimes. .Bill  with  the  help 
of  the  Tories.  He  says  that  if  he  and  Dilke  resigned  they  would 
probably  go  abroad  together  after  making  their  speeches,  and  take 
no  part  in  the  House  of  Commons  before  the  election,  at  which, 
however,  they  would  press  their  views  on  Irish  Government  as 
strongly  as  possible.  .  .  . 

May  15. — Cabinet  at  2  to-day.  Spencer  had  intended  to  produce 
a  Land  Purchase  Bill  for  Ireland  this  session,  but  at  the  Cabinet 
Chamberlain  and  Dilke  said  they  would  not  have  it  without  the 
/"Central  Council,  as  their  scheme  had  been  that  the  Council  should 
deal  with  this  question  and  they  do  not  wish  to  have  it  spoilt  in 
this  Parliament.  So  Chamberlain  and  Dilkeresigned.  W.  V.  H. 
with  great  difficulty  induced  them  to  stay,  and  then  Spencer  resigned, 
saying  that  all  his  schemes  for  the  government  of  Ireland  had  been 
destroyed,  and  he  had  been  thrown  over  by  his  colleagues,  but 
ultimately  W.  V.  H.  induced  him  ^o  withdraw  his  resignation,  and 
Gladstone  made  a  confused  and  confusing  statement  about  the 
Crimes  Bill  in  the  House  this  afternoon,  which  made  nothing  clear 
except  that  the  Coercion  Bill  would  not  be  accompanied  by  any 
remedial  legislation.  ^. 

May  1 6. — 'Another  Cabinet  to-day.     Childers  has  resigned.  .  .  . 

May  19. — 'Cabinet  crisis  worse  than  ever.  Childers  determined  to 
go  directly  after  Whitsuntide,  and  only  remains  so  long  in  order 
that  his  resignation  may  not  have  a  bad  effect  on  the  Russian  nego- 
tiations. He  wrote  to  Gladstone  yesterday  that  "  the  pain  of  politi- 
cal death  "  was  over,  and  he  should  go  when  least  inconvenient. 

Dilke  wrote  to  W.  V.  H.  this  morning  that  his  one  interest  in 
v"6mcial  life  was  the  pacification  of  Ireland,  but  since  the  last  chance 
of  doing  this  had  been  rejected  by  the  Cabinet  he  has  no  further 
desire  to  remain  in  office,  and  his  future  interest  in  politics  would 
be  destroyed.  He  added  that  in  the  event  of  Hartington  forming 
a  Government  neither  he  nor  Chamberlain  could  join  him. 

Gladstone  is  absolutely  determined  to  go  at  once,  i.e.  directly 
after  Whitsuntide.  K 

May  20. — W.  V.  H.  has  had  a  hard  day's  work  at  the  H.  of  C. 
negotiating  with  Chamberlain,  Dilke  and  Gladstone.  He  told  the 
latter  that  if  he  could  have  a  promise  from  him  that  he  would  remain 
*^*rime  Minister  till  the  end  of  the  Session  he  thought  he  could  arrange 
matters.  G.  gave  him  this  pledge,  and  W.  V.  H.  then  saw  Chamber- 
lain and  Dilke,  and  told  them  that  if  Gladstone  was  prepared  to 
carry  the  present  Budget  through  he  (W.  V.  H.)  could  not  quarrel 


526  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1885 

with  him.  on  a  question  of  finance,  much  as  he  disliked  the  proposals. 
Dilke  said  if  that  was  so  he  must  also  give  way,  as  his  resignation 
>  would  necessarily  take  with  it  Chamberlain,  who  does  not  really 
care  much  about  the  Budget  question  one  way  or  the  other.  .  .  . 
Soon  after  this  was  all  settled  Chamberlain  returned  to  W.  V.  H.'s 
room  in  a  furious  rage  saying  that  he  had  been  vilely  tricked  by  Glad- 
stone, who  had  just  announced  in  the  House  that  on  reconsideration 
the  Government  had  determined  to  introduce  a  Land  Purchase 
Bill  this  Session.  There  seems  to  have  been  some  extraordinary 
misunderstanding  between  Gladstone  and  Chamberlain.  The 
former  thought  that  the  latter  had  consented  in  a  conversation  they 
had  together  to  the  introduction  of  a  modified  Purchase  Bill,  but 
/  Chamberlain  says  he  told  Gladstone  that  he  would  only  consent  to 
this  on  the  production  of  his  Central  Council  scheme.  This  con- 
dition is  impossible  as  more  than  half  the  Cabinet  would  resign  at 
once.  .  .  .  Chamberlain  and  Dilke  on  hearing  this  at  once  sent  in 
then-  yellow  boxes  to  Mr.  Gladstone^resigning,  but  W.  V.  H.  does 
not  think  they  will  persist  in  it.  .  .  .  Each  section  of  the  Cabinet 
thinks  it  has  been  betrayed  on  one  subject  or  another  by  Gladstone  : 
Chamberlain  and  Dilke  say  they  have  been  tricked  over  the  Land 
Purchase  Bill  ;  Childers  thinks  he  has  been  betrayed  over  his  Budget  ; 
Spencer  thinks  he  has  been  abandoned  on  the  Crimes  Bill  ;  and  North- 
brook  and  Selborne  believe  they  have  been  deceived  on  the  Sudan 
policy.  Nice  materials  these  for  a  future  Cabinet  pudding  ! 

May  22.  —  .  .  .  The  London  Letter  in  to-day's  Birmingham  Post 
gives  a  full  and  minute  account  of  the  Cabinet  crisis  on  the  Irish 
Question.  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  a  letter  circulated  to  the  Cabinet  on 
the  subject,  said  that  these  incidents  in  conjunction  with  the  many 
anxieties  of  office  make  public  life  intolerable  to  him.  W.  V.  H. 
is  furious  at  this  breach  of  faith,  and  says  he  will  make  no  further 
effort  to  keep  people  who  are  capable  of  it  with  the  rest  of  the 
Party. 

June  5.  —  An  extraordinary  Cabinet  at  u  this  morning,  chiefly 
on  the  Budget.  They  decided  that  the  duty  of  spirits  should  be 
only  is.  instead  of  25.,  and  that  the  beer  duty  is  only  to  be  for  one 
year,  whereupon  Childers  jumped  up  saying,  "  I  cannot  stand  this," 
and  left  the  room.  W.  V.  H.  said,  "  We  cannot  let  him  go  like 
this,"  and  followed  him  to  his  room  in  the  Treasury,  where  he  was 
walking  up  and  down  in  a  state  of  great  excitement.  They  were 
presently  joined  by  Gladstone,  and  W.  V.  H.  and  Gladstone  walked 
up  and  down  the  room  on  each  side  of  Childers  until  he  said  he  would 
take  an  hour  to  reconsider  his  position.  They  left  him  alone  and 
then  sent  up  Granville  and  Selborne,  who,  it  is  supposed,  prayed 
with  and  over  him.  Ultimately  he  promised  not  to  resign,  so  that 
crisis  is  over,  but  the  Irish  one  is  no  better.  [H.]. 

While  these  agonies  were  proceeding  behind  the  scenes, 


/ 


i885]  A   MUTINOUS   CREW  527 

events  in  Parliament  were  foreshadowing  the  coming  disaster. 
On  a  minor  question  the  Government  majority  fell  to  two, 
and  it  was  clear  that  any  moment  might  be  the  last.  Writing 
to  Spencer,  Harcourt  describes  the  situation  thus  : 

Harcourt  to  Spencer. 

May  19. —  .  .  .  Things  are  no  better  here.  \JThe  Cabinet  seems 
like  a  man  afflicted  with  epilepsyAand  one  fit  succeeds  another,  each 
worse  than  the  last.  We  had  Childers  down  on  Saturday  moribund, 
and  he  was  with  difficulty  picked  up,  but  swears  he  will  die,  and  no 
one  shall  save  him  from  perishing  with  the  Budget  after  Whitsun- 
tide. 

Poor  Gladstone  seems  worn  out — and  no  wonder.  Every  one 
wishes  to  go  at  once.  But  how,  and  why,  and  on  what  pretext  ? 
The  Party  in  the  country  and  the  House  of  Commons  are  united 
enough,  and  only  anxious  to  support  a  Government  which  is  resolved 
on  suicide.  To  my  mind  this  is  the  most  inexplicable  and  unjustifi- 
able state  of  things  it  is  possible  to  conceive.  \^The  Liberal  Party  is 
like  a  first-rate  man-of-war  just  going  into  a  general  action,  the  ship 
sound,  the  crew  eager  to  fight  and  win,  and  the  Captain  looked  up 
to  with  enthusiasm.  Only  the  gentlemen  in  the  gun-room  insist 
on  blowing  out  their  own  and  others'  brains  just  before  going  into 
action,  and  so  the  ship  is  captured.  ^\The  mutiny  at  the  Nore  was 
nothing  to  it.  .  .  . 

On  the  Irish  question  no  compromise  seemed  in  sight. 
With  the  rejection  of  the  Central  Board  scheme,  Chamberlain 
and  Dilke  stood  out  stubbornly  against  coercion.  They 
would  not  have  a  drastic  Crimes  Act,  and  insisted  that 
the  renewal  should  be  only  for  one  year,  and  that  the 
Act  should  be  operative  only  by  special  Order  in  Council. 
Whitsuntide  came  with  the  position  still  apparently  hope- 
less, and  Harcourt,  who  had  gone  to  sea  for  the  holiday 
and  was  "  dodging  about  the  Channel  "  in  the  steam  yacht 
Zingara,  wrote  to  Spencer  from  Plymouth  Sound  (May  31) 
that  he  had  done  all  that  he  could  to  bring  "  parties  and 
/jjections  together,"  that  he  could  do  no  more  and  that  he 
*  was  content  "  to  leave  the  thing  to  be  settled  between  you, 
Gladstone,  Hartington  and  Dilke.  My  line  will  be  to  stand 
by  you."  He  was  angry  with  Chamberlain  and  Dilke.  He 
had  never  seen  such  an  outburst  of  rage  as  they  indulged  in 
over  the  Land  Purchase  announcement,  and  had  come  to 


528  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1885 

the  conclusion  that  "  they  were  glad  to  have  an  opportunity 
to  upset  the  coach." 

In  these  circumstances  Parliament  reassembled.  The 
conflict  seemed  narrowed  down  to  the  simple  question 
whether  the  Crimes  Act  should  be  of  general  application 
/or  operative  only  by  Special  Order.  While  this  point  was 
still  unsettled,  the  end  came.  On  June  8  the  Government 
were  defeated  on  the  Budget  proposal  to  increase  the  duties 
on  beer  and  spirits.  The  Cabinet  unanimously  and  immedi- 
ately decided  to  resign  ;  but  the  Opposition,  having  with 
the  help  of  the  Irish  vote  succeeded  in  their  aim,  found 
y  themselves  with  the  fruits  of  a  hollow  victory.  If  they 
took  office  they  could  only  do  so  by  grace  of  the  Party 
they  had  defeated,  and  there  followed  anxious  inquiries  as 
to  how  far  the  Liberals  were  prepared  to  give  assurances 
of  support.  Harcourt  was  opposed  to  assurances  being 
given,  and  Gladstone  writing  to  him  (June  15)  agreed  that 
the  Tories  had  not  "  the  shadow  of  a  rag  of  a  tatter  of  a 
claim  "  and  that  "  anything  said  or  done  must  be  in  the 
face  of  day."  The  alternative  was  that  Gladstone  should 
resume  the  Government,  and  disagreeable  as  this  alternative 
was,  Harcourt  thought  it  preferable  to  giving  assurances 
of  support  to  the  Tories.  Writing  to  Gladstone  he  said  : 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  June  20. — I  have  (as  you  know  most  reluct- 
antly) come  to  the  conclusion  that  if  Salisbury  declines,  as  I  suppose 
J  he  will,  you  must  consent  to  remain.  It  may  possibly  lead  to 
disruption  amongst  ourselves  on  Ireland,  as  I  have  come  to  the 
conclusion  (also  most  reluctantly)  that  the  Tories  have  made  any 
Crimes  Bill  impracticable.  But  we  must  face  this  as  the  least  of 
the  evils  before  us.  v 

If  you  feel  called  upon  to  obey  the  Queen's  command  to  resume 
the  Government,  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of  all  your  colleagues  to  do 
anything  in  their  power  to  support  you.  .  .  . 

The  situation  was  complicated  by  the  internal  dissensions 
of  the  Conservative  Party.  ./Churchill's  merciless  persecu- 
tion of  "  Marshall  and  Snelgrove  "  had  ended  the  leadership 
of  the  gentle  and  kindly  Northcote  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  when  Salisbury  took  office  Sir  Stafford  regretfully  went 


i885]  TORY  DISSENSIONS  529 

to  the  House  of  Lords  as  Earl  of  Iddesleigh.  In  writing 
to  Harcourt  (June  26)  to  thank  him  for  "  the  uniform  con- 
sideration and  forbearance  which  you  have  always  shown 
to  me  when  I  have  attempted  to  cross  swords  with  you 
at  St.  Stephen's,"  Northcote  admitted  that  his  departure 
from  the  House  was  "  a  great  wrench  "  in  his  life,  but  no 
doubt  it  was  for  the  best.  His  eclipse  by  the  leader  of 
Tory  democracy  had,  however,  much  more  than  personal 
significance.  It  meant  a  startling  change  of  attitude  on 
Ireland  which  threatened  a  disruption  in  the  Conservative 
Party.  In  these  circumstances  there  was  truth  as  well  as 
wjlinHarcourt's  exposure,  in  a  speech  at  St.  James's  Hall 
June  16))  of  the  situation  of  the  Opposition  : 


We  find  (he  said)  a  set  of  discomfited  victors  who  are  furious  with 
their  victims  because  they  have  been  defeated.  (Laughter.)  The 
Tories  the  other  night  brought  up  their  last  man.  They  made  an 
alliance  with  a  party  with  which  they  had  nothing  in  common. 
(Hear,  hear.)  They  had  done  for  months  and  for  years  everything 
they  could  to  thwart,  embarrass,  and  defeat  the  Government,  and 
at  last  they  have  destroyed  it,  and  when  they  have  succeeded  they 
say  "  it's  all  your  fault."  (Great  laughter.)  It  is  as  if  there  was  a 
man  behind  a  hedge  with  a  musket  and  with  an  Irish  confederate 
— (laughter) — who  had  been  shooting  at  you  day  after  day  and  night 
after  night,  who  had  missed  you  very  often,  and  at  last  put  his 
bullet  in  your  heart,  and  then  declared  it  was  a  case  of  suicide. 
(Laughter).  ...  I  see  Conservative  appeals,  especially  in  the 
Conservative  newspapers,  to  the  Tory  leaders  not  to  take  office. 
Why  ?  Everything  that  we  have  done  is  wrong  and  everything 
that  they  are  going  to  do  will  be  right.  Why,  then,  those  craven 
fears  ?  (Laughter.)  Why  these  frantic  alarms  at  their  own 
shadows  approaching  ?  (Laughter.)  I  will  tell  you  why.  They 
are  terrified  at  the  echoes  of  the  mischievous  rubbish  they  have  been 
talking.  (Cheers.)  They  are  brought  face  to  face  with  the  necessity 
of  making  good  their  words — or  of  eating  them.  (Laughter.)  And, 
gentlemen,  they  will  have  to  eat  them.  (Cheers  and  laughter.)  I 
do  not  know  whether  it  will  be  a  palatable,  I  am  sure  it  will  be  an 
abundant,  diet.  (Laughter  and  cheers.) 

The  speech  was  a  devastating  analysis  of  the  Conservative 
declarations  on  Ireland,  Egypt  and  Russia,  but  its  main 
purpose  was  the  exposure  of  Churchill's  past  utterances  on 
Home  Rule  in  the  light  of  the  change  that  had  now  been 
effected.  '/The  criticism  delighted  Gladstone,  who  asked 

M  M 


530  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1885 

Lord  R.  Grosvenor  that  it  should  be  reprinted.    Referring  to 
Harcourt's  retort  to  Churchill,  he  said  : 

1 1  ...  A  mopth  ago  it  would  have  been  wrong  to  give  him  such 
11  prominence,  but  not  now,  when  he  is  the  second,  if  not  more  than 
lithe  second  person  in  the  new  combination,  and  is  dancing  upon 
1 1  poor  and  ill-used  Northcote's  prostrate  body. 

After  unusual  delay,  Salisbury,  having  through  the  Queen 
received  assurances  that  he  would  not  be  embarrassed  in 
office,  formed  what  Chamberlain  nicknamed  the  "  Govern- 
ment of  Caretakers,"  and  the  crisis  ended.  On  resigning, 
Gladstone  had  asked  Harcourt  if  he  might  submit  his  name 
to  the  Queen  for  the  G.C.B.  as  "  the  author  of  the  great 
London  Bill."  Harcourt,  in  declining,  said,  "  I  have  all 
the  honour  I  desire  in  having  served  under  you,  and,  as 
your  letter  kindly  assures  me,  having  earned  your  approval. 
I  desire  no  other.  Ribbons  have  no  charm  for  me."  In  a 
letter  of  farewell  to  Harcourt  (June  29),  the  Queen  recalled 
a  conversation  she  had  had  with  him  on  the  subject  of  the 
evils  of  excessive  party  feeling.  "  It  was  terrible  to  see," 
she  said,  "  the  right  thing  not  done  or  approved  merely 
because  '  the  party '  required  it,  or  the  party  must  go 
against  it  because  the  other  side  had  brought  it  forward, 
etc.,"  and  she  implored  him  not  to  forget  this  and  "  think, 
not  only  of  the  country  but  of  herself,  whose  task  is  such  a 
heavy  one,  and  who  so  often  cannot  do  the  good  she  wishes 
from  the  very  reason  above  stated. ' '  This  drew  from  Harcourt 
a  long  and  interesting  reply  on  the  true  functions  of  party, 
in  which  he  said : 

Harcourt  to  the  Queen. 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET,  June  30. —  ...  In  one  sense  Party  Govern- 
ment is  the  essence  of  our  parliamentary  system,  and  without  it 
we  should  fall  into  the  political  chaos  which  afflicts  France  and  even 
Germany,  where  the  representative  body  is  broken  up  into  a  multi- 
tude of  discordant  and  interested  sections.  .  .  . 

Sir  William  feels  sure  that  Your  Majesty  would  not  desire  that  he 
should  fail  to  work  in  a  legitimate  manner  to  advance  the  principles 
and  interest  of  that  great  political  party  to  which  by  sentiment  and 
conviction  he  has  been  always  attached,  and  which  has  advised  and 
supported  Your  Majesty  through  far  the  larger  part  of  your  great 
and  prosperous  reign. 


i88s]  CROFTERS   OF    SKYE  531 

But  though  there  is  and  always  must  be  a  necessary  and  whole- 
some antagonism  between  the  principles  and  action  of  the  two  great 
political  parties  there  lies  between  them  an  extensive  neutral  terri- 
tory which  is  common  to  both — the  attachment  to  Your  Majesty's 
person  and  throne  ;  the  fundamental  institutions  of  the  country ; 
the  integrity  and  honour  of  the  Empire  ;  the  safety  of  our  foreign 
relations  ;  all  these  so  long  as  they  are  handled  in  a  manner  not  to 
infringe  vital  principles  ought  to  be  treated  as  outside  the  pale  of 
party  conflict.  The  duty  so  to  treat  them  is  one  which  Sir  William 
loyally  acknowledges.  The  fact  that  of  late  this  obligation  has  been 
too  little  observed  gave  rise  to  the  observations  to  which  Your 
Majesty  has  referred.  But  without  going  back  to  the  past  or  indulg- 
ing in  unbecoming  recrimination,  Sir  William  confidently  hopes  that 
the  present  Opposition  may  set  an  example  of  fair  dealing  with 
the  Government  of  the  Queen  which  may  be  deserving  of  future 
imitation.  . 


The  change  of  Government  interrupted  a  cause  in  which 
Harcourt  had  been  much  engaged.  For  three  years  past 
the  question  of  the  crofters  of  Skye  had  given  increasing 
anxiety.  There  had  been  constant  conflicts  with  the  police, 
and  more  than  once  the  marines  had  been  employed  to  give 
the  officers  protection.  But  while  taking  measures  to 
preserve  order,  Harcourt  did  not  conceal  his  view  that  the 
real  culprits  were  the  landowners  who  had  turned  off  the 
people  from  the  hills  in  order  to  enrich  themselves  first 
with  sheep-walks  and  then  with  deer  forests.  He  appointed 
a  Royal  Commission  in  1884  to  inquire  into  the  discontents, 
but  no  satisfactory  proposal  emerged,  and  then  he  insisted 
on  the  Scottish  landowners  meeting  to  consider  in  what 
way  they  could  meet  the  grievances  of  the  crofters.  In 
the  meantime  the  agitation  and  the  accompanying  disorders 
continued,  and  Harcourt  was  pressed  to  take  the  high  hand 
with  the  movement.  The  Queen  made  frequent  inquiries 
on  the  subject,  and  referring  to  one  of  Harcourt 's  speeches 
in  the  House  regretted  that  he  did  not  favour  emigrating 
the  crofters.  In  his  reply  Harcourt  expressed  himself  on 
the  causes  of  the  trouble  with  generous  warmth  : 
Harcourt  to  the  Queen. 

HOME  DEPARTMENT,  November  23,  1884. —  .  .   .  The  great  mis- 
fortune has  been  that  one  or  two  hard  men  (whom  Sir  William  does 


532  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1885 

not  desire  to  name)  have  brought  discredit  on  their  class  by  conduct 
which  nothing  can  justify — as  for  instance  the  wringing  from  these 
poor  people  of  rent  for  the  sea-weed  they  gather  on  the  shore,  and 
a  charge  for  the  peats  with  which  they  keep  life  together  in  their 
miserable  cabins. 

The  immediate  cause  of  the  disturbances  in  Skye  has  been  the 
raising  of  the  rents  on  one  estate  from  ^3,000  to  ^7,000  a  year,  an 

I  increase  which  the  people  are  quite  unable  to  bear. 
The. remarks  which  Sir  William  made  on  the  subject  of  emigration 
seem  to  have  been  misunderstood,  though  their  true  interpretation 
was  properly  stated  by  the  Duke  of  Argyll  in  his  speech.  Sir 
William  was  far  from  intending  to  deprecate  assistance  rendered 
by  the  proprietors  or  others  to  persons  who  desired  to  seek  their 
future  in  the  Colonies.  He  only  desired  to  protest  against  seeking 
a  remedy  for  the  grievances  of  the  crofters  by  a  system  of  State 
Emigration  which  should  have  for  its  object  to  improve  the  High- 
lands by  getting  rid  of  the  Highlanders.  Sir  William  feels  sure  that 
Your  Majesty  will  approve  his  sentiments  in  thinking  that  this 
would  be  a  desperate  and  worthless  remedy.  The  Highlands  in 
former  days  supported  in  a  rude  state,  but  still  in  comparative  com- 
fort, a  population  of  sturdy  and  loyal  men  who  played  a  great  part 
in  the  founding  of  Your  Majesty's  Empire.  Sir  William  was  much 
struck  the  other  day  in  reading  a  letter  of  Dr.  Johnson's  to  Mrs. 
Thrale  in  the  year  1772  in  which  he  says,  speaking  of  the  Island 
of  Muck  (a  small,  confined  island  off  Skye) :  "  We  were  invited  one 
day  by  the  Laird  and  Lady  of  Muck,  one  of  the  Western  Islands 
two  miles  long  and  three-quarters  of  a  mile  high.  He  has  half 
his  island  in  his  own  culture,  and  upon  the  other  half  live  150  depen- 
dants, who  not  only  live  upon  the  product  but  export  corn  sufficient 
for  the  payment  of  rent." 

There  is  no  Laird  or  Lady  in  Muck,  the  150  dependants  who 
exported  produce  are  gone,  and  there  is  one  shepherd  in  the  island. 
Your  Majesty  has  so  many  contented  and  prosperous  Highland 
subjects  the  less  ;  the  proprietors  have  probably  so  many  pounds 
of  the  rent  the  more.  The  landlord  is  richer,  the  nation  is  poorer  by 
the  transaction. 

This  is  what  has  happened  to  a  great  degree  throughout  the  West 
Highlands.  In  former  days  the  hills  were  not  available  for  high 
rents  of  game  and  grazing.  The  people  were  therefore  allowed  to 
feed  their  cattle  upon  them.  They  were  comfortable  and  content, 
loyal  to  their  chiefs,  paying  some  small  acknowledgment  in  kind 
for  the  privileges  they  enjoyed.  But  when  it  was  found  that  the 
hills  could  be  let  as  sheep  farms  or  deer  forests,  then  poor  people  were 
driven  off  and  confined  to  their  little  arable  patches  on  which  they 
could  live.  They  ceased  to  be  a  pastoral  people  and  became  tillers 
of  the  soil  in  a  climate  uncongenial  to  cultivation.  They  therefore 
began  to  starve,  and  therefore  when  the  potato  famine  came  died 


r885]  DESERT   SHEEP   FARMS  533 

in  hundreds  and  were  exported  by  thousands.  Landlords  who 
had  rent  rolls  of  a  few  hundreds  turned  them  into  as  many  thousands. 
Most  of  them  ruined  themselves  by  their  extravagance,  induced 
by  the  sudden  growth  of  their  wealth.  The  Clanronalds,  the  Glen- 
garry, the  Seaforths,  are  ruined  and  have  disappeared.  Their 
land  has  been  sold  to  strangers,  mostly  non-resident,  and  the  fate 
of  the  people  is  disposed  of  by  factors,  many  of  whom  (especially 
in  Skye)  are  extremely  harsh  and  unjust  in  their  proceedings,  think- 
ing only  how  the  uttermost  farthing  can  be  extracted  from  the 
small  tenants.  This  is  the  history  of  an  estate  where  disturbances 
have  arisen  in  Skye.  It  was  bought  thirty  years  ago  by  a  pro- 
prietor who  does  not  live  there,  and  who  has  screwed  up  the  rents 
to  double  the  amount  at  which  he  found  them.  The  real  remedy 
of  this  unhappy  state  of  things  is,  Sir  William  believes,  not  to  proceed 
to  exterminate  the  people  in  order  to  get  rid  of  their  poverty,  but 
to  enable  them  by  a  partial  return  to  the  old  state  of  things  to  live 
in  their  own  country  in  the  condition  of  contentment  and  happiness 
which  they  once  enjoyed  and  which  they  might  enjoy  again.  All 
that  is  necessary  is  out  of  these  vast  tracts  of  desert  sheep  farms 
and  deer  forests  to  allot  a  small  fraction  of  hill  grazings  to  these 
poor  people  which  will  enable  them  to  live.  .  .  . 

Sir  William,  turning  to  another  subject,  asks  leave  to  congratulate 
Your  Majesty  on  the  signal  success  which  has  attended  Your  Majesty's 
efforts  to  secure  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  Reform  question.  The 
result — though  its  causes  may  never  be  fully  made  known — show 
how  powerful  is  the  influence  of  the  Crown  constitutionally  exercised 
to  avert  by  its  authority  and  mediation  dangerous  political  conflicts 
and  to  sustain  the  organic  institutions  of  the  country. 

The  Queen  was  not  convinced,  insisted  on  the  importance 
of  emigration,  and  said  it  would  never  do  to  encourage  the 
crofters  in  "  their  wild  and  impossible  demands,  the  result 
to  a  great  extent  of  Irish  agitators'  persistent  preaching  of 
sedition."  To  the  Marquis  of  Lome,  who  had  called  for 
stern  measures  and  denounced  the  "  canting  and  blas- 
phemous ministers  "  who  had  "  preached  sedition,"  Harcourt 
sent  a  powerful  rebuke  in  which  he  reviewed  the  history  of 
the  Highlands  in  sombre  and  moving  terms.  To  Gladstone 
he  wrote  (January  17,  1885)  with  equal  emotion,  evoking  a 
response  no  less  charged  with  indignation  against  the  true 
causes  of  the  trouble.  In  May  a  Bill  designed  to  mitigate 
the  grievances  of  the  crofters  was  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Commons  and  read  a  first  time,  but  with  the  fall  of  the 
Government  it  was  abandoned,  the  new  Ministry  declining 


534  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1885 

to  take  it  over.  The  Bill  brought  in  by  Sir  George  Trevelyan 
early  in  1886,  which  became  law  by  the  summer,  provided 
fair  rent  and  fixity  of  tenure  for  the  crofters,  but  made  no 
arrangement  for  purchase.  Leases,  however,  were  made 
compulsory,  and  were  arranged  under  the  supervision  of  a 
commissioner. 

In  regard  to  two  other  measures  Harcourt  was  more  success- 
ful. A  Bill  to  remove  the  disqualification  in  connection 
with  the  franchise  imposed  by  the  receipt  of  medical  relief 
was  abandoned  by  the  new  Government  on  the  inclusion  of 
surgical  aid  in  the  Bill.  Thereupon  Harcourt  made  himself 
responsible  for  the  Bill,  which  became  law  without  amend- 
ment. He  also,  after  much  correspondence  with  Cross,  who 
had  succeeded  him  at  the  Home  Office,  induced  the  new 
Government  to  take  over  the  Criminal  Law  Amendment 
Bill  as  a  Government  measure,  which  raised  the  age  of 
consent  on  the  part  of  a  young  girl  to  sixteen. 

Before  turning  to  the  situation  created  by  the  fall  of  the 
Government,  and  the  momentous  developments  that 
followed,  some  personal  details  relating  to  this  time  may  be 
conveniently  referred  to.  In  a  letter  to  Gladstone  Harcourt 
says : 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET,  January  i. —  ...  I  am  delighted  to  hear 
of  your  daughter's  marriage.  I  think  all  women  are  better  married 
— a  sentiment  for  which  I  was  much  reproved  by  my  Sovereign 
when  I  expressed  it  to  her  on  the  occasion  of  her  last  daughter's 
marriage.  She  said,  "  I  entirely  differ  from  you,  Sir  W.  I  think 
no  woman  should  marry  except  under  exceptional  circumstances." 
I  replied,  "  Madam,  you  are  as  bad  as  Q.  Elizabeth,  except  that 
she  was  never  married."  H.M.  was,  I  think,  rather  pleased  at  the 
comparison.  I  married  very  poor,  and  was  very  happy.  .  .  . 

Harcourt  was  much  of  a  courtier,  and  never  omitted  those 
little  attentions  which  kept  Majesty  in  good  temper.  "  WE 
like  congratulations  on  another  grandchild,"  wrote  Ponsonby 
to  him  in  announcing  the  birth  of  a  princess  to  Princess 
Louis  of  Battenberg,  but  the  hint  was  not  needed  to  one 
who  seized  any  pleasant  occasion  for  congratulating  anybody, 
and  above  all  the  Queen. 

As  his  experience  at  the  Home  Office  lengthened  Har- 


i885]  SHORTER  SENTENCES  535 

court's  dislike  of  savage  sentences  increased,  and  to  the 
Lord  Chief  Justice  (Coleridge)  he  wrote  (January  16)  urging 
"  the  cause  of  mercy  at  the  bar  of  the  judges."  He  believed 
that  no  good  was  really  done  to  a  prisoner  by  penal  servitude 
of  more  than  five  years.  "  Few  judges  I  believe  realize 
what  ten  years'  penal  servitude  mean.  .  .  .  Still  less  is 
it  understood  what  a  tremendous  penalty  is  two  years'  hard 
labour  in  the  ordinary  prison." 


CHAPTER  XXIV 
THE   1885   ELECTION 

The  Irish  Party — The  Carnarvon  pourparlers — Chamberlain  at 
Inverness — Harcourt  at  Blandford — The  Hawarden  manifesto 
— The  Radicals  and  the  Whigs — Opposition  at  Derby — Results 
of  the  Elections. 

THE  new  Government  had  come  in  with  two  tasks — 
to  wind  up  the  Parliament  and  go  to  the  country. 
There  was  no  doubt  as  to  the  issue  that  would 
dominate  the  election.  The  Irish  Party  had  now  through 
the  genius  of  Parnell  established  itself  as  the  tertium  quid 
of  English  politics,  and  whatever  happened  to  Liberals  and 
Tories  in  the  coming  conflict  Parnell  would  be  the  winner. 
A  profound  change  had  come  over  the  situation  which 
made  the  ultimate  issue,  howeyer  long  delayed,  assured. 
It  is  not  necessary  here  to  enter  into  the  much-debated 
question  of  the  negotiations  between  the  Conservatives  and 
Parnell  that  are  alleged  to  have  preceded  Gladstone's 
resignation.  That  there  were  pourparlers  of  some  kind  is 
undoubted,  and  the  attitude  adopted  by  Churchill  in  the 
Maamtrasna  debate,  and  on  the  question  of  the  renewal  of 
the  Crimes  Act,  showed  that  an  election  deal  with  the 
Parnellites  was  in  contemplation.  That  suspicion  became 
confirmed  with  the  advent  of  the  Salisbury  Government  to 
office.  It  was  known  that  the  new  Viceroy,  Lord  Carnarvon, 
had  had  a  private/meeting  with  Parnell  on  taking  office, 
and,  though  it  was  denied  that  a  bargain  had  been  struck, 
the  dropping  of  the  Crimes  Act  and  the  remarkable  speech 
of  Carnarvon  in  the  House  of  Lords  in  which,  in  the  presence 
of  tha/Prime  Minister,  he  repudiated  government  by  force, 

536 


i885]  SALISBURY   AT  NEWPORT  537 

pointed  to  the  success  of  free  institutions  in  the  Colonies, 
and  said  he  saw  "  no  irreconcilable  bar  to  the  unity  and 
amity  of  the  two  nations,"  made  it  clear  that  a  new  departure 
in  Conservative  policy  was  in  view. 

There  was,  as  the  event  showed,  a  large  measure  of  insin- 
cerity in  all  this.  Carnarvon  himself  was  undoubtedly 
sincere,  but  it  is  probable  that  in  this  respect  he  stood  almost 
alone  among  his  colleagues.  In  spite  of  the  memorable 
speech  of  Salisbury  at  Newport  in  the  following  September, 
in  which  the  Conservative  leader  appeared  to  endorse 
Carnarvon's  attitude  towards  Ireland,  there  was  a  widespread 
conviction  that  the  country  was  only  in  the  presence  of  a 
peculiarly  audacious  political  manoeuvre,  and  that  there 
was  no  real  change  of  heart  in  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Con- 
servative Party.  Indeed  at  Liverpool  a  meeting  which  was 
to  have  been  addressed  by  Churchill  had  to  be  abandoned 
owing  to  the  opposition  of  Lord  Claude  Hamilton  and  the 
Orange  element.  But,  whether  honest  or  dishonest,  this 
startling  bouleversement  enormously  enhanced  Parnell's 
position.  Gladstone  was  notoriously  hostile  to  coercion, 
and  had  been  feeling  his  way  for  years  along  the  path  of 
conciliation.  The  most  vital  element  in  the  party  was 
entirely  with  him  in  this  policy,  and  there  seemed  little 
doubt  that  in  due  course  the  Whigs  under  Hartington,  who 
were  opposed  to  Home  Rule  in  any  form,  would  be  shed, 
and  that  the  Liberal  party  would  be  committed  to  some 
measure  of  self-government  for  Ireland.  Now  the  sudden 
surrender  of  the  Conservative  leaders  left  the  policy  of 
coercion  in  ruins.  Parnell  was  quick  to  turn  his  good  fortune 
to  account.  He  saw  both  the  English  parties  eager  for  his  , 
support  and  he  put  up  the  terms.  From  the  late  Govern-  \ 
ment  he  had  been  prepared  to  accept  a  Central  Council  at 
Dublin  for  the  administration  of  Irish  affairs.  Now  he 
declared  for  an  Irish  Parliament  and  an  Irish  Execu- 
tive. 

Meanwhile  the  confusion  in  the  Liberal  counsels  became 
aggravated  as  the  election  approached.  Gladstone  had, 
on  the  rising  of  Parliament,  gone  on  a  voyage  to  Norway 


538  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

in  Brassey's  yacht,  the  Sunbeam,  and  Harcourt's  son,  who 
was  with  him,  writing  to  his  father,  said : 

L.   V.  Harcourt  to  W.   V.  Harcourt. 

August  27. —  .  .  .  Mr.  G.  is  obviously  determined  not  to  come  for- 
ward for  the  elections  unless  he  is  specifically  asked  to  do  so  by  his 
late  colleagues — especially  by  Hartington  and  Chamberlain  as 
/representing  the  two  wings  of  the  Party.  I  gather  that  he  is  some- 
what disappointed  that  Hartington  at  all  events  has  not  done  this, 
and  he  seems  to  feel  that  it  is  hardly  fair  to  H.  that  he  should  again 
come  forward  to  "  take  the  bread  out  of  his  mouth."  Please  write 
to  Mr.  G.  [to  Hawarden]  yourself  and  make  the  others  [Cabinet]  do 
so  too.  .  .  . 

But  the  political  relations  of  Hartington  and  Chamberlain 
were  becoming  so  strained  that  their  further  co-operation 
seemed  impossible.  It  was  not  the  new  terms  of  Parnell 
on  which  they  disagreed.  Both  declared  their  hostility  on 

I  this  subject.  But  on  questions  of  domestic  policy,  and 
especially  on  the  land,  they  were  drifting  far  apart.  Cham- 
berlain was  appealing  to  the  country  on  free  education, 
"  three  acres  and  a  cow,"  the  granting  of  power  to  local 
authorities  to  acquire  land,  and  a  graduated  income  tax. 
At  Waterfoot,  Hartington  brusquely  dismissed  the  idea  of 
arbitrarily  or  forcibly  redistributing  the  land,  and  Chamber- 
lain retaliated  at  Inverness  in  a  speech  in  which  he  said : 

.  .  .  When  public  rights  are  invaded,  when  rights  of  way,  and 
roads  which  have  been  open  within  the  memory  of  living  men,  are 
barred  and  blocked,  and  when  a  whole  country  which  has  been  free 
for  countless  generations  is  barred  and  fenced  against  all  intruders, 
in  order  to  promote  the  sport  of  a  few  selfish  individuals,  then  I  ask 
myself,  and  I  ask  you,  whether  the  policy  of  confiscation  has  not 
proceeded  far  enough,  and  whether  the  people  are  alone  to  be  robbed 
with  impunity. 

In  this  rupture,  Harcourt  sought  to  play  the  part  of 
peacemaker,  urging  Chamberlain,  on  the  one  hand,  to  be 
moderate — "  you  have  no  idea  how  moderate  you  can  be 
/till  you  try  " — and,  on  the  other,  appealing  to  Hartington 
to  ignore  Chamberlain's  asperities  as  "  outbursts  of  temper." 
And  when  at  Bradford  Chamberlain  referred  to  "  Rip  Van 
Winkle,"  Harcourt  wrote  pointing  out  that  this  sort  of  thing 


i885J  ENGLISH  LAND   POLICY  539 

"  sticks  in  Hartington's  gizzard."  The  truth  was  that  the 
rupture  had  gone  beyond  healing,  and  Harcourt,  too,  found 
himself  drifting  away  from  Hartington.  The  latter  was  con- 
scious of  this,  and  writing  to  Granville  J  (October  3)  said  : 

.  .  .  There  is  one  thing,  and  I  believe  only  one,  in  which  I  agree  \ 
with  Harcourt,  which  is  that  the  Peers,  who  never  do  a  day's  work  / 
out  of  office,  cj.nlt  expect  hjalf  the  places  in  another  Liberal  Cabinet.  ' 
...  I  am  to  see  Harcourt  to-morrow,  but  he  appears  to  have 
definitely  decided  to  go  with  Chamberlain.  .  .  . 

It  was  Harcourt's  speech  at  Blandford  on  September  28- — 
following  a  non-committal  one  at  PlymoutE  on^epfemBer 
17 — which  had  driven  Hartington  to  this  conclusion.  In 

I/this  speech  Harcourt  had  associated  himself  with  Chamber- 
lain's land  policy.  The  wrongs  of  the  crofters  had  bitten 
into  his  mind,  and  he  contrasted  the  scene  from  the  Rigi 
with  the  scene  from  the  no  less  beautiful  Scottish  mountains. 
Why  was  the  one  so  prosperous  and  the  other  so  desolate  ? 
The  Swiss  peasant  was  not  dependent  for  his  livelihood  on 
the  precarious  weekly  wage.  To  his  mind  it  was  not  a 
sound  condition  of  affairs  when  the  mass  of  the  people  had 
not  homes  which  they  could  call  their  own.  The  agricultural 
labourer  ought  to  have  a  home  from  which  he  could  not  be 
turned  out ;  a  man  should  feel  that  when  he  died  he  had  a 
home  to  leave  to  his  family.  Mr.  Stanhope  had  said,  "  just 
fancy  what  a  dreadful  thing  that  would  be  if  the  House  of 
Commons  consisted  entirely  of  Jesse  Collingses."  But, 
asked  Harcourt,  had  he  ever  considered  what  it  would  be  if 

I/It  consisted  entirely  of  Edward  Stanhopes.  This  speech 
evoked  from  Chamberlain  an  enthusiastic  letter  of  con- 
gratulation. 

In  the  meantime  Gladstone  had  returned  to  the  hornets' 
nest  from  his  Norwegian  cruise,  and,  writing  to  Harcourt 
in  reference  to  Hartington  and  Chamberlain,  said : 

Gladstone  to  Harcourt. 

HAWARDEN  CASTLE,  September  12. —  .  .  .  By  both  of  them  I 
am  a  good  deal  buffeted,  perhaps  the  former  even  more  than  the 

1  Holland,  Life  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire  (Macmillan,  1911), 
vol.  ii.,  p.  73. 


540  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1885 

latter.  They  are  in  states  of  mind  such  as,  if  they  were  put  in 
contact,  would  lead  to  an  explosion.  Both  I  think  are  wrong  in 
this,  that  they  write  as  if  they  were  fixing  the  platform  of  a  new 
Liberal  Government,  whereas  I  am  solely  endeavouring  to  help,  or 
not  to  embarrass.  Liberal  candidates  for  the  election.  The  question 
of  a  Government  may  have  its  place  later  on,  not  now.  «/ 

Having  explained  the  general  idea  with  which  I  propose  to  write 
[his  manifesto],  I  asked  H.  and  C.  whether  it  was  upon  the  whole 
their  wish  that  I  should  go  on  or  cut  out.  To  this  question  I  have 
not  yet  got  a  clear  affirmative  answer  from  either  of  them. 

Chamberlain  has  his  ulterior  views,  with  which,  so  far  as  I  under -* 
stand  them,  I  am  not  much  in  sympathy  ;  Hartington  seems  to  be 
in  a  jealous  frame  of  mind,  and  has  I  think  been  at  Kimbolton.  */ 

In  his  manifesto  to  the  Midlothian  electors,  Gladstone 
gave  his  distracted  party  a  lead  between  the  conflicting 
policies  of  Hartington  and  Chamberlain,  and  pleaded  for  a 
reconciliation  between  England  and  Ireland,  insisting  that 
"  every  grant  to  portions  of  the  country  of  enlarged  powers 
for  the  management  of  their  own  affairs  is,  in  my  view,  not 
a  source  of  danger,  but  a  means  of  averting  it,  and  is  in  the 
nature  of  a  new  guarantee  for  increased  cohesion,  happiness, 
and  strength." 

"  Gladstone's  manifesto  has  put  me  in  high  spirits  about 
politics,"  wrote  Harcourt  to  his  wife,  and  to  Gladstone  he 
said  : 

STONEY  CROSS,  LVNDHURST,  Se/>tem6«y  21. —  ...  I  am  sure  it 
must  be  a  source  of  satisfaction  to  see  how  the  whole  Party  has 
rallied  to  your  standard  as  soon  as  it  was  raised  from  the  negative 
pole  of  Goschen  to  the  positivism  of  Chamberlain.  I  have  never 
doubted  that  you  are  the  only  universal  amalgam,  and  that  without 
you,  as  the  Yankees  say,  the  "  bottom  of  the  tub  would  come  out." 
.  .  .  The  red  hair  of  Argyll  must  have  been  blanched  by  Chamber- 
lain's speech  at  Inverness. 

To  Chamberlain,  Harcourt  wrote  (September  24)  con- 
gratulating him  on  his  speeches.  "  You  have  conquered  a 
position  of  vantage  from  which  you  can  never  be  displaced. 
.  .  .  The  more  the  Tories  abuse  you  the  stronger  you  are 
and  will  be."  But  he  urged  him  to  stand  by  the  "  G.O.M." 
The  "  umbrella  "  had  answered  very  well  and  was  necessary 


i88s]     THE   GLADSTONIAN   UMBRELLA      541 

to  the  party.     As  for  himself,  he  agreed  that  the  compulsory 
acquisition  of  land  by  local  authorities  and  free 


were  indispensable.  But  Chamberlain  was  dissatisfied  with 
the  manifesto,  and  said  he  had  told  Gladstone  he  would 
join  no  Government  in  which  he  and  Dilke  had  not  a  free 
hand  on  local  government,  including  powers  for  the  com- 
pulsory acquisition  of  land  and  liberty  to  speak  and  vote  on 
free  education.  Harcourt  saw  Gladstone  and  was  able  to 
assure  Chamberlain  that  he  was  not  opposed 


education  "or  the  compulsory  acquisition  of  land.  But 
Chamberlain  stiU  had  difficulties.  He  suspected  intrigues 
between  Hartington  and  Goschen,  and  he  complained  of 
the  absence  of  the  Liberal  peers  from  the  field.  Was  the 
next  Cabinet  to  consist  in  equal  proportion  of  men  for 
whose  opinion  no  living  soul  cared  a  straw  ? 
/  Harcourt  was  still  struggling  to  hold  the  Gladstonian 
umbrella  over  the  warring  Whigs  and  Radicals,  assuring  l- 
Hartington  that  Chamberlain  only  demanded  a  "  free  voteJ 
and  voice  "  for  his  policy  in  the  Cabinet,  and  telling  Cham- 
berlain that  Hartington's  "  bark  is  worse  than  his  bite  and 
when  it  comes  to  the  point  he  usually  does  what  is  satis- 
factory." But  it  was  to  little  purpose.  If  Hartington 
wanted  war,  wrote  Chamberlain  to  Harcourt  (October  9), 
he  could  have  it.  If  he  liked  to  try  his  hand  at  doing 
without  the  Radicals  and  relying  on  Goschen,  then  Dilke 
and  Morley  and  he  (Chamberlain)  would  formulate  a  still 
more  definite  and  advanced  policy  and  would  run  a  Radical 
in  every  constituency.  He  had  been  to  Hawarden  with  his 
conditions,  and  seemed  fairly  satisfied  with  their  reception. 
In  discussing  Chamberlain's  programme,  Harcourt  (October 
30)  foreshadowed  the  direction  his  mind  was  taking  on 
taxation  :  "  My  action  (he  wrote)  will  be,  as  it  has  always 
been,  to  try  to  keep  the  crew  together.  As  you  will  have 
seen,  I  am  with  you  on  Free  Education  and  substantially  on 
the  Land.  As  to  Taxation,  I  am  not  sure  that  I  understand 
your  view  fully.  My  own  disposition  is  rather  towards  a 
property  tax  than  increased  burthens  on  income."  %/  ^ 
As  the  election  approached,  Harcourt  took  the  field.  At 


542  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1885 

Winchester  on  November  7  he  devoted  himself  to  the  land 
question,  urging  the  increase  of  small  holdings,  and  the 
compulsory  acquisition  of  land  at  a  fair  price  ;  at  Chester 
\J  on  November  n  he  attacked  Churchill,  defended  free  trade,  */ 
and  pronounced  for  free  education ;  at  Manchester  on 
November  18  he  dealt  mainly  with  the  fair  trade  heresy 
and  the  vagaries  of  Lord  Randolph  Churchill.  In  the 
midst  of  the  pollings  he  spoke  at  Eastbourne  and  Lowestoft. 
It  was  in  the  latter  speech  that  he  used  a  phrase  of  which  he 
was  to  hear  much  later,  especially  from  the  lips  of  Chamber- 
lain. Dealing  with  the  new  association  of  the  Tories  with 
Parnell,  he  said  that  early  in  the  year  inquiries  had  gone 
out  from  Tory  headquarters  to  ascertain  the  strength  of  the 
Irish  vote  in  the  constituencies.  That  information  having 
been  obtained,  it  was  determined  not  to  renew  the  Crimes 
Act,  and  that  news  was  communicated  to  Parnell,  and 
Parnell  then  assisted  them  to  turn  out  the  Government. 
Mr.  Parnell  must  in  fact  be  consulted  on  every  measure, 
because  without  his  support  the  Government  would  not  be 
safe  for  a  day.  "  They  have  got  the  vote  at  the  election  ; 
that  has  been  paid.  That  was  the  price  for  dropping  the 
Crimes  Act.  That  was  the  price  for  denouncing  Lord 
Spencer.  .  .  .  But  there  is  another  bargain  yet  to  be  made. 
They  want  the  vote  in  the  House  of  Commons.  We  want 
to  know  what  is  the  price  to  be  paid  for  that.  ..."  And 
then  he  proceeded : 

.  .  Before  they  (the  Tory  Government)  are  turned  out  there  is  a 
thing  that  is  to  be  done,  and  that  is  that  they  should  be  thoroughly 
found  out.  For  my  part,  what  I  desire  is  to  allow  them  for  a  few 
*>  months  to  stew  in  their  own  Parnellite  juice.  And  then,  gentlemen, 
when  they  stink  in  the  nostrils  of  the  country — as  they  will  stink, 
we  will  fling  them  disgraced  and  discredited  to  the  constituencies. 

At  this  time  it  seemed  that  the  election  had  gone  against 

the  Liberals.     The  boroughs  had  pronounced  for  the  Tories, 

/  and  Hartington  wro"te~to'Granville  1  (November  29),  "I  am 

dying  to  ask  Harcourt  what  he  thinks  of  the  infallible 

1  Life  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire,  ii.   95. 


i883]  SLANDER  AT  DERBY  543 

Schnadhorst  now.  I  fully  expect  he  will  say  it  is  all  my 
fault."  But  all  was  not  over.  The  county  results  as  they 
came  in  redressed  the  balance,  and  Chamberlain  wrote 
triumphantly  to  Harcourt  that  the  "cow  "  had  done  well. 
What  was  wanted  was  a  "  cow  "  for  the  boroughs.  *TIai- 
court,  still  hoping  to  keep  the  peace,  wrote  (December  4) 
to  Hartington,  who  was  about  to  deliver  a  speech,  urging 
him  not  to  retort  upon  Chamberlain's  latest  outburst  of 
temper.  "  I  take  it  he  is  furious  at  the  defeat  of  his  brother 
in  Worcestershire.  .  .  .  Take  my  advice.  .  .  .  There  will 
•xalways  be  time  enough  for  the  row  when  it  is  inevitable." 
But  Hartington  was  not  to  be  mollified.  Replying  to 
Harcourt,  he  said  he  had  read  Chamberlain's  "  atrocious  " 
speech  and  should  probably  answer  it. 

In  the  meantime  Harcourt  had  been  re-elected  for  Derby, 
but  only  after  a  stiff  fight  against  the  most  unscrupulous 
tactics.  A  fourth  candidate,  Dyer,  had  appeared  in  the 
field,  and  his  candidature  was  sustained  by  suggestions  that 
Harcourt  as  Home  Secretary  had  supported  the  C.D.  Acts, 
and  that  he  had  been  at  least  lukewarm  in  supporting  the 
Criminal  Law  Amendment  Act.  The  indignation  aroused 
by  these  methods  led  Gladstone,  James,  and  the  Earl  of 
Dalhousie,  who  had  represented  the  Home  Office  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  to  write  letters  to  the  Derby  electors  rebutting 
the  slander.  The  plain  facts  were  that  the  C.D.  Acts  had 
been  in  abeyance  for  two  years,  and  that  the  Criminal  Law 
Amendment  Bill  had  been  brought  forward  by  Harcourt, 
and  that  it  was  to  further  its  passage  that  he  had  pressed 
his  successor  at  the  Home  Office  to  take  it  over  from  him  as 
a  Government  measure.  The  result  of  the  poll  was  suffi- 
ciently emphatic : 

T.  Roe 7,.8is 

Harcourt  .......  7,630 

Hextall  .          .          .          .          .          .          .  4,943 

Dyer  .......  1,251 

The  result  of  the  general  election  revealed  an  extraordinary 
condition  of  stalemate,  the  state  of  parties  being  : 


544  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1885 

Liberals  and  Independents       ....     335 

Conservatives          .          .          .          .          .          .249 

Home  Rulers          ......       86 

A  coalition  between  the  Conservatives  and  the  Irish 
members  thus  would  mean  a  tie,  or  a  majority  of  one  for 
the  party  not  supplying  the  Speaker.  It  was  a  triumph 
for  Parnell,  who  on  the  eve  of  the  election  had  issued  a 
manifesto  to  the  Irish  electors  in  England  calling  on  them 
to  vote  for  the  Conservatives.  By  this  step  he  had  made 
himself  in  a  very  real  sense  the  master  of  the  situation. 
But  there  was  much,  nevertheless,  to  justify  Harcourt's 
claim  in  The  Times  that  the  election  was  a  notable  victory 
for  Liberalism.  The  Irish  vote,  he  said,  was  a  temporary 
windfall  to  the  Tories ;  the  really  significant  fact  was  the 
sweeping  Liberal  victory  in  the  counties,  due  in  part  to  the 
unpopularity  of  the  country  parsons,  but  mainly  to  the 
knowledge  that  the  Tory  Party  would,  if  they  could,  have 
/  prevented  the  rural  householder  from  obtaining  the  vote 
which  he  had  now  used  to  such  advantage,  and  to  the  per- 
sistent hostility  over  a  series  of  generations  of  that  Party  to 
the  rights  of  the  poor  in  common  land. 

But  though,  as  between  the  Liberals  and  Conservatives, 
the  result  of  the  election  had  been  sufficiently  decisive,  it 
was  equivocal  on  the  main  issue  of  politics,  and  the  country 
awaited  with  gathering  interest  the  disclosure  of  the  con- 
clusions which  Gladstone,  in  the  seclusion  of  Hawarden, 
was  seeking  in  regard  to  his  victory  and  its  meaning. 


CHAPTER   XXV 
HOME   RULE   IN   THE   BALANCE 

The  Carnarvon  Interview — Gladstone's  hesitations — Vain  hope  of 
removing  Irish  question  from  party  strife — Cross-currents 
among  Liberals — Chamberlain's  jealousy — General  irritation 
at  Gladstone's  reticence — A  meeting  at  Devonshire  House — 
Discussion  with  Gladstone  at  last — Three  Acres  and  a  Cow 
Amendment. 

THE  election  of  1885  is  the  outstanding  landmark 
in  the  modern  political  history  of  the  country. 
It  made  Trfil?1"1^  *hp  governing  icsnp  nf  British "7 

politics^  The  stages  to  this  crownipe  achievement  hadj 
been  clearly  marked.  When  in  /r868khe  Irish  members 
separated  from  the  Liberal  Party  antTassumed  the  position 
of  an  independent  group  they  initiated  a  policy  that  drove 
a  wedge  into  the  English  political  system  that  was  destined 
sooner  or  later  to  shatter  it  in  fragments.  Parnell  had  now 
driven  the  wedge  home,  and  had  brought  victory  within  his 
grasp.  He  had  played  so  skilfully  upon  the  rivalries  of  the 
two  great  political  groups  that  opposition  to  Irish  self- 
government  had  been  largely  disintegrated,  and  it  seemed 
that  the  concession  of  that  policy  might  easily  be  extracted 
from  either  party  or  from  both.  It  would  not  be  too  much"*1 
to  claim  that  Parnell's  most  powerful  ally  had  been  Joseph 
Chamberlain,  who,  throughout  the  1880-5  Parliament,  had 
been  hostile  to  coercion  and  insistent  on  a  policy  of  con- 
ciliation, had  preserved  close  relations  with  Parnell,  had 
arranged  the  so-called  Kilmainham  Treaty,  and  had  finally, 
with  Gladstone's  consent,  put  forward  a  scheme  for  a 
National  Council  for  the  control  of  Irish  domestic  affairs 
But  it  was  the  Tory  bid  for  the  Irish  vote  in  the  summer 

545  NN 


546  SIR   WILLIAM  HARCOURT          [1885 

of  1885  that  turned  the  current  of  victory  finally  in  Parnell's 
favour.  When  long  afterwards  (January  23, 1893)  Harcourt- 
was  talking  with  Churchill  at  Lord  Rothschild's  house  at 
Tring,  Churchill  saidC"  Gladstone  was  obliged  to  take  up 
Home  Rule  the  momeafne  heard  of  Lord  Carnarvon's  inter- 
view with  Parnell,  which  was  Salisbury's  doing.^  It  is 
probable  that  those  negotiations  were  largely  disingenuous. 
The  Irish  vote  in  England  was  necessary  if  the  Conservatives 
were  to  drive  Gladstone  from  power,  and  it  was  this  con- 
sideration rather  than  a  change  of  heart  on  Irish  government 
that  led  to  that  momentous  departure.  But  whatever  the 
dominant  motive,  and  whoever  was  the  inspirer — and  there 
is  abundant  evidence  that  Churchill  himself  originated  the 
idea  of  an  alliance  with  the  Parnellites — the  fact  changed 
of  gijtfch  politics  on  the  Irish-question. 


Thenceforward,  up  to  the  election,  the  Conservative  Codlin 
rather  than  the  Liberal  Short  was  the  friend  of  Ireland. 
The  Ashbourne  Land  Purchase  Act,  the  dropping  of  Coercion 
by  the  Salisbury  Administration,  the  remarkable  Newport 
speech  of  Salisbury  in  which  he  expressed  his  preference  for 
a  Nationa^Council  as  against  provincial  councils,  and,  to 
the  astonishment  of  the  public,  talked  of  boycotting  as  if 
it  were  a  mild  epidemic  to  which  the  best  of  peoples  might 
be  subjects-all  this  was  showering  blessings  on  Parnell. 
He  seemed  suddenly  embarrassed  with  political  suitors. 
It  was  only  a  question  of  which  horse  he  should  ride,  and  as 
a  good  strategist  he  preferred  to  mount  the  Conservative 
horse,  of  whose  good  faith  he  had  doubts,  but  which  he 
was  anxious  to  commit  to  the  task  of  carrying  his  colours. 
He  cut  his  Liberal  connection  without  hesitation.  Chamber- 
lain and  Dilke  had  contemplated  a  tour  in  Ireland  under  his 
auspices  during  the  recess ;  but  the  arrangement  broke 
down  as  a  consequence  of  Parnell's  new  and  calculated 
friendship. 

It  would  be  interesting  but  unprofitable  to  speculate  as 
to  what  would  have  happened  had  the  Irish  vote  been 
sufficient  to  give  the  Conservatives  plus  the  Irish  a^su^ 
staptial  majority  in  Parliament.  The  attempt  to  carry 


i885]         GLADSTONE'S   PERPLEXITY 

out  the  understanding  with  the  Irish  would  no  d 
produced  a  serious  rupture  in  the  Conservative  Party,  which 


a  reversal  oi  Irish-policy  ,.thaa 


the  Liberal  Partv-jsgas  f  but  the  attempt  would  have  had 
to  be  made,  and  the  fact  could  not  have  failed  to  change  the 
course  of  history.  The  idea  of  a  reconciliation  with  Ireland 
on  the  basis  of  self-government  would  have  become  the 
common  property  of  both  parties,  and  would  have  removed 
from  the  strictly  £§rty_  conflict  the  issue  which  dominated 
it  for  the  next  thirty-five  years.  But  the  Irish  vote  did 
not  achieve  all  that  the  Conservatives  had  in  mind.  It 
transferred  many  seats  to  them,  but  it  did  not  give  them, 
even  with  the  Irish  contingent,  a  command  of  the  House... 
That  Salisbury  was  perplexed  by  the  course  he  should 
ypursue  may  be  assumed  from  the  fact  that  he  did  not  resign 
forthwith,  but  decided  to  meet  Parliament  after  Christmas. 
But  if  he  was  perplexed  his  great  antagonist  at  HawarderT 
had  no  easy  problem  to  solve.  The  difficulty  in  his  case 
was  not  as  to  the  goal  but  as  to  the  means  of  attaining  it. 
Ever  since  he  had  come  to  power  in  1868  his  mind  had  been 
moving  steadily  and  uninterruptedly  in  the  direction  of  a 
solution  of  Irish  grievances  by  the  consent  of  the  Irish  people. 
He  began  with  his  attack  on  the  Irish  Church  and  Irish 
landlordism,  and,  when  these  reforms  left  the  Irish  demand 
still  unsatisfied,  continued  with  infinite  patience  to  feel  his 
way  towards  the  core  of  the  discontents.  Throughout  the 
last  Parliament  he  had  yielded  unwillingly  to  the  coercive 
measures  which  events  had  made  unavoidable,  and  had 
struggled  to  accompany  them  with  a  policy  of  appeasement 
directed  towards  placating  Irish  national  feeling.  The  result 
/of  the  election,  with  the  unanimous  and  overwhelming 
I/  verdict  of  Nationalist  Ireland,  cleared  all  the  lingering 
hesitations  and  doubts  from  his  mind.  It  made  Home  Rule 
not  merely  a  matter  of  practical  politics,  but  the  capital 
task  of  British  statesmanship.  The  equivocal  situation  of 
parties  in  the  new  House,  coupled  with  the  changed  orienta- 
tion of  the  Conservative  Party  on  the  subject,  suggested 
to  his  mind  that  the  settlement  of  the  question  might  be 


—  1 


548  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1885 

removed  from  the  field  of  party  warfare,  and  reached  by 
common  consent.  During  the  December  days  following 
the  election  he  broached  the  idea  to  his  son  and  to  certain  of 
his  colleagues,  and,  meeting  Mr.  Arthur  Balfour  at  the  Duke 
of  Westminster's  at  Eaton,  sounded  him  on  the  subject. 
It  soon  became  apparent,  however,  that  there  was  not  much 
hope  in  this  direction,  and  that  the  brief  flirtation  of  the 
Conservative  leaders  with  Parnellism  had  not  survived  the 
disappointment  of  the  election.  Thereupon  he  turned  to 
the  accomplishment  of  the  task  on  party  lines.  Superficially 
the  prospects  of  success  seemed  promising.  He  had  a 
majority  of  eighty-six  over  the  Conservatives  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  and  the  Irish  Nationalists  placed  a  reserve  of 
eighty-six  votes  at  his  command  on  a  policy  of  Irish  con- 
ciliation, but  gave  a  tie  in  case  of  a  combination  between 
the  Conservatives  and  the  Irish,  or  more  strictly  a  margin 
of  one,  allowing  for  the  Speaker. 

This  rosy  calculation  was  subject  to  very  formidable 
qualifications.  It  was  true  that  the  powerful  Radical 
element  of  the  Liberal  Party  had  long  made  the  running  in 
favour  of  an  accommodation  with  Ireland,  and  that  Liberal 
thought  in  the  country  had  become  largely  permeated  with 
the  idea  of  some  measure  of  Home  Rule.  The  coquetting 
of  the  Tories  with  the  Parnellites  had  strengthened  this 
tendency,  and  had  convinced  many,  among  them  Harcourt, 
^  that  coercion  as  a  means  of  governing  Ireland  was  no  longer 
\tenable,  and  that  government  by  consent  was  the  only 
course  now  open.  But  there  were  still  powerful  and  obdurate 
hostile  elements  within  the  party,  both  in  Parliament  and 
outside.  The  victory  at  the  polls  had  been  won  not  on  the 
Irish  question,  but  on  domestic  issues.  The  "  unauthorized 
programme  "  of  Chamberlain,  and  especially  that  section 
known  as  "  three  acres  and  a  cow,"  had  had  a  large  share 
in  the  result,  and  it  remained  to  be  seen  how  far  Gladstone 
could  carry  his  battalions  with  him  in  the  pursuit  of  an 
object  not  associated  with  English  issues,  and  on  which  the 
Liberal  Party  was  gravely  divided.  In  his  calculations  he 
had  to  reckon  with  the  unqualified  hostility  of  Hartington 


iS85]         CHAMBERLAIN'S   GRIEVANCE        549 

and  Goschen,  but  he  had  reason  to  assume  that  the  Radicals 
would  be  with  him,  that  the  ££ntie  group  of  the  party  of 
which  Harcourt  was  the  chief  spirit  might  also  come  on  his 
side,  and  that  thus  he  would  be  enabled  to  carry  his  policy 
even  while  shedding  the  Whigs.  In  any  case  it  seemed  that 
the  Cabinet  could  not  hold  both  Hartington  and  Chamber- 
lain. Their  acerbities,  especially  on  the  question  of  the 
English  land  laws,  had  assumed  during  the  election  the 
character  of  a  public  and  fundamental  quarrel  outside  the 
scope  of  party  accommodation.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
Liberal  feeling  in  the  country  it  was  Chamberlain  who  was 
essential  to  the  Government  rather  than  Hartington,  and 
Chamberlain  was  sympathetic  with  Irish  aspirations  while 
Hartington  was  an  incurable  sceptic  as  to  the  Irish  capacity 
for  self-government. 

But  the  differences  between  Hartington  and  Chamberlain 
on  English  domestic  policy  did  not  imply  agreement  by 
Chamberlain  with  Gladstone  on  Irish  policy.  He  had 
noticeably  reacted  from  his  Irish  position  after  the  break- 
down of  his  proposedjfeCur  in  Ireland  during  the  recess,  and 
still  more  after  the  new  claim  which  Parnell  had  set  up  as 
the  result  of  the  Conservative  bid  for  the  Irish  vote.  The 
following  extract  from  ther  Journal  indicates  also  that  he 
was  nettled  at  the  idea — apparently  quite  erroneous — that 
Gladstone  was  negotiatinjpnew  terms  with  the  Irish  on  his 
own  account : 

December  9. — Chamberlain  came  to  dine  with  us  this  evening,  and 
is  brimming  over  with  differences,  grievances,  soreness,  etc.  He 
announced  that  the  split  between  himself  and  Hartington  could 
never  be  patched  up  and  had  better  take  place  now,  as  it  was  quite 
impossible  for  them  ever  to  sit  in  the  same  Cabinet  again.  He  said 
Hartington  had  been  personally  offensive  to  him  in  his  speeches 
during  the  autumn.  W.  V.  H.  pointed  out  that  he,  Chamberlain, 
had  been  equally  offensive,  and  that  it  was  impossible  to  decide 
who  had  begun  it.  Chamberlain  said  he  knew  his  last  speech  at 
Leicester  was  "  nasty,"  and  he  had  meant  it  to  be  so.  W.  V.  H. 
half  laughed  at  and  half  scolded  him,  said  that  they  were  like  husband 
and  wife,  who  alternately  nagged  at  one  another,  that  it  was  a  case 
of  incompatibility  of  temper,  and  that  they  must  get  over  it  somehow 
or  other.  Chamberlain  tHen  began  to  denounce  Gladstone.  He 


550  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

knows  that  a  Home  Rule  scheme  is  in  the  air,  and  declares  that  G. 
has  negotiated  the  whole  thing  with  the  Parnellites  through  a  third 
person,  probably  Herbert  Gladstone,  and  that  he,  Chamberlain, 
has  seen  a  letter  in  wXich  Gladstone  says,  "  It  will  probably  take 
some  time  to  obtain  the  consent  of  my  Whig  colleagues,  though 
I  do  not  despair  of  doing  so."  Chamberlain  is  furious  at  having 
been  told  nothing  about  this  and  having  the  negotiations  conducted 
behind  his  back,  and  said  that  nothing  will  induce  him  to  consent 
to  any  arrangement  which  is  arrived  at  with  the  Parnellites,  that 
he  will  be  no  party  to  it,  and  that  he  has  entirely  given  up  his  Irish 
policy  of  last  summer.  [H.] 
— - 

A  few  days  later  the  bolt  fell.     In  the  Leeds  Mercury  and 

the  Standard  of  December  16  there  appeared  an  apparently 
inspired  statement,  emanating  from  his  son,  that  Gladstone 
was  contemplating  a  plan  which  "  provides  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  Parliament  in  Dublin  for  dealing  with  purely 
Irish  affairs."  Gladstone  promptly  dismissed  the  statement 
"  merely  a  speculation  "  on  his  vkwsi-but  the  terms  of 
the  denial  only  confirmed  the  essential  accuracy  of  the 
statement.  Its  premature  disclosure  had  instant  and  far- 
reaching  reactions.  It  alarmed  the  Whigs,  and  cleared  the 
course  for  the  Conservatives.  On  the  announcement  of 
Gladstone's  intentions  Churchill  was  reported  to  have  said, 
apropos  of  whether  the  Tory  Government  would  proceed 
with  Home  Rule,  "  Oh  no,  we  will  have  nothing  to  do  with 
Home  Rule  of  any  kind  now  ;  we  have  got  Gladstone  pinned 
to  it ;  we  will  make  him  expose  his  scheme  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  Let  him  defeat  us  with  the  aid  of  the  Parnellites, 
and  then  let  us  dissolve  and  go  to  the  country  with  the  cry 
of  '  The  Empire  in  Danger.'  '  Harcourt  was  at  Chatsworth 
with  Hartington  when  the  Hawarden  mine  was  so  unin- 
tentionally sprung,  and  next  day,  in  reply  to  the  request 
for  information  of  his  intentions,  there  came  to  Hartington 
a  letter  from  Gladstone  *  in  which  he  gave  the  following 
conditions  of  an  admissible  plan  of  Home  Rule  : 

1.  Union  of  the  Empife  and  due  supremacy  of  Parliament. 

2.  Protection  for  the  minority.     A  difficult  matter  on  which  I 
have  talked  much  with  Spencer,  certain  points,  however,  remaining 
to  be  considered. 

1  Morley's  Life  of  Gladstone,  Book  ix.,  chap.  iii. 


i885]  WORKING   FOR   PEACE  551 

3.  Fair  allocation  of  Imperial  charges.   »X 

4.  A  statutory  basis  seems  to  me  better  and  safer  than  the  revival 
of  Grattan's  Parliament,  but  I  wish  to  hear  more  upon  this,  as  the 
minds  of  men  are  still  in  so  crude  a  state  on  the  whole  subject.     +* 

5.  Neither  as  opinions  nor  as  intentions  have  I  to  anyone  alive 
promulgated  these  ideas  as  decided  on  by  me. 

6.  As  to  intentions,  I  am  determined  to  have  none  at  present — to 
leave  space  to  the  Government — I  should  wish  to  encourage  them 
if  I  properly  could — above  all,  on  no  account  to  say  or  do  anything 
which  would  enable  the  Nationalists  to  establish  rival  biddings^ 
between  us. 


From  the  indignation  which  boiled  over  at  Chatsworth, 
Harcourt  went  on  with  his  son,  two  days  later,  to  the 
equally  angry  atmosphere  of  Highbury,  carrying  some  heat 
of  his  own  along  with  him.  He  found  Chamberlain,  as  the 
following  notes  from  the  Journal  indicate,  torn  between 
two  antagonisms  : 

December  20. — J.  C.  declares  most  positively  that  direct  negotia- 
tions have  been  carried  on  through  Herbert  Gladstone  with  Parnell, 
Healy,  O'Brien  and  Harrington,  and  says  that  he  (J.  C.)  has  seen 
some  of  the  letters. 

Chamberlain  is  anxious  to  throw  over  Gladstone,  or  rather  to  get 
Hartington  to  do  so,  but  -wQshot  promise  to  support  the  latter 
afterwards.  In  fact,  he  said  he  would  never  support  another 
Coercion  Bill.  .  .  .  LS' 

December  ig. —  ...  At  breakfast  this  morning  J.  C.  was  very 
bitter  about  the  Moderates,  and  would  do  anything  to  have  a  fight 
./rtth  them,  and  declares  he  will  not  enter  another  Cabinet  in  which 
they  have  the  preponderance.  [H.] 

/Harcourt  was  still  uncommitted,  angry  with  Hawarden, 
mgry  with  Highbury,  but  working  for  a  modus  vivendi. 
From  Highbury  he  wrote  to  Hartington  (December  20) 
reporting  his  conversations  with  Chamberlain,  and  discuss- 
ing the  wisdom  of  presenting  Gladstone  with  "  a  peremptory 
negative  "  to  his  proposal.  Chamberlain,  he  thought,  was 
J'prepared  for  this,  but  they  had  to  bear  in  mind  certain 
grave  contingencies.  If  Gladstone  could  not  carry  his 
colleagues  he  might  take  the  occasion  to  retire ;  but  he 
would  first  deliver  his  soul.  "  He  would  say  that  in  leaving 
public  life  he  felt  bound  etc.  to  bear  testimony  to  the  only 


552  SIR   WILLIAM   HARGOURT  [1885 

plan  which  would  heal  the  wounds  of  Ireland."     What 

would  follow  the  rejection  of  the  scheme  ?     The  policy  of 

wx'violence  in  Ireland  would  break  out  in  aggravated  form  : 

.  .  .  Chamberlain  I  think  is  of  opinion  that  this  might  be  endured 
and  overcome — though  he  admits  that  in  the  process  the  Irish 
^^landlords  and  their  rents  must  be  extinguished.  I  confess  I  doubt 
if  the  resistance  could  be  overcome.  The  name  and  authority  of 
Mr.  G.  would  be  appealed  to  as  showing  that  reasonable  demands 
had  been  refused,  and  would  be  regarded  as  a  palliation  if  not  a 
justification  of  the  violence  and  outrages  of  a  nation  unable  to 
obtain  its  just  rights. 

Then  when  all  these  evils  arose  and  measures  of  extraordinary 
repression  became  necessary,  people  would  turn  round  upon  us 
and  say,  "  if  you  had  followed  the  advice  of  Mr.  G.  this  would  not 
have  happened.  You  have  brought  this  upon  yourselves."  .  .  . 

[      He  adds  significantly  that  Chamberlain  and  Dilke  "  resent 

that  Mr.  G.  should  have  committed  himself  and  the  Party 

I   to  such  an  extent  without  any  consultation  with  his  col- 

/    leagues,   and   I   am  not   surprised   at   it."     Returning  to 

<-—  London,   Harcourt  found  that  the   Hawarden  plans  had 

spread  panic  in  exalted  quarters. 

On  December  22  Ponsonby  called  on  him,  and  said  the 
Queen  was  much  alarmed  at  the  reports  of  Gladstone's 
Home  Rule  scheme,  but  recognized  that  the  present  Govern- 
ment could  not  last  long,  and  admitted  that  its  successor 
should  be  a  Liberal  one.  Her  idea  was  that  "  extremes  " 
(meaning  Gladstone  and  R.  Churchill)  should  be  got  rid  of, 
that  Hartington  should  be  Prime  Minister  and  Salisbury 
Foreign  Secretary  under  him,  the  whole  of  the  rest  of  the 
Cabinet  being  Liberal  and  Whig.  Of  course  Harcourt  told 
Ponsonby  how  utterly  impossible  such  a  thing  would  be, 
and  Ponsonby  seems  to  have  said  the  same  thing  to  the 
Queen.  Meanwhile  Harcourt's  letters  to  Hartington  indi- 
cated that,  much  as  he  disliked  the  new  plunge,  his  mind 
;tfas  moving  towards  its  acceptance  as  a  matter  of  political 
necessity.  Writing  on  December  22,  he  analysed  the  con- 
sequences which  were  involved  in  the  Gladstone  proposal : 

...  It  is  clear  therefore  (he  concluded)  that  there  must  be  a  set 
of  domestic  Parliaments  separate  from  one  another  and  from  the 
Imperial  Parliament  like  the  Reichs  in  Germany.  And  there  must 


i885]       ARGUES   WITH    HARTINGTON         553 

be   separate   sets   of   Ministers   and   separate   administrations   for 
each.  .  .  . 

There  then  would  be  three  Parliaments  and  three  Administrations, 
two  domestic  and  one  Imperial,  and  if  Scotland  demanded  a  domestic 
Parliament  (as  the  Scotsmen  say  she  would),  then  three  domestic 
Parliaments  and  one  Imperial.  A  nice  look  out  for  the  Queen. 
Ml  these  practical  absurdities  seem  never  to  have  been  faced  by 
those  who  talk  so  glibly  of  independent  Parliaments. 

But  while  seeing,  with  a  perhaps  exaggerated  concern, 
the  difficulties  of  Home  Rule,  he  was  becoming  increasingly 
impressed  with  the  impossibility  of  the  alternative  policy. 
It  was  on  the  question  of  the  practicability  of  the  future 
government  of  Ireland  by  coercion  that  the  breach  between 
him  and  Hartington  was  beginning  to  shape  itself.  Mr. 
John  Morley  had  spoken  at  Newcastle  on  December  22  on  the 
impossibility  of  repression  as  a  policy,  and  Hartington  wrote 
to  Harcourt  opposing  the  view,  and  pointing  out  "  that  the 
Irish  rebels  are  probably  not  more  than  about  three  or  four 
millions  out  of  thirty-six  millions,  and  that  the  Home  Rulers 
are  eighty-six  out  of  670  members  of  Parliament."  In  the 
course  of  a  long  letter,  written  on  Christmas  Eve,  which 
reveals  the  workings  of  his  mind  in  these  critical  days, 
Harcourt  says  : 

Harcourt  to  Hartington. 

December  24. —  .  .  .  But  what  I  do  not  think  you  appreciate 

>ft.s  fully  as  I  do  is  the  other  side  of  the  picture.     I  doubt  if  you  realize 

to  its  full  extent  the  difficulty  if  not  the  impossibility  of  resistance. 

It  may  be  true  as  you  say  that  the  Parnellites  are  only  three  or 
four  millions  out  of  thirty-six,  and  no  doubt  if  they  come  to  a  stand- 
up  fight  with  us  they  would  have  no  chance.  But  they  will  not  do 
this.  It  is  like  our  fighting  with  the  Mahdi  and  Osman  Digna. 
We  cannot  get  at  them.  Our  physical  (and  what  is  worse  our  moral) 
resources  are  not  what  they  were. 

For  once  in  a  way  there  was  a  sensible  article  in  the  Pall  Mall 
called  "  Where  is  our  Cromwell,"  which  I  enclose. 

(i)  As  to  our  physical  resources.  In  former  Irish  rebellions  the 
Irish  were  in  Ireland.  We  could  reach  their  forces,  cut  off  their 
resources  in  men  and  money,  and  then  to  subjugate  was  compara- 
tively easy.  Now  there  is  an  Irish  nation  in  the  United  States 
equally  hostile  with  plenty  of  money,  absolutely  beyond  our  reach, 


jfnd  yet  within  ten  days'  sail  of  our  shores.     Unless  we  institute 

'      Ahsnlntp    mn'H.-ivi.tp.vr.niJ.vsf'    wi-Kh     Amprira     fa    fTiincr   whirh    wmilH    rniri/ 


non-intercourse  with  America  (a  thing  which  would  ruin/ 


554  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1885 

our  trade  and  set  up  the  working  class  in  arms)  this  reserve  of 
resistance  will  perpetually  baffle  us.  They  will  keep  up  a  perpetual 
supply  of  arms,  men,  dynamite  and  assassins. 

(2)  But  the  still  more  insuperable  difficulty  is  the  moral  weakness 
of  the  position.  What  the  Pall  Mall  says  on  the  subject  is  pain- 
true.  The  number  of  people  who  sufficiently  understand 
the  dangers  of  Home  Rule  to  feel  that  it  must  be  repelled  at  all  costs 
is  small. 

In  talking  to  men  like  Jesse  Collings  and  Broadhurst  I  find  a  sort 
of  general  and  ignorant  tolerajji»-of  the  idea  of  an  Irish  Parliament. 
When  the  difficulties  are  stated  to  them  they  say,  "  Oh,  these  are 
administrative  details  (J.  Ceilings' s  phrase)  which  you  statesmen 
must  deal  with."  Men  of  this  kind  will  of  course  be  greatly  in- 
fluenced by  the  authority  of  Mr.  G.  They  say  they  don't  mean 
separation,  but  they  are  sure  that  Mr.  G.  has  some  plan  which  is 
not  separation,  and  they  do  not  care  to  inquire  what  it  is.  They 
will  say,  "  till  this  has  been  tried  we  will  not  fight  the  Irish,"  and 
no  Government  cojjld  carry  on  such  a  war  with  a  divided  opinion 
in  Great  Britain.  To  the  ranks  of  these  honest  doubters  would  be 
added  all  the  anarchical  spirits  who  would  see  in  it  an  opportunity 
of  striking  at  existing  institutions,  and  the  factious  partisans  who 
would  think  only  of  overthrowing  their  political  adversaries. 

The  Tory  Governmentsrruck  the  fatal  blow  at  any  prospect  of 
a  really  patriotic  union  on  this  question  when  they  played  for  the 
Parnellite  vote  last  summer.  That  is  a  precedent  it  is  impossible 
to  ignore  or  to  wipe  out.  You  and  I  may  be  willing  to  condone  it ; 
but  that  is  not  the  temper  in  which  an  exasperated  Party  will 
approach  the  question  after  a  General  Election — especially  if  Mr. 
G.  invites  them  to  the  fray.  You  will  not  get  a  Government  with 
the  determination  to  fight  out  such  a  terrible  battle.  If  you  could 
find  the  Government  you  would  not  get  such  a  united  and  persistent 
public  opinion  as  would  sustain  it  in  such  a  conflict. 

One  great  source  of  weakness  is  the  fact  that  the  attack  would 
be  made  in  the  first  instance  on  the  Irish  landlords,  a  class  with 
whom  the  mass  of  people  of  this  country  have  little  sympathy. 
They  will  not  Cromwellize  Ireland  for  the  benefit  of  the  Waterfords 
and  the  Tottenhams.  .  .  .  The  conduct  of  these  men  to  Spencer 
disentitles  them  very  much  to  sympathy.  You  know  Randolph 
Churchill  declared  publicly  that  Waterford  advised  the  resolution 
to  drop  the  Cryjjgs^cj^  The  silence  of  the  Irish  Tory  members 
of  the  H.  of  C.  and  the  H.  of  Lords  (of  which  R.  Churchill  boasted) 
on  that  occasion  was  their  death-warrant,  and  the  general  verdict 
will  be  "  served  them  right."  If  there  is  a  general  strike  against 
rent  you  cannot  collect  it  by  the  bayonet.  You  will  be  met  every- 
where by  a  passive  resistance  to  law,  probably  to  taxes  also. 

How  is  this  to  be  overcome  ? 

When  Coercion  is  proposed  there  will  be  a  large  English  party 


i885]  HARTINGTON   AND   CHAMBERLAIN  555 

adverse  to  it.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  myself  think  it  possible  in  the 
present  situation  after  what  took  place  in  July.  In  the  background 
there  will  be  the  pernetual  cry,  "  Rather  let  the  Irish  go  as  Mr. 
Gladstone  proposed.  Why  did  you  not  try  his  plan  ?  Anything 
is  better  than  a  policy  hateful  to  our  traditions  and  our  sentiments 
— a  policy  of  blood  in  Ireland,  possibly  of  war  with  America." 
I  believe  no  Government  could  fiiid  or  maintain  a  firm  footing  in 
such  a  position.  It  is  very  different  from  the  American  Secession. 
Then  an  organized  rebellious  force  fired  on  the  national  flag  at  Fort 
Sumter,  which  inflamed  the  national  pride,  and  the  North  was 
pretty  well  united.  The  refusal  to  pay  rent  to  the  Irish  landlords 
will  evoke  no  similar  feeling  here.  I  fear  resistance  is  more  likely  to 
^resemble  our  owr\  failure  in  the  War  of  Independence  of  1776  than 
the  success,  'oi  the  North  in  the  American  Civil  War. 

Pray. "clink  out  this  aspect  of  the  question  as  well  as  the  other  with 
you,?  accustomed  cool  and  calm  judgment. 

On  the  same  day  Chamberlain  was  writing  to  Harcourt 
an  illuminating  letter  which  showed  how  his  thoughts  were 
taking  shape,  and  his  suspicion  that  Harcourt  was  moving 
in  the  direction  of  Hawarden.  He  had  learned  what  the 
Parnellite  terms  were,  and  for  his  part  was  not  prepared  to 
accept  a  Home  Rule  scheme. 

In  his  reply,  written  on  Christmas  Day,  Harcourt  said 
he  was  fast  coming  to  the  paradoxical  and  hopeless  con- 
clusion that  nothing  but  the  grant  of  Home  Rule  would 
ever  convince  the  English  people  that  they  ought  to  have 
•fought  to  the  death  rather  than  concede  it.  From  the 
moment  that  the  Tories  sold  the  pass  to  Parnell  for  office  in 
June  it  had  been  a  lost  cause.  But  he  was  chiefly  concerned 
that  the  Party  should  hang  together  : 

Harcourt  to  Chamberlain. 

.  .  .  I  hope  in  spite  of  all  you  say  that  we  may  still  stick  together.  n 
Pray  for  a  Christian  and  Christmas  spirit  of  "  Peace  on  earth  and 
goodwill  towards  all  men — especially  Whig  men,  especially  when  in 
substantiate  we  are  agreed.     I  don't  think  that  H.  (Hartington) 
is  half  as  unfriendly  to  you  as  you  are  to  him.     If  you  will  go  one- 
quarter  of  the  way  I  think  he  will  do  the  other  three-quarters.     The- 
public  situation  is  far  too  grave,  and  the  prospects  of  the  future  far 
too  black  to  allow  of  personal  dislikes. 

I  learn  from  H.  that  Mr.  G.  has  never  written  to  him  since  hisj 
(H.'s)  letter  to  his  constituents  disavowing  Home  Rule.     It  looks 
as  if  he  meant  to  send  us  all  to  Coventry.  .  .  . 


556  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1886 

The  reticence  of  Gladstone  was  perplexing  most  of  his 
colleagues.  Two  days  after  Christmas  Chamberlain  wrote 
again  declaring  Mr.  Gladstone's  intention,  since  he  had 
learned  that  the  Government  would  not  attempt  to  settle 
the  Irish  question,  himself  to  "  go  forward  or  fall."  In 
going  forward  without  consulting  his  colleagues  Gladstone 
had  absolved  them  from  any  obligations  to  him.  He  pro- 
posed that  he,  Hartington,  Dilke  and  Harcourt  should  meet. 
If  they  agreed  they  might  then  put  pressure  on  Gladstone 
to  deliver  his  plan.  If  he  insisted  on  going"  on  without  them 
they  might  call  a  party  meeting  and  submit  their  differ- 
ences. He  thought  the  majority  of  the  party  \yould  be 
against  Gladstone.  In  any  case  they  would  have  liberated 
their  minds.  If  they  remained  quiet  much  longer  Gladstone 
would  have  the  game  in  his  hands,  and  the  unity  of  the 

rty  would  be  destroyed. 

The  meeting  was  arranged  for  New  Year's  Day  at  Devon- 
shire House,  and  Harcourt  wrote  to  Chamberlain  that  he 
was  still  unable  to  see  how  the  fight  could  be  carried  on  if 
the  scheme  was  rejected  out  oi  hand  : 

.  .  .  Can  we  conduct  the  conflict  with  Mr.  G.  and  his  plan  out- 
standing against  us  and  unrevealed,  with  people  saying  when  we  come 
to  extremities,  "  Why  did  you  not  try  G.'s  plan."  That  for  me 
is  the  great  danger.  We  must  do  all  we  can  to  get  this  card  played 
on  the  table  and  not  to  have  it  always  behind  us.  I  foresee  that  it 
may  be  necessary  to  let  him  try  his  hand  so  that  no  one  can  say  all 
methods  had  not  been  exhausted.  Pray  turn  the  matter  over  from 
this  point  of  view.  .  .  . 

On  the  morning  of  New  Year's  Day  a  little  light  reached 
Harcourt  from  the  recluse  of  Hawarden.  He  said  that  he 
felt  the  Irish  question  "  sometimes  makes  me  feel  as  if  I 
were  ground  into  the  dust,"  but  that  his  intentions  were 
limited  to  making  the  Government  understand  his  anxiety 
that  they  should  handle  the  question  with,  if  possible,  the 
support  of  the  Liberals. 

That  afternoon  Chamberlain  called  on  Harcourt,  and  the 
two  went  together  to  meet  Hartington  and  Dilke  at  Devon- 
shire House.  Hartington  had  just  returned  from  a  visit  at 
Althorp  to  Spencer,  who  had  told  him  that  the  action  of  the 


i886]  GLADSTONE'S   RETICENCE  557 

Tories  had  made  coercion  unpossible,  and  that  he  saw  nothing 
for  it  but  some  kind  of  Hrfme  Rule.  That  was  the  conclusion 
of  the  majority  of  the  Devonshire  House  meeting,  though 
Chamberlain  would  not  agree  to  the  retention  of  the  whole 
of  the  Irish  members  in  the  English  Parliament.  He  would 
support  a  scheme  for  making  Ireland  "  a  protected  State." 
Recording  Chamberlain's  scheme  the  Journal  says  : 

January  i.-?—  .  .  .  His  idea  is  this — give  Ireland  a  constitution, 
an-«pper^nd  a  lower  House  of  Assembly  ;  reserve  to  England  the 
power  and  the  duty  of  protecting  her  and  preventing  her  becoming 
the  point  d'appui  of  a  foreign  nation  in  time  of  war  ;  retain  a  military 
garrison  in  some  foj^feined  town  in  Ireland,  and  have  a  governor  or 
lord-lieutenant,  who  should  be  chiefly  military,  but  possess  the  power 
of  dissolving  the  chambers  ;  relieve  Ireland  of  all  contribution  to 
Imperial  taxation  except  'a  yearly  payment  in  the  form  of  a  termin- 
able annuity  toward^  her  share  of  the  National  Debt  as  it  now  stands ; 
make  an  agreement  that  in  any  customs  or  protective  tariff  England 
should  receive  the  treatment  of  the  most  favoured  nation,  but  no 
more  ;  aH  representation  of  Ireland  in  the  Imperial  Parliament  to 
cease.  iyHe  thinks  Healy  and  a  number  of  the  leading  Nationalists 
would  be  only  too  glad,  when  they  had  real  work,  to  have  the 
assistance  of  the  conservative  feeling  which  would  spring  up  under 
this  state  of  things.  .  .  .  [H.] 

Ill 

Meanwhile  the  attempt  to  "  draw  "  Gladstone  continued 
to  meet  with  ill  success.  He  still  showed  no  anxiety  to 
meet  or  communicate  further  with  his  colleagues,  and  to  an 
offer  from  Harcourt  to  send  him  some  "  reflections  on  the 
causes  of  the  present  discontents  "  he  said  : 

January  3. —  ...  I  am  a  little  apprehensive  of  any  exposition 
of  the  "  causes  of  the  present  discontents,"  for  (i)  you  are  not  in 
possession  of  all  the  materials.  I  have  had  divers  and  serious  dis- 
contents myself  :  but  have  tried  to  keep  them  to  myself.  (2)  It 
seems  to  me  that  all  our  best  efforts  are  or  should  be  pre-engaged 
upon  the  future.  The  question  of  Irish  Government  as  it  stands 
before  us,  and  whichever  way  we  take,  is  I  think  the  biggest  of  our 
time  :  and  my  own  share  of  the  responsibility  is,  in  my  own  view, 
the  largest  I  have  ever  had.  .  .  . 

While  Gladstone  was  writing  this  polite  refusal,  Harcourt 
was  engaged  on  the  task  he  had  proposed.  He  had  finished 
a  memorandum  of  sixty-three  quarto  pages  dictated  to  his 


558  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

son  when  Gladstone's  letter  reached  him.  He  took  it  to 
Hartington  instead,  and  when  three  days  later  Gladstone 
changed  his  mind  and  asked  to  see  it,  he  replied  that  he  did 
not  think  it  was  worth  sending  to  him.  The  amenities  were 
clearly  a  little  strained.  In  the  meantime  at  Harcourt's 
request  Hartington  had  written  to  Gladstone  asking  him  to 
meet  the  ex-Cabinet  to  explain  his  scheme  ;  but  he  was  still 
wary.  He  "civilly  declined,"  .said  Harcourt  to  Chamber- 
lain ;  but  said  he  would  be  in  London  on  thCTithDhe  day 
before  the  meeting  of  the  new  Parliament,  when  he  "  will 
receive  anyone  at  4  p.m.  who  wishes  to  see  him."  "  I  think 
if  we  go,"  said  Harcourt,  "  we  should  attend  as  a  posse 
comitatus  and  not  singly."  Chamberlain  agreed.  It  was 
monstrous,  he  said,  that  Gladstone  should  put  every  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  counsel.  His  present  inclination  was  to  take 
Mr.  G.'s  refusal  to  come  up  as  a  snub,  and  not  to  make  any 
further  advances  to  him.  Perhaps  the  irritation  at  Glad- 
stone's aloofness  had  something  to  do  with  the  return  of  a 
cold  fit  on  Home  Rule  on  the  part  of  Chamberlain,  for  his 
New  Year's  Day  mood  had  passed,  and  he  announced  that 
his  inclination  was  increasingly  against  any  concession  to 
the  Irish  demand.  The  plan  of  meeting  Gladstone  in  a 
body  was  defeated,  for  the  wily  leader  invited  his  colleagues 
for  different  hours.  "It  is  evident  that  he  proposes  to 
'  nobble  '  us  in  detail,"  wrote  Chamberlain  to  Harcourt. 
The  interviews  did  not  sensibly  enlighten  the  situation,  for 
Gladstone  was  obscure,  with  intentions,  but  no  "  plan  "  for 
discussion,  and  still  apparently  half  hoping  that  the  Govern- 
ment would  take  up  the  subject  themselves.  That  night 
Chamberlain  dined  with  Harcourt,  and  was  all  agog  about 
a  new  scheme  of  Home  Rule  propounded  by  Robert  Giffen 
in  the  Statist.  In  the  midst  of  their  after-dinner  talk  Spencer 
was  announced,  and  Chamberlain  got  up  to  go.  Harcourt 
urged  him  to  stay,  but  Chamberlain  replied,  "  No,  I  am  off ; 
I  don't  want  to  see  the  Red  Earl ;  I  attribute  all  our  diffi- 
culties in  Ireland  to  his  opposition  to  my  National  Council 
scheme  last  summer."  He  fled  from  the  room,  and  was 
with  difficulty  prevailed  on  to  come  back.  The  incident 


i886]  "LOYALIST'    IRELAND 

was  typical  of  the  tangle  of  confusion  and  recrimination 
in  which  the  party  was  involved. 

Next  day  the  new  Parliament  assembled  for  members  to 
take  the  oath.  At  noon  Harcourt  went  to  Gladstone's 
house  to  meet  Granville,  Spencer  and  Chamberlain,  and 
there  a  heated  controversy  took  place  on  the  immediate 
course  to  pursue.  Harcourt  sought  to  extract  from  Glad- 
stone a  statement  of  what  his  action  would  be  if  Parnell 
moved  an  amendment  to  the  Address  in  favour  of  an  Irish 
Parliament,  and  when  Gladstone  seemed  to  suggest  that  in 
that  case  he  would  walk  out  without  voting,  Harcourt  said, 
"  Then  I  think  it  right  to  tell  you,  Mr.  Gladstone,  that  you 
will  not  be  followed  in  that  course  by  a  dozen  men  on  your 
own  side,  for  half  of  the  party  will  vote  for  the  amendment 
and  the  other  half  against,  and  the  split  will  have  become  a 
fait  accompli."  But  the  haze  with  which  Gladstone  enve-/ 
loped  himself  at  this  time  only  meant  that  he  was  waiting 
to  see  how  the  confusions  on  the  Government  side  would 
resolve  themselves.  If  the  Carnarvon  policy  won  he  would 
leave  the  Government  in  undisturbed  possession  ;  but  the 
threat  of  coercion  would  be  accepted  as  a  challenge  to  him 
to  take  the  field  with  the  alternative  policy  which  now 
absorbed  his  whole  thoughts.  The  completeness  with  which 
he  had  broken  with  the  long  tradition  of  Ulster  ascendancy 
was  illustrated  by  an  incident  two  nights  later  (recorded  in 
the  Journal)  when  he,  with  Granville,  Hartington,  Ripon, 
Morley  and  others,  was  dining  at  Harcourt's  house  : 

January  14. —  .  .  .  W.  V.  H.  mentioned  the  "  loyal "  Irish. 
The  word  seemed  to  stir  Gladstone's  wrath  extremely,  and  he  said 
sarcastically,  "  Was  there  ever  such  a  noble  race  as  that !  What  a 
beautiful  word  '  loyalist.'  How  much  they  have  done  for  their 
country.  You  say  that  the  Nationalists  care  for  nothing  but  money, 
but  have  not  the  loyalists  the  same  tastes  ?  "  W.  V.  H.  replied, 
"  Certainly,  the  only  difference  is  that  where  you  can  buy  a  National- 
ist for  ^5  you  must  pay  £6  for  a  loyalist."  Turning  to  Lady  Airlie, 
W.  V.  H.  said,  "  I  once  asked  your  father  (Lord  Stanley  of  Alderley) 
what  was  the  smallest  sum  he  had  ever  paid  for  a  vote  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  he  replied  that  he  had  once  bought  an  Irish  member 
for  £5  on  the  morning  of  the  Derby."  Gladstone  said,  "  You  think 
Ireland  is  a  little  hell  on  earth."  W.  V.  H.  said,  "  Yes,  I  think  the 


560  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

.    only  mistake  Cromwell  ever  made  was  when  he  offered  them  the 
alternative  of  Connaught.  ..."     [H.] 

Two  days  later  (January  16)  came  the  first  clear  indication 
that  the  Government  were  coming  down  on  the  side  of 
coerciorL.  The  resignation  of  Carnarvon  was  announced, 
and  though  the  Queen's  Speech  (January  21)  contained  no 
mention  of  coercion  it  was  assumed  that  that  policy  would 
be  adopted.  W.  H.  Smith,  the  new  Chief  Secretary,  had 
been  sent  over  to  Ireland  to  report  on  the  situation,  but 
without  waiting  for  his  return  the  Cabinet  decided  on 
repressive  measures,  and  the  announcement  was  made  on 
January  26.  With  that  declaration  battle  was  joined.  In 
a  fragment  written  by  Gladstone  in  the  autumn  of  1897, 
and  quoted  in  Lord  Morley's  Life  of  Gladstone,  he  says  : 

The  determining  event  of  these  transactions  was  the  declaration  of 
the  Government  that  they  would  propose  coercion  for  Ireland.  .  .  . 
Immediately  on  making  up  my  mind  about  the  ejection  of  the 
Government  I  went  to  call  on  Sir  William  Harcourt,  and  informed 
him  as  to  my  intentions  and  the  grounds  of  them.  He  said, 
"  What  !  Are  you  prepared  to  go  forward  without  either  Hartington 
or  Chamberlain  ?  "  I  answered,  "  Yes."  I  believe  it  was  in  my  mind 
to  say,  if  I  did  not  actually  say  it,  that  I  was  prepared  to  go  forward 
without  anybody. 

That  same  evening  the  Government  were  out.  They  had 
announced  their  intention  in  the  afternoon  to  bring  in  a 
Coercion  Bill  two  days  later,  and  at  night  they  were  defeated 
on  Jesse  Collings's  amendment  to  the  Address,  popularly 
known  as  the  "  three  acres  and  a  cow  "  amendment.  It 
had  been  drafted  by  Chamberlain  and  Harcourt  at  Har- 
court's  house,  and  expressed  regret  that  the  Queen's  Speech 
contained  no  promise  of  "  facilities  to  the  agricultural 
labourers  and  others  in  the  rural  districts  to  obtain  allot- 
ments and  small  holdings."  The  debate,  unimportant  in 
itself,  disclosed  the  new  formation  in  politics  brought  about 
by  the  announcement  earlier  in  the  day.  Hartington  and 
Goschen  supported  the  Government ;  the  Irish  Nationalists 
voted  for  the  amendment.  It  was  carried  by  a  majority  of 
seventy-nine  which  practically  represented  the  strength  of 
the  Irish  vote.  Salisbury  forthwith  resigned,  and  Gladstone 
was  left  face  to  face  with  the  supreme  task  of  his  life. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 
CHANCELLOR   OF  THE   EXCHEQUER 

The  new  Gladstone  Ministry — Harcourt's  reservations — Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer — Jesse  Collings's  salary — Departmental 
struggle  over  the  Estimates — The  Cottage  Budget. 

THE  Salisbury  Government  had  fallen  on  Tuesday, 
January  26.  It  was  not  until  Friday,  at  a  quarter 
after  midnight,  that  Ponsonby  called  on  Gladstone 
with  a  verbal  commission  from  the  Queen  which  he  accepted. 
On  the  following  Monday  he  went  to  Osborne,  where  he 
found  Her  Majesty  quite  amiable,  showing,  as  he  said 
afterwards,  "  none  of  the  '  armed  neutrality '  which  as 
far  as  I  know  has  been  the  best  definition  of  her  attitude 
in  the  more  recent  years  towards  a  Liberal  minister."  The 
result  of  the  election,  however  confused  in  some  respects, 
had  given  a  sanction  to  an  experiment  in  the  policy  of 
conciliation  that  was  as  undeniable  as  it  was  unprecedented, 
and  as  Salisbury  had  refused  to  make  that  experiment 
there  was  no  constitutional  alternative  to  a  Gladstone 
Ministry. 

No  more  formidable  task  ever  confronted  a  Prime  Minister 
than  that  to  which  Gladstone  now  addressed  himself.  The 
healing  of  the  ancient  quarrel  between  England  and  Ireland 
had  become  the  obsession  of  his  life,  and  the  overwhelming 
verdict  of  the  Irish  elections  represented  to  him  an  authority 
that  obliterated  the  ordinary  calculations  of  party  strategy. 
He  was  anxious  to  carry  his  colleagues  with  him  ;  but  if 
he  could  not  do  that  he  would  go  forward  with  such  help 
as  was  available.  His  procedure  was  skilfully  designed  to 
make  the  inevitable  rupture  as  slight  as  the  pursuit  of  his 

561  OO 


562  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

unalterable  purpose  permitted.  He  drew  up  a  memorandum 
which  committed  those  who  accepted  office  in  the  new 
Cabinet  only  to  the  task  of  examining  the  practicability 
of  setting  up  a  legislative  body  in  Dublin  to  deal  with  Irish 
xas  distinguished  from  imperial  affairs.  It  was  an  invitation 
which  spread  his  net  wide  for  those  who,  though  hostile  to 
Home  Rule,  were  nevertheless  sufficiently  open-minded  on 
the  subject  to  give  it  consideration.  He  addressed  himself 
first  to  Hartington,  who  at  once  declined  his  invitation, 
and  was  followed  in  this  course  by  Goschen,  James  and  the 
Whig  element  of  the  Liberal  Party,  which  thenceforward 
ceased  to  represent  the  aristocratic  influence  that  had 
dominated  its  counsels  in  the  past. 

For  this  fracture  in  his  ranks  Gladstone  was  prepared. 
An  unkinder  blow  came  with  the  decision  of  John  Bright 
to  stand  aloof.  The  stampede  from  his  side  was  becoming 
-  formidable,  and  it  was  emphasized  by  the  announcement 
that  Mr.  Morley,  whose  speeches  in  the  country  had  made 
him  the  most  conspicuous  and  unqualified  advocate  of  the 
cause  of  Home  Rule  among  the  Liberal  leaders,  had  been 
offered  and  had  accepted  the  post  of  Irish  Secretary.  There 
remained  the  Radicals  and  the  centre  group.  The  attitude 
of  Chamberlain  and  Harcourt,  important  in  any  circum- 
stances, had  become  of  capital  consequence  in  view  of  the 
Whig  landslide  from  Gladstone.  The  day  following  the 
visit  of  Ponsonby  to  him,  Gladstone,  accompanied  by  his 
wife,  called  on  Harcourt  at  Grafton  Street.  Harcourt  took 
up  the  position  to  which  events  had  now  finally  driven 
him.  He  told  Gladstone  that  he  would  join  him,  not  because 
he  believed  in  the  possibility  oTthe  scheme  succeeding,  but 
because  he  believed  that  -iw  order  to  make  the  future 
government  of  Ireland  possible  the  scheme  must  be  dis- 
cussed and,  if  possible,  tried,  and  that  the  chief  reason  why 
he  was  willing  to  join  was  that  unless  he  did  so  he  thought 
there  might  be  a  danger  of  (^ladstone  not  being  able  to 
form  a  Government  at  all.v  After  Gladstone  had  left, 
Harcourt  wrote  the  following  letter  to  him,  receiving  the 
reply  the  same  evening : 


i886]  MAKES   CONDITIONS  563 

Har  court  to  Gladstone. 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET,  January  31. — I  was  very  sorry  this  afternoon 
not  to  be  able  honestly  to  take  a  more  sanguine  view  of  the  political 
situation  than  that  which  I  expressed  to  you. 

I  think  you  have  understood  from  the  first  my  attitude  with 
reference  to  the  Irish  question.  I  have  not  either  from  any  reflection 
of  my  own  or  from  the  slight  indications  I  have  received  of  your 
views  on  the  subject  been  able  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  there 
is  any  probability  of  devising  a  scheme  of  "  Home  Rule  " — by  which 
I  mcatn  a  plan  involving  a  legislative  body  sitting  in  Ireland — which 
could  fulfil  the  conditions  laid  down  by  you  in  the  paper  which  you 
showed  to  Mr.  Chamberlain  in  respect  to  the  securities  for  the  inter^ 
ests  which  you  justly  say  must  be  protected  and  maintained. 

I  have  seen  nothing  to  alter  my  opinion  on  that  subject  up  to  the 
present  moment.  If  therefore  your  Government  was  about  to  be 
formed  on  the  basis  of  the  adoptipn  of  a  separate  legislative  body  in 
Ireland  I  could  not  conscientiously  join  it.  But  I  understand  from 
you  that  this  is  a  question  to  be  examined  by  the  Cabinet  with 
perfect  freedom  to  every  member  of  it  to  arrive  at  his  own  conclusions 
upon  it,  and  to  decline  to  adopt  such  a  proposal  if  upon  considera- 
tion he  should  not  be  satisfied  of  its  safety  or  policy. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  no  one  should  join  your  Government 
who  had  not  at  least  the  hope  or  expectation  that  the  examination 
would  result  in  a  conclusion  in  favour  of  the  demand  for  an  Irish 
legislature  upon  practicable  conditions — that  is  certainly  not  my 
position.  But  I  have  from  the  first  felt  that  your  great  influence 
and  authority  make  your  opinions  and  views  on  this  subject  so 
potent  an  element  in  dealing  with  the  Irish  problem  that  before 
having  recourse  to  any  other  alternative  every  effort  should  be  made 
to  bring  them  forward  for  a  fair  trial.  If  they  should  succeed  every 
one  will  admit  it  will  be  an  immense  blessing.  If  they  fail  at  least 
it  will  be  felt  that  the  supreme  effort  at  conciliation  will  have  been 
made.  If  therefore  you  think  after  this  frank  expression  of  my  mind 
my  co-operation  can  be  of  any  service  in  enabling  you  to  examine 
the  question  I  feel  bound  not  to  stand  aside  but  to  lend  all  the 
aid  in  my  power  for  that  object. 

But  as  the  question  of  the  possibility  of  the  concession  with  safety 
of  a  "  legislative  body  "  under  any  conditions  is  one  to  be  examined 
and  which  is  not  concluded  at  present  I  understand  that  nothing 
is  to  be  done  which  should  fetter  the  freedom  of  the  Cabinet  to  accept 
or  reject  such  a  solution.  That  being  so  I  understood  you  to  assent 
to  my  desire  that  no  communications  should  be  made  to  Mr.  Parnell 
which  in  any  way  involved  the  idea  of  an  Irish  Legislature  until 
the  Cabinet  had  had  a  full  opportunity  of  considering  the  question. 
In  short  that  Mr.  Parnell  should  receive  no  information  as  to  your 
views  on  this  point  other  than  those  publicly  made  by  you  already 
until  the  basis  of  action  had  been  settled  by  the  Cabinet.  For  of 


564  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

course  if  Mr.  Parnell  were  made  acquainted  with  your  views  on  this 
matter  there  could  no  longer  be  any  freedom  of  judgment  left  to  the 
Cabinet. 

Those  members  of  the  Government  who  go  to  their  constituents 
must  be  in  a  position  to  state  publicly  that  no  conclusion  has  been 
arrived  at  on  this  subject,  and  that  they  are  entirely  free  to  form 
their  own  judgment  upon  it.  They  would  require  to  stand  on  the 
words  of  your  Manifesto  which  carefully  excludes  all  reference  to  a 
"  legislative  body."  To  many  members  of  the  Government  this 
may  and  probably  would  be  an  essential  condition  of  their  return. 

From  this  point  of  view  I  think  it  is  deserving  of  consideration 
how  the  matter  will  be  affected  by  appointing  Mr.  John  Morley 
to  the  post  of  Irish  Secretary.  That  his  position  and  abilities  entitle 
him  to  a  place  in  the  Cabinet  I  entirely  agree.  Nor  would  the  fact 
of  his  declaration  on  the  Irish  question  be  any  objection  in  another 
/situation  when  he  was  only  one  individual  in  the  Cabinet.  But 
I  will  not  his  appointment  to  the  Irish  post  be  taken  by  the  public 
to  be  a  declaration  -  that  the  opinions  he  has  promulgated  on  the 
subject  of  an  Irish  Parliament  are  the  settled  views  of  yourself  and 
of  the  Government ;  that  in  point  of  fact  this  question  of  an  Irish 
Parliament  is  not  a  subject  for  further  examination,  but  one  already 
concluded.  For  it  will  be  obviously  impossible  for  Mr.  Morley  to 
deal  with  Mr.  Parnell  on  any  other  footing  than  that  of  the  opinions 
he  has  himself  proclaimed.  In  fact  Mr.  Morley's  appointment 
will  be  construed  as  a  declaration  in  favour  of  an  Irish  Parliament 
without  any  examination  at  all  unless  indeed  it  is  met  by  a  counter 
declaration  which  it  would  be  very  inconvenient  to  make  at  the 
present  moment.  I  hope  you  may  be  disposed  to  consider  this, 
which  is  a  very  critical  matter,  before  it  is  finally  determined. 

Gladstone  to  Harcourt. 

21,  CARLTON  HOUSE  TERRACE,  January  31. — With  regard  to  the 
assurance  which  you  ask  I  hoped  I  had  satisfied  you  by  my  state- 
ment that  I  should  do  nothing  to  compromise  in  any  way  the  free- 
dom of  the  Cabinet  as  to  action  on  the  basis  I  propose  without  its 
assent!  I  have  not  in  any  way  considered  the  question  of  when  and 
how  as  to  communication  with  the  Irish  Party,  but  I  shall  do  nothing 
to  abridge  what  I  have  just  stated. 

It  is  for  me  in  forming  a  Government  to  propose  the  terms  on 
which  I  ask  others  to  join  with  me  :  unquestionably  they  commit 
no  one  to  the  advocacy  of  a  separate  Parliament. 

Nor  can  the  appointment  of  John  Morley  have  any  such  effect. 

The  terms  of  announcement  of  policy  to  the  world  cannot  now  be 
decided  on  :  but  as  far  as  I  understand  your  view  and  can  now 
consider  it,  I  agree  very  much  with  you. 

You  remember  our  conversation  on  Monday  about  the  difficulty 
of  joining  the  Cabinet  in  the  House  of  Commons.  I  told  you  to-day 


i886]  PLACATES   CHAMBERLAIN  565 

how  much  I  should  rely  upon  you  for  assistance  there.  My  request 
to  you  is  to  take  high  office  in  the  House  of  Commons.  I  understood 
you  to  accede  to  it.  If  I  was  wrong,. I  much  regret  it. 

This  exchange  of  letters  clinched  the  arrangement,  and 
two  days  later  Harcourt  accepted  the  Chancellorship  of 
the  Exchequer.  According  to  his  manner  when  once  com- 
mitted, Harcourt  flung  his  whole  energies  into  the  task  of 
making  the  experiment  a  success.  He  might  be  wrong, 
but  he  was  never  half-hearted  when  he  had  taken  the  plunge. 
"  As  Benedick  observes,"  he  wrote  to  E.  W.  Hamilton, 
Gladstone's  private  secretary  (February  3),  "  when  I  swore 
to  die  a  bachelor  I  never  thought  to  be  a  married  man. 
But  like  a  woman  who  is  married  I  forget  all  I  ever  said 
when  I  was  single  ...  I  shall  go  to  the  Treasury  and 
leave  the  reputation  of  being  the  greatest  skinflint  that 
ever  entered  the  gates."  In  the  feverish  discussions  of 
the  next  few  days  as  to  the  personnel  of  the  Ministry, 
Harcourt  was  a  constant  and  forcible  influence,  and  Glad- 
stone handsomely  acknowledged  his  help  when,  writing  to 
him  from  Mentmore  on  February  6,  he  said,  "  I  must  not 
let  the  week  absolutely  close  without  emphatically  thanking 
you  for  the  indefatigable  and  effective  help  which  you  have 
rendered  to  me  during  its  course  in  the  difficult  task  now 
mainly  accomplished." 

In  no  direction  was  the  help  more  valuable  than  in  the 
difficult  task  of  placating  Chamberlain.  His  attitude  was 
the  most  complex  of  all  the  cases  with  which  Gladstone 
had  to  deal.  For  years  he  had  been  the  unceasing  advocate 
of '  conciliation,  and  his  chief  grievance  against  Spencer, 
who  had  joined  the  new  Government,  was  that  he  was  the 
real  culprit  who  had  queered  the  pitch  for  his  National 
Council  scheme  of  the  previous  summer.  He  had  been 
angry  at  the  aloofness  of  Gladstone  after  the  election,  the 
result  of  which  he  knew  had  been  largely  due  to  the  popularity 
of  what  he  called  "  the  cow,"  which  was  his  own  special 
contribution.  But  he  was  still  more  angry  with  Hartington, 
and  the  fact  that  Hartington  was  a  root-and-branch  opponent 
of  Home  Rule  might  have  been  assumed  to  strengthen  his 


566  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT 

sympathy  with  Gladstone's  intentions.  In  some  of  his 
moods,  indeed,  this  was  so.  On  January  25  he  had  told 
Harcourt  that  he  was  "  leaning  much  more  to  Home  Rule 
now  that  he  saw  a  chance  of  getting  rid  of  Hartington," 
and  when  Harcourt  protested  he  replied,  "  I  know  you  will 
weep  at  Hartington's  departure."  "  Yes,"  said  Harcourt, 
"  I  have  two  eyes  and  shall  weep  with  one  when  Hartington 
goes,  and  the  other  when  you  go."  But  Hartington's  refusal 
did  not  make  Chamberlain  less  shy  of  embarking  on  the 
new  adventure.  His  indisposition  was  not  diminished  by 
the  fact  that  he  was  first  offered  the  Admiralty,  a  position 
which,  with  the  views  he  then  held,  was  obviously  inappro- 
priate. He  saw  the  difficulty  of  a  point-blank  refusal  to 
join  the  Ministry.  Such  a  course  might  have  left  him  with 
the  odium  of  having  made  Gladstone's  task  impossible  and 
the  election  of  no  effect.  He  was  not  prepared  for  so 
extreme  a  breach  with  the  Leader  and  the  Party,  and  in 
the  end  accepted  the  Local  Government  Board,  on  the 
same  understanding  as  that  with  Harcourt,  that  he  had 
unlimited  liberty  of  judgment  and  rejection  in  regard  to 
any  proposal  put  forward  in  regard  to  Home  Rule.  Unlike 
Harcourt,  however,  who,  once  embarked,  threw  himself 
heartily  into  the  spirit  of  the  adventure,  Chamberlain  had 
no  heart  in  the  business. 

His  disinclination  was  increased  by  a  trifling  circumstance 
which  assumed  a  rather  absurd  gravity  in  his  mind,  due  in 
part  to  the  fine  quality  of  loyalty  to  his  friends  which 
always  distinguished  him.  Jesse  Collings,  his  most  faithful 
follower,  had  been  offered  the  Under-Secretaryship  of  the 
Local  Government  Board,  but  in  making  the  offer  Gladstone 
had,  as  also  in  the  case  of  the  Under-Secretary  of  the  Board 
of  Trade,  reduced  the  salary  by  £300.  It  was  a  maladroit 
v. 'proceeding,  and  outraged  Chamberlain,  who  wrote  to  Har- 
court (February  5)  a  furious  letter,  in  which  he  said  Collings 
had  won  Gladstone  more  votes  than  all  his  peers  put  together, 
and  this  was  his  reward.  Why  should  not  a  few  thousands 
be  taken  from  Granville  or  Kimberley  or  Childers  ?  He 
had  sent  Gladstone  word  that  as  he  evidently  did  not  attach 


i886]         JESSE  COLLINGS'S  SALARY  567 

importance  to  the  presence  either  of  Ceilings  or  himself  in 
his  Government  he  wished  to  reconsider  his  position. 
Harcourt  assumed  his  best  bedside  manner  in  replying  to 
this  tornado  : 

Harcourt  to  Chamberlain 

7,  GRAFTON  STREET,  February  7. —  ...  I  quite  sympathize 
with  your  feeling  about  Collings,  and  indeed  expressed  myself  to  that 
effect  when  the  suggestion  was  first  made  some  days  ago.  As  an 
abstract  proposition  the  proposal  to  make  the  salaries  of  the  second 
man  have  some  relation  to  that  of  his  chief  is  not  unsound,  but  I 
pointed  out  then  that  it  was  singularly  unfortunate  at  this  moment 
that  the  two  individuals  upon  whom  this  reform  would  fall  were 
Collings  and  Broadhurst  (who  was  then  destined  to  the  Board  of 
Trade),  the  very  men  whom  one  would  have  least  desired  to  make 
the  objects  of  exceptional  reduction-.  -.'  .  .  I  need  not  say  how  much 
I  regret  that  you  and  Mr.  G.  should  have  been  personally  so  much  at 
arms  length  for  the  last  week.  Nothing  can  be  so  unfortunate  for 
both  parties  and  for  the  Government.  The  cordial  co-operation 
of  you  two  is  absolutely  essential  to  its  existence.  You  know  how 
I  deplored  that  you  and  Hartington  did  not  meet  more  and  exchange 
ideas.  Recently  I  think  when  you  did  so  a  great  many  difficulties 
were  removed,  and  so  it  would  be  in  this  case,  and  indeed  it  must  be 
if  things  are  to  go  on.  .  .  . 

I  am  obliged  to  go  to  Derby  to-morrow  (Monday),  and  if  unopposed 
shall  return  Tuesday  or  Wednesday.  I  am  sorry  to  be  absent  as  I 
might  have  been  of  use  in  patching  up  the  Collings  row,  but  don't 
let  a  trifle  of  this  kind  ruin  the  Republic.  .  .  . 

Pray  come  back  in  a  humour  disposed  to  make  the  machine  work. 
You  must  remember  in  regard  to  Collings's  case  that  Mr.  G.  has  no 
doubt  insisted  on  the  reduction  in  the  case  of  Sir  E.  Grey,  who  is  I 
believe  to  go  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  and  it  would  put  Collings  in  a 
false  position  if  he  were  to  refuse  what  Grey  accepts. 

The  same  day  Harcourt  wrote  to  Gladstone  telling  him 
that  Chamberlain  was  very  sore  about  the  reduction,  and 
asking  him  to  request  Chamberlain  to  come  and  see  him 
personally.     "  I  think  that  the  real  grievance/'  he  con-"! 
tinued,  "  is  that  he  considers    you    have    withheld  your  1 
confidence  and  not  communicated  with  him  as  much  as  \ 
he  deserved.     A  friendly  talk  would  I  think  remove  many 
difficulties  which  may  become  very  serious  ...  I  have 
found  C.  very  amenable  when  so  handled."    To  Lord  Rose- 
bery  he  wrote  saying,  "  It  would  be  a  calamitous  thing  if 


568  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

the  Chamberlain  connection  were  to  fly  off  upon  a  miserable 
pecuniary  squabble,"  and  that  Gladstone's  attitude  "  pro- 
vokes him  (Chamberlain)  to  see  slights  where  they  are  not 
intended  and  to  make  difficulties  which  might  otherwise  be 
got  over."  Gladstone  promptly  acted  on  Harcourt's  advice. 
Writing  next  day  to  him,  he  said  : 

Gladstone  to  Har court. 

MENTMORE,  February  8. — No  fear.     I  have  not  the  least  intention 

of  having  a  row  about  the  £300.     I  am  awaiting  a  note  from  Jesse. 

If  he  holds  out  I  shall  (without  compromising  your  rights)  at  once 

'  •'  give  way  to  Chamberlain's  will ;   not  so  his  reasons  which  are  null. 

I  have  also  made  up  my  mind  to  write  to  him  to-day  or  to-morrow, 
and  invite  a  communication  towards  the  end  of  the  week.  But 
people  give  me  credit  I  think  for  working  six  times  faster  than  I 
can  work.  There  is  an  old  and  good  saying,  "  Put  one  foot  upon 
another."  Still  there  must  always  be  one  foot  after  another.  My 
hands  are  full,  and  my  pace  I  suppose  is  slow. 

There  is  one  Irish  subject  which  I  much  wish  to  discuss  with  you 
when  I  come  back  and  after  your  meditated  excursion  ;  say  about 
Thursday  or  Friday. 

I  understand  your  mind  is  finally  made  up  about  your  official 
house,  except  a  room,  in  the  negative.  If  so  it  will  be  much  to  the 
advantage  of  my  staff  that  we  should  all  resume  our  positions. 
But  if  you  decide  or  lean  otherwise,  we  can  all  do  quite  well  in  the 
First  Lord's  house.1 

The  storm  blew  over,  but  the  memory  remained  as  one 
of  those  small  irritations  that  have  their  place  in  the  sum 
of  great  events.  Chamberlain  wrote  to  Harcourt  (February 
9)  that  Gladstone  had  surrendered  subject  to  his  (Har- 
court's) approval,  and  calling  on  him  not  to  dock  poor 
Collings  of  his  scanty  pittance. 

ii 

Harcourt,  who  had  been  returned  unopposed  for  Derby, 
addressed  himself  at  once  to  the  task  of  proving  that  he 

1  Harcourt,  possibly  with  a  prescience  of  the  early  defeat  of  the 
Government,  had  determined  not  to  occupy  the  official  residence 
of  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  No.  n,  Downing  Street.  He 
continued  to  reside  at  his  own  house  in  Grafton  Street,  leaving 
No.  ii  to  be  occupied  by  Mr.  Gladstone's  secretarial  staff,  as  in 
1880-85,  with  the  exception  of  one  sitting-room,  which  Harcourt 
reserved  for  himself. 


i886]  FIGHTS   FOR   ECONOMY  569 

was,  in  his  own  phrase,  the  greatest  "  skinflint  "  who  had 
ever  been  at  the  Treasury.     It  was  a  task  that  appealed  to 
him  in  many  ways.      He  had  imbibed  from  Cornewall  Lewis 
a  passion  for  public  ecpj*6my,  his  experience  of  office  had 
convinced  him  of  the  enormity  of  departmental  waste ; 
above  all,  he  had  long  groaned  under  the  ever-increasing 
exactions  of  the  war  services,  and  the  opportunity  of  coming 
to   grips   with   those   devouring   monsters   had    a   special 
attraction  for  the  most  pugnacious  pacifist  that  ever  drew 
his  sword  in  the  cause  of  brotherly  love.     He  set  out  to 
slay  the  dragons  of  public  profligacy  with  the  same  fury 
with  which  for  the  past  four  or  five  years  he  had  assailed 
the  dragons  of  public  disorder,  and  for  the  time  being  his  old 
and  eminently  peaceful  friend  Ripon,  who  had  the  misfortune 
to  be  at  the  Admiralty,  and  Campbell-Bannerman,  who  had 
gone  to  the  War  Office,  seemed  little  better  than  his  old 
enemies  the  anarchists,  masquerading  in  an  artful  disguise 
of  honest,  middle-aged  gentlemen.     The  wholesome  tradition 
of  Treasury  control  over  the  spending  departments,  which 
has  vanished  in  these  spendthrift  days  when  the  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer  has  little  more  authority  over  the  Esti- 
mates than  he  has  over  the  motions  of  the  tides,  still  survived, 
and  Harcourt  exercised  it  with  that  merciless  and  masterful 
insistence  that  made  him,  as  one  of  his  present  victims  said,  a 
thorn  in  the  flesh  to  his  friends  as  well  as  a  terror  to  his  foes. 
He  began  operations  without  delay  by  sending  a  shot 
across  Ripon's  bows  as  a  warning.     He  told  him  (February 
10)   that  if   "  the   Cabinet   should   determine   sensibly  to 
increase   the  naval   and  military   expenditure   above   the 
normal  rate  of  the  last  few-years,  I  cannot  be  the  Minister 
to  ask  for  the  ways  and  means  for  such  a  purpose.     I  have 
made  up  my  mind  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  state  of 
affairs  which  calls  for  increased  expenditure  on  armaments, 
and  the  condition  of  the  country  will  not  justify  exceptional 
taxation."     Ripon  did  not  like  the  warning  shot.     "  It  is 
a  mistake  to  begin  firing  your  big  guns  at  the  commencement 
of  an  action,"  he  wrote  (February  10) ;  "  I  shall  reserve  mine 
for  closer  quarters."     With  this  exchange,  the  engagement 


570  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1886 

began.  From  Campbell-Bannerman  at  the  War  Office 
came  the  intolerable  tidings  that  the  Estimates  bequeathed 
to  him  by  his  predecessor  in  the  office  necessitated  an 
addition  of  two  and  a  half  millions  to  the  Army  expenditure. 
There  were  10,000  more  troops  for  India,  the  maintenance 
of  18,000  men  in  Egypt,  necessitating  depots  in  this  country 
for  the  provision  of  the  necessary  drafts,  and  so  on.  Har- 
court,  boiling  with  indignation,  turned  for  support  to  his 
Chief,  who  had  been  a  famous  "  skinflint  "  in  his  day. 
Gladstone  sent  him  (February  12)  a  letter  designed  to 
override  the  culprits  at  the  War  Office  and  the  Admiralty. 
Unfortunately,  while  it  supported  Harcourt's  immediate 
point  it  did  so  by  threatening  him  with  other  demands 
upon  his  purse.  Ireland  was  paramount,  and,  said  Glad- 
stone, the  settlement  of  the  land  question  would  involve 
such  heavy  expenditure  that  the  cost  of  the  fighting  services 
must  be  reduced  within  practicable  limits.  Harcourt  sent 
the  letter  off  to  Ripon  and  Campbell-Bannerman  with  an 
accompanying  note  in  which  he  said  : 

February  12. —  .  .  .  The  naval  and  military  Estimates  of  1884-5 
and  1885-6  have  reached  the  sum  of  £30,000,000,  a  high-level 
mark  never  attained  before  even  in  the  time  of  Lord  Palmerston's 
panics. 

This  has  been  due  partly  to  the  Egyptian  muddle,  partly  to  the 
Pall  Mall  scare  got  up  by  the  Services. 

In  my  opinion  the  expenditure  must  be  reduced — in  no  event 
can  it  be  allowed  to  be  exceeded. 

I  do  not  believe  in  Pall  Mall  scares,  and  I  am  hostile  to  a  pro 
longed  occupation  of  Egypt.  I  can  therefore  be  no  party  to  an 
increase  of  war  expenditure  founded  on  either  of  these  elements. 

To  propose  in  a  time  of  peace  an  increase  in  the  number  of  the 
army — or  a  larger  expenditure  than  the  great  augmentation  we  have 
already  made  in  the  navy — is  a  thing  which  I  cannot  accept.  It 
would  be  in  my  opinion  unjustifiable  in  a  time  when  the  resources 
of  the  country  were  nourishing.  In  the  present  condition  of  its 
finances  it  would  be  not  only  unjustifiable  but  I  am  glad  to  think 
also  impossible. 

The  various  sources  of  revenue  are  failing.  All  classes  of  the 
country  are  distressed.  In  such  a  situation  there  is  only  one 
resource  for  sound  finance — magnum  est  vectigal — parsimonia. 
It  is  the  only  finance  for  which  I  can  make  myself  personally 
responsible. 


i886]  COST  OF  ARMAMENTS  57* 

As  he  could  obtain  no  definite  assurances  of  reduction 
he  appealed  again  to  Caesar.     Writing  to  Gladstone  (February 
12),  he  said  the  Admiralty  asked  for  a  million  and  a  half 
additional;    the  War  Office  for  two  and  a  half  millions. 
There  was  no  way  of  meeting  their  demands  except  by  an 
additional  zd.  on  the  income  tax.     "  That  I  cannot  propose." 
In  six  years  "  your  Government  "  had  already  raised  the 
war  and  naval  Estimates  from  25  to  30  millions.     Now  it 
was  proposed  to  raise  them  to  34  millions.     "  If  this  is 
done  I  think  it  should  be  done  by  a  Tory  administration." 
And  next  day  he  returned  to  the  charge  with  a  letter 
concluding,  "  It  is  not  therefore  at  all  with  me  a  question 
of  details  or  to  how  much  or   how  little  they  are  to  be 
increased,  but  my  position  is  absolute  that  they  shall  not 
be  increased  at  all.    That  is  the  only  sound  and  intelligible 
ground  to  take— and  I  at  least  must  stand  or  fall  by  it." 
3  In  the  light  of  the  colossal  public  burdens  of  to-day, 
when  the  income  tax  levies  shillings  where  it  then  levied 
pence,  and  the  national  debt  is  reckoned  by  the  thousand 
instead  of  the  hundred  millions,  the  alarm  of  Harcourt  at 
the  financial  outlook  will  seem  exaggerated.     But  we  cannot 
apply  the  standards  of  a  shipwrecked  society  to  the  economy 
of  a  seaworthy  vessel.     From  the  point  of  view  of  the 
sober  and  rigorous  traditions  of  that  enviable  time,  the 
financial  outlook  furnished  abundant  reason  for  Harcourt's 
anxiety.    The  Treasury  were  faced  by  a  deficit  on  the 
closing  year  of  nearly  £3,400,000  instead  of  an  estimated 
deficit  of  £2,800,000,  and  with  a  total  deficit  in  the  years 
1884-5  and  1885-6  of  £4,500,000.     In  a  rough  draft  of  his 
Budget  which  he  sent   to   Gladstone,   Harcourt   said  he 
proposed  to  meet  this  two  years'  deficit  by  suspending  the 
debt  payments  to  the  extent  of  £5,200,000.     It  followed  that 
if  there  were  to  be  increases  on  the  army  and  navy  they 
must  come  out  of  income  tax.     He  presented  Gladstone 
with  figures  showing  with  what  alarming  progression  the 
cost  of  military  establishments  had  advanced  since  his  first 
Premiership.    Gladstone   agreed  that   there   must   be   no 
new  taxation,  and  that  it  was  impossible  both  to  arrest 


572  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1886 

the  Sinking  Fund  and  to  leave  the  deficit  unprovided  for. 
At  his  suggestion  Childers,  the  ex-Chancellor,  was  called 
in  to  go  over  the  Estimates  with  Harcourt  and  the  offending 
Ministers.  But  the  utmost  that  could  be  got  out  of  them 
was  the  whittling-down  of  the  increase  of  their  Estimates 
over  the  previous  year  from  four  millions  to  two. 

Harcourt  was  not  satisfied,  and  informed  Gladstone 
(February  19)  that  if  these  Estimates  were  accepted  he 
must  ask  to  be  allowed  to  resign  his  office.  Gladstone 
gently  ignored  the  threat,  and  urged  Harcourt  to  meet  the 
other  three  again.  Childers  complained  to  Gladstone 
(February  21)  that  Harcourt  was  lacking  in  patience. 
"  Estimates  are  not  to  be  reduced  by  strong  language,  but 
by  patient  and  searching  inquiries."  But  Harcourt's 
point  was  that  if  he  was  inveigled  into  the  discussion  of 
details  he  was  beaten  by  the  departments  beforehand. 
"  No  real  economy  will  be  achieved,"  he  wrote  to  Gladstone 
(February  22),  "  until  a  resolution  is  taken  and  adhered  to, 
of  fixing  a  maximum  which  is  not  to  be  exceeded.  If  you 
had  felt  at  liberty  to  express  to  the  heads  of  departments 
your  own  opinion  and  wish  for  economy,  which  I  have  so 
often  asked  for,  the  issue  might  have  been  different.  For 
me  the  situation  is  impossible.  I  feel  to  stand  alone  and 
I  must  fall  alone."  However,  he  did  not  fall.  The  renewed 
conferences  reduced  the  Estimates  of  the  war  services 
another  million,  and  E.  W.  Hamilton,  the  Prime  Minister's 
secretary,  wrote  to  Harcourt : 

E.   W.  Hamilton  to  Harcourt. 

10,  DOWNING  STREET,  February  25. —  .  .  .  This  is  an  enormous 
reduction  to  have  effected ;  the  largest,  I  believe,  on  record. 
Mr.  Gladstone  about  twenty-three  years  ago  knocked  oft:  two  millions 
— in  the  teeth  of  Lord  Palmerston's  and  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  opposition 
— a  feat  on  which  he  always  much  prided  himself  ;  and  he  had  as  a 
lever  the  threat  of  a  Select  Committee  and  a  vote  of  censure  on  the 
extravagance  of  the  Government.  You  have  now  surpassed  this  feat 
with  a  Parliament  sitting  which  thinks  a  deal  more  about  spending 
than  economizing.  ...  I  venture  to  hope  in  the  interests  of  the 
Government  and  the  Treasury  that  you  may  rest  content  with  the 
great  work  of  economy  which  you  have  already  effected,  sooner 
than  that  more  serious  results  should  follow. 


i886]          THE   "COTTAGE"   BUDGET  573 

The  controversy  between  the  great  departments  and  the 
Treasury  ends  on  a  pleasanter  note.  Harcourt  wrote  to 
Lord  Ripon  a  minute  endorsed  for  handing  on  to  Campbell- 
Bannerman,  to  say  how  the  French  Government  were 
balancing  their  budget  by  curtailing  their  naval  and  military 
commitments,  and  added,  "  As  Carlyle  says,  '  Great  art 
thou,  oh  bankruptcy.'  What  a  good  thing  for  the  world 
it  would  be  if  all  nations  were  altogether  insolvent !  How 
much  less  mischief  they  would  do !  "  On  the  back  of  this 
note  Campbell-Bannerman  minutes,  "  You  are  very  cruel 
after  the  ruthless  sacrifices  you  have  imposed  on  us.  ... 
No  doubt  great  would  be  the  uses  of  bankruptcy  ;  it  might 
even  make  a  Treasury  and  a  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
unnecessary  ?  But  even  beggars  will  fight,  so  that  a  War 
Minister  (without  salary)  would  still  survive." 

The  Budget  was  introduced  by  Harcourt  on  April  15.  It 
had  no  outstanding  features,  and  was  called  the  "  Cottage  " 
Budget  owing  to'  the  abandonment  of  the  licence  for  cottage 
brewing.  Its  real  achievement  was  the  avoidance  of  new 
taxation,  due  to  Harcourt's  uncompromising  resistance  to 
the  demands  of  the  war  services. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 
DEFEAT  OF  HOME  RULE 

The  Tory  volte-face — Differences  in  the  Cabinet  on  the  draft  of 
the  Bill — Chamberlain's  resignation — Harcourt's  speech  in 
the  House  on  the  Bill — Attempt  to  dissuade  Chamberlain  from 
voting  on  the  second  reading — Defeat  of  the  Government — 
General  Election. 

WHILE  Harcourt  was  fighting  his  battle  with  the 
war  departments,  the  attention  of  Parliament 
and  the  country  was  occupied  with  the  pre- 
parations for  the  coming  struggle  on  which  the  fate  of  the 
Government  hung.  The  prospects  were  not  promising.  The 
stampede  of  .the  Conservative  leaders  from  their  Parnellite 
allies  at  the  election  had  consolidated  their  party  more 
firmly  than  before.  They  had  an  unpleasant  incident  to 
live  down,  and  the  recollection  of  their  aberration  from  the 
path  of  virtue  lent  new  fervour  to  their  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  the  Union.  They  had  every  reason  to  feel  con- 
fident. The  defection  of  Hartington  and  the  Whigs,  and 
the  aloofness  of  Bright/ from  the  Government  at  the  mere 
hint  of  Home  Rule  tendencies,  had  gravely  weakened  the 
parliamentary  following  of  Gladstone.  And  these  losses, 
it  was  assumed,  only  foreshadowed  more  serious  defections. 
Harcourt  and  Chamberlain  were,  next  to  Gladstone  himself, 
easily  the  most  powerful  members  of  the  Government,  and 
-both  had  accepted  office  with  a  very  clear  intimation  that 
they  reserved  to  themselves  entire  freedom  of  action  on  the 
capital  question.  One  or  both  of  them  might  be  expected 
to  break  away,  and  in  either  case  it  was  tolerably  certain 
that  the  Government  could  not  survive. 
Meanwhile  feeling  was  rising  in  the  country  to  fever  heat. 

574 


i886]  CHURCHILL  IN   BELFAST  575 

Randolph  Churchill,  who  had  played  so  leading  a  part  in 
angling  for  the  Irish  vote,  had  swung  round  with  the  tide  of      ^ 
events,  and  had  become  the  most  frenzied  assailant  of  the 
policy  from  which  he  had  now  scuttled.     Only  a  few  months  , 
before  he  had  had  to  cancel  a  meeting  at  Liverpool  owing  \ 
to  the  opposition  of  the  Orangemen  to  his  notorious  flirta- 
tions with  the  Parnellites  ;   now  he  went  as  the  hot  gospeller 
of  Orange  ascendancy  to  the  holy  city  of  that  cult,  and,  as 
so  often  happened  at  critical  moments  in  Belfast,  serious 
rioting  followed.    The  Orangemen  were  encouraged  to  defy 
Home  Rule  if  it  should  become  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the 
lambkins  of  Unionism  had  their  simple  gospel  condensed  for 
them  into  the  jingle  "  Ulster  will  fight  and  Ulster  will  be 
right."    The  disorders  in  Belfast  were  so  serious  that  they  led 
to  grave  conflicts  with  the  military  and  the  police,  the  latter 
of  whom  were  dubbed  "  Morley's  murderers."    Churchill 
did  not  confine  his  activities  to  inflaming  the  Orange  mob 
and  alarming  the  comfortable  Englishman  by  the  cry  of    ^ 
"  The  Empire  in  danger."    He  conceived,  being  a  Churchill, 
the  idea  of  a  new  political  party.    At  Manchester  on  March 
'3>e  invited  Liberals  to  join  the  Conservatives  in  forming  a   Lx 
"political  organization  to  which  he  gave  the  name  of  Unionist. 
It  was  to  be  a  party  which  "  shall  be  essentially  English  in 
all  those  ideas  of  justice,  of  moderation,  of  freedom  from 
prejudice,  of  resolution,  which  are  the  peculiarities  of  the 
English  race."     It  was  a  noble  programme,  and  Churchill 
as  the  preacher  of  justice  and  moderation  gave  the  proposal 
an  appropriate  touch  of  humour. 

While  all  this  was  going  on  in  the  country  the  Bill  that 
was  awaited  with  such  eager  interest  and  even  alarm  was 
on  the  anvil.     It  engaged  the  whole  mind  of  Gladstone,  who,n 
however,  at  this  stage  worked  largely  alone,  leaving  the   1 
negotiations  with  Parnell  to  the  Irish  Secretary.     It  was  J 
not  until  March  7  that  he  sent  to  Harcourt  a  paper  indicating  *• 
the  lines  of  his  plan.     Harcourt  replied  that  the  scheme,  in 
the  words  of  Pitt's  comjfhent  on  Butler's  Analogy,  "  raised 
more  doubts  in  my  m«J  than  it  solved."     He  insisted  that 
the  scheme,  talis  qualis,  should  be  brought  before  the  Cabinet 


. 
u 


576  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

without  any  delay,  pronounced  against  the  dual  composition 
of  the  Irish  Parliament,  held  that  if  there  was  to  be  a  counter- 
check it  should  take  the  foft-fn  of  a  Second  Chamber,  declared 
that  the  exclusion  jof-lhejhish  members  from  the  English 
Parliament  was  a(sin^qua  non,  and  raised  other  points  which, 
"  if  the  Cabinet  sat  every  day  for  three  months,  we  should 
have  little  time  enough  to  discuss  and  consider."  So  far 
so  good.  He  was  critical,  but  not  hostile.  Gladstone  gently 
pleaded  that  "it  is  not  possible  to  work  a  Cabinet  on  the 
basis  of  universal  discussion  without  purpose,  at  any  rate 
at  seventy-seven,"  but  he  acted  promptly  on  the  suggestion 
that  the  scheme  should  come  before  the  Cabinet.  A  week 
later  (March  13)  the  plan,  which  consisted  of  two  parts,  a 
scheme  for  creating  a  legislative  body  and  a  scheme  of  land 
i /"purchase,  was  put  before  the  Cabinet.  The  land  scheme 
\  was  pressed  by  Spencer  and  Mr.  John  Morley.  but  it  was  not 
^popular,  and  gravely  prejudiced  the  prospects  of  the  major 
proposal.  Chamberlain  and  Sir  G.  O.  Trevelyan  indicated 
their  wish  to  resign  at  once  ;  but  were  prevailed  on  to  post- 
pone that  step.  Harcourt  was  not  without  hope  at  this 
stage  that  it  might  be  postponed  altogether,  for  the  Journal 
records : 

March  15. — Chamberlain  had  a  long  talk  with  W.  V.  H.  in  the 
latter's  room  at  the  House  of  Commons.  C.  is  determined  to  go, 
and  is  most  anxious  to  take  W.  V.  H.  with  him  if  possible.  W.  V.  H. 
said,  "  Will  you  go  and  see  Spencer  and  talk  it  over  with  him  ?  " 
Chamberlain  replied,  "  No,  certainly  not.  I  have  the  greatest 
contempt  for  Spencer,  who  has  been  the  origin  of  all  the  mischief. 
He  thinks  that  because  he  could  not  govern  Ireland  no  one  else 
can."  Before  leaving  Chamberlain  said,  "I  must  see  Trevelyan 
before  he  sends  in  his  resignation  and  tell  him  to  leave  some  loop- 
hole of  escape,  or  he  may  find  himself  out  in  the  cold  alone,"  which 
does  not  look  as  if  Chamberlain  were  so  determined.  [H.] 

It  is  not  easy  to  follow  the  motives  of  Chamberlain  through 
all  the  tangle  of  discussion  from  the  summer  of  1885  onwards, 
and  the  conclusion  one  is  driven  to  is  that  so  disruptive  a 
temper  was  destined  to  explode  no  matter  what  terms  were 
proposed.  He  had  joined  the  Government,  without  enthu- 
siasm it  is  true,  but  with  the  understanding  that  he  would 


i886]  CHAMBERLAIN   OBJECTS  577 

"  examine  "  (in  the  terms  of  Gladstone's  memorandum)  the 
practicability  of  a  scheme  of  Home  Rule.  But  on  the  first 
production  of  the  scheme  he  expressed  his  wish  to  resign 
withmit_a  show  of  examination.. 

"^Before  the  Cabinet  reassembled  Harcourt,  who,  though 
himself  highly  combustible,  had  a  great  gift  for  managing 
the  fire  engine  when  political  conflagrations  broke  out,  made 
praiseworthy   efforts  to   avert   the  catastrophe.     He  still 
shared  many  of  the  hesitations  of  Chamberlain,  but  with 
this  difference  that  he  was  satisfied  that  recent  events— the 
Carnarvon  episode,  the  Tory  bid  for  the  Irish  vote,  the  result 
of  the  election  in  Ireland,  and  Gladstone's  decisive  challenge 
—had  made  it  necessary  that  Home  Rule  should  be  thor- 
oughly explored,  and  even  tried,  before  the  alternative  of 
force  could  again  be  considered.    This  was  a  clear  attitude. 
Chamberlain,  on  the  other  hand,  was  as  hostile  to  Coercion 
as  ever,  but  now  equally  hostile  to  Home  Rule.     In  a 
memorandum  of  conversations  with  him  which  Harcourt 
sent  to  Gladstone  on  the  morning  of  March  20,  he  said  that 
Chamberlain   objected  to  boti/  branches   of  the  scheme 
independently  and  in-  combination— to  the  land  scheme 
because  there  was  no  sufiicient  security  for  the  money,  to 
the  legislative  scheme  because  there  was  no  guarantee  for 
the  integrity  of  the  Empir«  and  the  supremacy  of  Parliament. 
He  would  not  look  ara  settlement  on  Dominion  lines,  but 
seemed  prepared  to  discuss  a  federal  system  after  the  pattern^, 
of  the  United  States.     Harcourt  in  forwarding  the  memor- 
l  andum  urged  Gladstone  to  see  Chamberlain  himself. 

This  course  Gladstone  does  not  seem  to  have  followed. 
When  later  in  the  day  (March  20)  the  Cabinet  met  the 
situation  was  extremely  feverish.  Chamberlain,  according 
to  his  own  subsequent  statement,  intended  to  be  conciliatory. 
But  Gladstone,  still  smarting  under  what  he  regarded  as  the 
indefensible  haste  with  which  Chamberlain  had  turned 
down  the  scheme,  did  not  make  things  easy,  and  the  meeting 
was  disagreeable  and  even  painful.  The  exchanges  between 
Gladstone  and  Chamberlain  were  marked  by  extraordinary 
bitterness,  and  vwhen  the  Cabinet  broke  up  Chamberlain 


PP 


578  SIR  WILLIAM  HARCOURT  [1886 

and  Trevelyan  had  resigned.  The  breach,  no  doubt,  was 
inevitable  sooner  or  later,  but  it  is  difficult  to  resist  the 
conclusion  that  incompatibility  of  temper  had  as  much  to 
do  with  it  at  this  moment  as  differences  of  policy.  When 
the  resignations  were  publicly  announced  and  irrevocable 
Harcourt  wrote  to  Chamberlain  : 

Harcourt  to  Chamberlain. 

TREASURY,  WHITEHALL,  March  26. — Though  the  event  of  to-day 
has  been  long  foreseen  it  is  not  the  less  painful  to  me  now  it  has 
arrived.  I  feel  myself  separated  from  nearly  all  the  men  with  whom 
I  have  the  most  personal  sympathy.  These  are  the  things  which 
make  political  life  intolerable. 

The  situation  is  so  difficult  that  I  find  myself  hardly  able  to  form 
a  judgment  on  my  own  course — still  less  on  that  of  others.  .  .  . 

Whatever  may  be  the  changes  and  chances  of  these  bad  times  I 
hope  we  shall  remain  friends.  For  apart  from  politics  there  are 
few  men  whose  friendship  I  value  more  than  yours. 

Chamberlain  replied  (March  27)  in  similar  vein.  He  felt 
confident  that  their  personal  relations  would  not  be  altered, 
though  the  case  of  Burke  and  Fox  showed  how  difficult  it 
was  for  politicians,  driven  apart  in  public  life,  to  maintain 
private  intimacy  and  regard.  As  to  Home  Rule  he  did  not 
believe  that  Gladstone  had  one  convinced  supporter  for  his 
policy  as  a  whole  and  thought  that  the  policy  would  have 
been  scouted  unanimously  by  the  Liberal  Party  if  it  had 
come  from  anyone  else. 

ii 

The  defection  of  the  Radical  leader  was  not  the  end  of 
the  trouble.  Chamberlain's  departure  did  not  leave  the 
Cabinet  an  entirely  happy  family.  Harcourt  had  done  his 
best  to  keep  Chamberlain  in  the  Cabinet,  but  more  than 
once  he  was  on  the  point  of  going  himself.  He  was  as 
resolute  for  the  exclusion  of  the  Irish  members  as  Chamber- 
/  lain  had  been  against,  and  when  Gladstone  showed  some 
disposition  to  compromise  on  this  subject  he  threatened  to 
resign.  "  Your  father,"  said  Spencer  to  Lewis  Harcourt, 
"  is  very  difficult  to  deal  with  on  this  question,  for  first  he 
refuses  to  discuss  it  at  all,  and  then  he  makes  a  bother 


i886]  THE   HOME   RULE   BILL  579 

because  he  has  not  been  allowed  enough  time  to  discuss  it." 
The  air  was  thick  with  rumours  that  he  had  resigned,  and 
in  the  Cabinet  he  made  it  clear  that  he  would  resign  if  the 
"  vital  and  essential  "  twenty -fourth  clause  which  provided 
for  the  removal  of  the  Irish  members  was  tampered  with. 
But  nothing  of  these  conflicts  behind  the  scenes  was 
reflected  in  Harcourt 's  public  attitude  when  theereat 
argument  came  before  Parliament.  It  was  on 
Gladstone,  amid  circumstances  of  public  emotion  unpre- 
cedented even  in  his  long  career,  threw  down  his  gage  of 
battle.  Outside  the  House  great  multitudes  hailed  the 
arrival  of  the  combatants  with  the  cheers  and  counter- 
cheers  of  conflicting  passions,  and  inside  the  House,  where 
members  had  taken  their  seats  at  the  dawn  of  day,  the 
scene  was  one  of  extraordinary  intensity.  The  greatness 
of  the  occasion,  the  disruption  of  parties,  the  emotions  that 
centred  in  the  venerable  figure  who  had  taken  the  field  for 
his  last  and  most  daring  adventure — all  conspired  to  make 
the  occasion  memorable  in  the  annals  of  Parliament.  Glad- 
stone's speech  in  moving  for  leave  to  introduce  the  Bill 
was  a  noble  appeal  to  the  better  mind  of  men,  simple  and 
weighty,  without  a  provocative  note,  but  directed  to  attune 
the  thoughts  of  his  hearers  to  a  new  theme  and  to  keep  them 
accessible  to  the  arguments  of  reason  and  justice.  The 
ydebate  was  resumed  the  next  day  by  Chamberlain,  who 
/  declared  his  opposition  to  the  scheme  as  a  whole  and  to  each 
part  of  it,  but  surprised  the  House  by  advocating  some 
scheme  of  federation,  and  it  was  continued  by  Hartington 
and  Mr.  John  Morley.  Harcourt  spoke  on  April  13.  His 
readiness  to  speak  brought  a  grateful  message  from  Glad- 
stone, who  said  he  had  feared  that  Harcourt  with  "  budget- 
on-the-brain  "  would  be  too  much  occupied  to  do  so.  Har- 
court replied  : 

TREASURY,  April  n. — 'Many  thanks  for  your  kind  letter.  I  think 
for  all  reasons  it  is  right  and  necessary  that  I  should  vindicate  my 
position,  which  I  shall  feel  the  less  difficulty  in  doing  after  the  total 
failure  of  Trevelyan,  Chamberlain,  and  Hartington  to  suggest  any 
alternative,  I  should  like  to  speak  after  Randolph  Churchill  to- 


a 
» 


580  SIR   WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

morrow  before  dinner,  and  will  unless  I  hear  from    you  to  the 
contrary,  so  inform  the  Speaker. 

In  his  speech  he  at  once  came  to  grips  with  Chamberlain. 
He  quoted  from  a  book  entitled  The  Radical  Programme,  to 
which  Chamberlain  had  written  a  preface  of  general  approval, 
,nd  which  declared  with  unqualified  emphasis  for  Irish 
self-government.  Chamberlain  protested  that  he  had  only 
written  the  preface,  but  Harcourt,  pointing  out  that  the 
preface  commended  the  contents  as  "  an  attempt  to  compile 
a  definite  and  practical  programme  for  the  Radical  Party," 
proceeded  suavely  with  his  deadly  quotations,  amid  the 
increasing  protests  of  Chamberlain.  It  was  on  both  sides 
good-humoured,  but  it  was  the  beginning  of  a  duel  that  was 
only  to  end  with  the  close  of  the  active  career  of  one  of 
them.  For  the  rest,  Harcourt's  speech  was  a  powerful  state- 
ment of  the  case  for  a  new  policy.  He  based  that  case  on 
the  ground  that  the  Conservative  association  with  the  Irish 
in  the  previous  summer  had  made  Coercion  no  longer  a 
tenable  position  until  the  alternative  sanctioned  in  the 
Carnarvon  negotiations,  and  blessed  in  the  Newport  speech, 
had  been  honestly  faced.  In  his  opinion  the  events  of  last 
June  had  entirely  changed  the  whole  aspect  of  the  Irish 
question. 

...  I  was  convinced  at  that  time  (he  continued),  I  am  more 
convinced  now — that  those  events  and  the  course  then  taken  by  the 
Conservative  Party  made  Home  Rule  inevitable.  ...  I  am  not 
stating  that  the  course  then  taken  was  a  right  or  a  wrong  course  ; 
all  I  say  is  that  it  has  had  certain  results,  and  those  results  cannot 
be  recalled.  Now  what  was  the  character  of  that  act  ?  It  was 
unquestionably  a  condemnation  of  the  policy  Lord  Spencer  had 
pursued.  ...  It  was  not  merely  that  the  Crimes  Act  was  allowed 
to  expire,  but  the  whole  of  the  General  Election  was  fought  on  those 
lines. 

The  tone  of  the  speech  was  not  bitter,  but  it  examined  the 
positions  of  Hartington  and  Churchill  with  shrewdness  and 
wit,  and  disposed  of  the  strange  assortment  of  bedfellows 
now  associated  in  opposition  to  the  Government  by  a 
delightful  application  of  Burke's  famous  description  of 
Chatham's  later  administration,  the  appositeness  of  which  to 


i886]  ATTACKS   GOSCHEN  581 

the  new  Unionist  combination  filled  the  House  with  shrieks 
of  laughter  as  with  each  thrust  he  turned  now  to  Chamber- 
lain, now  to  Hartington,  now  to  Churchill,  now  to  Goschen  : 

.  .  .  He  made  an  Administration  so  checkered  and  speckled ; 
he  put  together  a  piece  of  joinery  so  crossly  indented  and  whim- 
sically dovetailed  ;  a  cabinet  so  variously  inlaid  ;  such  a  piece  of 
diversified  mosaic  ;  such  a  tessellated  pavement  without  cement ; 
here  a  bit  of  black  stone  and  there  a  bit  of  white  (cheers  and  ironical 
cheers  and  laughter)  ;  patriots  and  courtiers,  King's  friends  and 
Republicans  (cheers  and  ironical  cheers  and  laughter)  ;  Whigs 
and  Tories,  treacherous  friends  and  open  enemies  (cheers  and  ironical 
cheers  and  laughter)  found  themselves,  they  knew  not  how,  pigging 
together  (cheers  and  ironical  cheers  and  laughter),  heads  and  points 
in  the  same  truckle-bed.  It  was  indeed  a  very  curious  show  ; 
but  utterly  unsafe  to  touch  and  unsure  to  stand  on.  (Loud  cheers 
and  ironical  cheers  and  laughter.) 

Not  the  least  effective  passage  of  this  part  of  the  speech 
was  when,  having  disposed  of  the  alternatives  of  those  who 
had  spoken,  he  addressed  himself  to  Goschen.  "  Ah,  but 
we  have  one  hope  left,"  he  cried  in  his  deepest  tones.  And 
he  turned  round  upon  Goschen,  who  was  sitting  dejectedly 
with  his  face  in  his  hands.  "  One  hope  left — can  he 
enlighten  us  ?  I  want  to  know  how  this  skeleton  at  the 
feast  has  settled  our  bill  of  fare."  The  solemnity,  the 
mock  pathos  of  Harcourt's  half -whispering,  broken  tones, 
and  the  adroit  reference  to  Chamberlain's  recent  attacks 
on  Goschen  were,  says  a  contemporary  description,  irre- 
sistibly funny,  "  and  off,  once  more,  went  the  House  into  a 
roar  of  laughter."  Then  he  discussed  the  alternative  Prime 
Ministers.  These  were  Lord  Salisbury,  Lord  Randolph 
Churchill,  Mr.  Chamberlain,  Lord  Hartington,  Sir  Henry 
James,  Mr.  Bright,  and  Mr.  Trevelyan.  They  reminded 
him  of  a  tragedy  of  antiquity,  and  might  be  known  as  the 
"Seven  against  Ireland."  He  had  no  faith  in  the  dream  of 
the  millennium  when  the  "  calf  and  the  young  lion  and  the 
fatling  will  lie  down  together,  with  a  little  child  (perhaps 
from  Paddington)  to  lead  them."  He  warned  them  that  if 
the  aristocracy  of  England  were  going  to  range  themselves 
with  the  party  of  ascendancy  in  Ireland,  the  democracy  of 
England  would  side  with  the  Irish  people.  (Home  Rule 


582  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT 

cheers  and  cries  of  "  Shame !  ")  They  might  reject  this 
Bill,  but  its  record  would  remain  and  its  ghost  would  haunt 
their  festivals  of  Coercion. 

With  this  speech,  to  which  Goschen  replied  with  passion 
and  resentment,  Harcourt  finally  burned  his  boats.  That 
night  the  first  reading  was  passed,  and  with  the  first  reading 
of  the  Land  Purchase  Bill  on  April  16  the  way  was  clear 
for  the  real  struggle.  But  while  Harcourt  had  committed 
himself  irrevocably  to  conciliation,  he  was  still  warring  in 

I   the  Cabinet  against  any  whittling-down  of  the  vital  twenty- 
'  )   fourth  clause  providing  for  exclusion,  and  two  days  later — 

L  the  day  that  he  introduced  his  Budget — he  wrote  to  Glad- 
stone that  he  could  not  be  a  consenting  party  to  the  modi- 
fication of  that  provision. 

Although  the  breach  with  Chamberlain  was  now  a  public 
matter,  Harcourt  had  not  surrendered  hope  that  it  could 
be  healed.  Writing  to  him  two  days  later,  he  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Chamberlain. 
/**- \ 

TREASURY,  WHITEHALL,  ^ftyiZ-j&J — I  have  been  thinking  a  good 

deal  over  our  conversation  yesterday.  I  cannot  but  think  that  you 
should  leave  something  to  "  Time  the  healer." 

I  hope  you  will  not  think  it  necessary  to  "go  out  of  your  own 
parish  "  or  "  preach  out  of  your  own  pulpit  "  during  the  recess. 
You  may  say  all  it  is  necessary  to  say  in  your  "  domestic  forum  " 
without  carrying  the  "  fiery  cross  "  abroad. 

After  all,  we  must  think  of  the  future  of  the  Liberal  Party  after 
these  bad  days  are  overpast,  and  do  what  in  us  lies  to  prevent  its 
rupture  being  irreparable,  wMcn  it  may  well  become.  I  at  least 
shall  act  with  that  view,  and  I  hope  you  will  also.  It  is  quite  clear 
that  if  you  do  not  want  to  make  this  impossible  you  ought  not  to 
lay  down  an  ultimatum  presented  at  the  sword's  point. 

Things  may  alter  a  good  deal  in  the  course  of  the  next  fortnight  if 
they  are  left  alone,  and  there  is  no  use  stirring  up  the  fires  of  hell 
with  a  red-hot  poker. 

I  will  write  to  you  to-morrow  more  at  large  on  special  points,  but 
you  must  see  that  you  cannot  settle  with  the  G.O.M.  on  the  terms  of 
an  absolute  surrender,  in  which  you  shall  assume  the  position  of 
saying  that  from  the  first  you  have  been  all  in  the  right  and  he  all 
in  the  wrong.  This  is  not  compromise  but  capitulation. 

I  am  heartily  sick  of  the  whole  business,  but  I  suppose  I  shall  go 
on  to  the  end  like  Falkland  crying  "  Peace/  Peace  !  " — when  there 
is  no  peace. 


i886]  BREAKING   OF   OLD   TIES 

The  next  day  (April  19)  he  wrote  again  at  great  length, 
pointing  out  to  Chamberlain  his  equivocal  position  and 
reminding  him  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  secessionists  would 
be  Hartingtonians,  not  Chamberlainians.     "If  you  wer< 
to  succeed  in  beating  the  Bill  on  second  reading  I  can  see 
very  well  where  Salisbury,  Hartington,  and  Goschen  would 
be     They  would  go  in  hammer-and-tongs  for  Coercion. 
I  can  see  very  well  where  the  Gladstonians  will  be.     They 
can  stand  aside  and  say,  '  Told  you  so.'   But  where  will  you 
be  ?    You  will  have  made  Coercion  necessary.     I  suppose 
you  will  not  embrace  it.    And  afterwards  ?  "     He  realized 
that  Hartington  was  past  praying  for,  and  that  the 
ton  "  (Goschen)  had  him  fast  in  his  arms.      '  Why  should 
you  sever  yourself  from  what  after  all  must  remain  the  bulk 
of  the  Liberal  Party,  and  why  should  you  do  anything  now 
which  should  widen  and  perpetuate  the  breach  ? 

You  and  I  know  Gladstone  well  enough  (he  continued)  to  bej 
quite  aware  that  the  notion  of  your  dictating  to  him  publicly  terms 
^surrender  is  quite  out  of  the  question.     W*y -not  agree  to  supp  ortl 
the  second  reading,  and  trust  to  what  you~can  do  in  Committee       < 
I  don't  think  Mr.  G.  is  nearly  as  hostile  to  you  as  you  are  to  him 
but  after  all  he  is  the  master  of  the  Party,  and  must  ^  treated  a 
uch  I  understand  that  Edinburgh  is  to  be  made  the  cockpit 

of  the  United  Kingdom.     Hartington  and  Goschen  are  going  the- 
in  couples,  and  I  believe  Spencer  is  going  on  the  Government  ticket. 
am  going  down  to  the  New  Forest  to  hold  my  tongue.     It  is 
the  be™  counsel  I  can  offer  to  my  friends.      I  hope  at  all  events  you 
won't  go  on  the  stump.     I  don't  see  what  possible  good  that  can 
Io  to  anybody,  and  least  of  all  to  yourself.     There  is  no  wound 
yet  madeywhich  cannot  be  healed,  but  if  you  once .begin    o  turn  a 
jagged  sword  round  in  the  flesh  it  is  a  different  thing.     I  may  t 
wrong,  and  my  means  of  judgment  are  not  very  extensive   but  my 
impression  is  that  the  tendency  of  the  Party  is  to  rally  to  Gladstone, 
and  they  will  do  so  the  more  in  proportion  as  he  appears  tc 
used. 

Chamberlain's  reply  (April  21)  was  uncompromising. 
He  would  take  Harcourt's  advice,  and  not  enter  on  a  cam- 
paign •  but  that  was  all.  He  expected  neither  compromise 
nor  concession,  and  imagined  they  would  fight  out  the 
matter  to  the  bitter  end  and  break  the  Liberal  Party  in  tne 
process.  But  they  would  know  whose  fault  it  was,  il 


584  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1886 

was  any  satisfaction.  Nothing  would  induce  him  to  support 
the  second  reading  of  the  Home  Rule  Bill,  without  a  pledge 
that  the  Irishmen  would  be  retained  at  Westminster.  He 
wished  the  matter  could  have  been  squared,  but  they  would 
have  to  take  the  gloves  off  very  soon.  "  I  am  sorry  you  are 
so  bloodthirsty,"  replied  Harcourt  from  the  New  Forest. 
"  I  wonder  what  you  will  be  when  you  take  your  gloves  off. 
...  I  have  heard  nothing,  and  want  to  hear  nothing,  since 
I  left  London.  The  New  Forest  happily  has  no  politics, 
and  since  the  days  of  Rufus  has  had  no  agrarian  crime." 
He  twitted  Chamberlain  with  the  defection  of  John  Morley 
and  Schnadhorst,  the  organizer  of  the  Caucus.  At  this  time 
Schnadhorst  was  himself  writing  to  Harcourt  asking  if  some- 
thing could  not  be  done  to  bring  back  the  wanderers.  "  I 
believe  you  are  against  the  retention  of  the  Irish  members  ; 
so  am  I ;  but  it  is  obvious  that  their  retention  has  become  a 
sort  of  shibboleth  with  very  many  Radicals,  and  I  fear  an 
irreconcilable  attitude  on  this  point  will  cost  sufficient 
votes  to  defeat  the  second  reading." 

As  that  event  drew  near  the  question  of  exclusion  became 
of  dominating  importance.  Gladstone,  always  anxious  to 
meet  the  Chamberlain  group  on  this  point,  wrote  to  Harcourt 
(May  i)  urging  him  to  look  at  the  matter  "  in  a  wise  and 
kindly  spirit."  "  You  and  I,"  he  said  gently,  "  are  not  so 
far  off  as  I  think  you  suppose.  But  you  ride  the  higher 
horse,  and  I  go  at  an  amble."  Chamberlain  himself,  in  the 
fluctuations  of  his  moods,  again  seemed  disposed  to  bargain. 
(Writing  to  Harcourt  on  May  2  he  sent  a  list  of  119  Liberals 
who  would  vote  against  the  second  reading,  but  added  that 

fc  \  if  the  Irish  representatives  were  retai/fed  at  Westminster  he 

Ui"    ^ ~  •        ^n^~""     "          *  _    — 

:hought  fifty-five  of  these  might  vote  with  the  Government. 

Was  there  any  possibility  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  Bill  and 
the  substitution  of  resolutions  affirming  the  principle  ? 
Harcourt  replying  on  May  3  made  fun  of  Chamberlain's 
figures,  pointed  out  that  the  Liberals  in  the  country  were 
with  Gladstone,  predicted  that  the  secessionists  would  go  to 
the  wall,  and,  while  agreeing  with  Chamberlain  as  to  the 
way  the  plan  had  been  launched,  said  "  the  author  of  the 


I886]  .  WAR  TO  THE  KNIFE 

'  unauthorized  programme  '  ought  not  to  be  too  severe  upon 
carpenters  who  improvise  '  new  planks  '  on  the  platform." 
He  saw  no  basis  of  agreement  in  Chamberlain's  "five- 
barrelled  ultimatum  "  to  the  G.O.M.,  but  still  hoped  that  all 
would  be  well,  and  that  before  the  end  of  the  month  they 
could  all  "  kiss  and  be  friends."     Chamberlain,  replying  on 
MavS  admitted  that  it  would  be  madness  for  the  Govern- 
ment  to  ineet  his  views,  and  said  he  did  not  want  a,  com- 
promise.    He  would  prefer  to  fight  the  matter  out  and 
abide  by  the  consequences ;  but  he  had  to  make  advances 
to  satisfy  the  anxiety  of  his  friends  to  keep  the  party  together 
if  possible.     After  this  Harcourt  was  warranted  in  telling^ 
Gladstone  (May  13)  :    "  I  am  sure  you  will  be  deceived 
you  think  Chamberlain  is  to  be  conciliated  on  any  terms. 

J  i        •  r       »> 


He  has  no  thought  but  war  to  the  Imjfe. 


_J 


III 

With  this  correspondence  any  hope  of  healing  the  breach 
with  the  Chamberlain  faction  vanished.     In  the  meantime, 
the  public  excitement  grew.    The  feeling  in  aristocratic 
circles  was  extraordinarily  bitter,  and  a  system  of  social 
proscription  new  to  English  affairs  was  rigorously  adopted. 
It  was  as  though  a  vast  fissure,  cutting  right  across  parties, 
communities,  and  even  families,   had  suddenly  rent  the 
national  life  in  twain.     Peers  and  old  colleagues  refused 
even  to  attend  Gladstone's  dinner  on  the  Queen's  birthday, 
and  Gladstone  plaintively  confessed  that  of  those  who  did 
attend  most  would  have  voted  for  a  motion  of  censure  on  him 
at  his  own  table.     Salisbury  and  Hartington  appeared  at  a 
great  meeting  at  the  Opera  House  in  the  Haymarket  side 
by  side,  and  Salisbury  sounded  the  battle-cry  of  the  new 
fusion—"  ^wpgjy  years  of  resolute  government/; 
society  was  passionate  against  Home  Rule,  and  the  leaders 
were  overwhelmingly  hostile  to  it,  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
Liberal  Party  were  no  less  emphatically  with  Gladstone  in 
his  heroic  enterprise.     The  National  Liberal  Federation, 
which  had  been  in  no  small  measure  the  creation  of  Chamber- 
lain, renounced  him  in  favour  of  his  Chief  and  his  Chief's 


SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

new  policy.  It  was  a  bitter  blow  to  a  proud  man — proud 
above  all  of  his  authority  over  the  great  instrument  that  had 
so  largely  contributed  to  the  victory  of  the  preceding 
December.  His  heart  hardened.  When  Gladstone  sum- 
moned the  memorable  meeting  of  the  Liberal  Party  at  the 
Foreign  Office  on  May  2^,  he  refused  to  go.  In  a  letter  to 
Harcourt  (May  26)  he  gave  as  his  reason  the  wording  of  the 
invitation,  and  referring  to  the  second  reading  said  his 
opposition  to  the  Bill  had  been  reduced  to  the  one  point  of  the 
exclusion  of  the  Irish  from  Westminster,  but  the  Government 
would  not  yield  on  that.  The  good  faith  of  this  suggestion 
may  be  estimated  by  the  fact  that  three  weeks  before, 
writing  to  Dilke,  he  said : 

.  .  .  To  satisfy  others  I  have  talked  about  conciliation  and  have 
consented  to  make  advances,  but  on  the  whole  I  would  rather  vote 
against  the  Bill  than  not,  and  the  retention  of  the  Irish  members  is 
only,  with  me,  the  flag  that  covers  other  objections. 

The  italics  are  mine  in  both  cases.  The  two  statements 
convey  their  own  conclusion.  Harcourt  in  replying  said 
his  absence  would  be  interpreted  "  as  displaying  a  foregone 
determination  not  to  be  reconciled  with  Mr.  G.  on  any 
terms."  On  the  previous  day  Chamberlain  had  called  on 
Harcourt,  and  the  Journal  records  : 

May  25. — Chamberlain  came  to  have  a  talk  with  W.  V.  H.  in  his 
room  at  the  House  of  Commons.  W.  V.  H.  asked  him  what  he  would 
do  if  Gladstone  invited  all  those  in  favour  of  the  principle  of  Irish 
autonomy  to  a  meeting  of  the  Party  at  the  Foreign  Office  on  Thursday 
and  announced  there  that  if  the  second  reading  was  carried  he  should 
not  proceed  with  the  Bill  this  Session  but  bring  it  in  again  in  the 
autumn  with  the  objectionable  24th  clause  considerably  modified 
and  altered.  Chamberlain  would  not  answer  at  once,  but  after  a 
long  conversation  he  said  that  the  concession  was  not  sufficiently 
definite,  and  he  could  not  accept  it.  He  protested  against  the 
invitation  to  the  meeting  of  the  Party  being  so  worded  as  to  exclude 
Hartington  and  his  followers,  and  added  that  if  Hartington  did  not 
go  he,  Chamberlain,  would  also  stay  away  from  the  meeting.  W.  V.  H. 
said,  as  Chamberlain  was  leaving  the  room,  "  Now,  my  dear  Chamber- 
lain, confess  that  no  concession  whatever  would  satisfy  you  or 
moderate  your  hatred  of  Mr.  G.,  whom  you  mean  to  destroy  if  you 
can."  Chamberlain  would  not  admit  this,  but  denied  it  with  a 
bad  grace.  [H.] 


i886]  CLAUSE  TWENTY-FOUR 

At  the  meeting  at  the  Foreign  Office,  Gladstone  indicated 
that  he  was  prepared  to  compromise  on  the  question  of  the 
retention  of  the  Irish  members  at  Westminster.  This 
brought  many  wanderers  back  to  him,  and  it  seemed  that 
the  Bill  might  be  given  a  second  reading  and  then  post- 
poned to  the  autumn  for  amendment.  But  in  the  House 
the  Opposition  made  adroit  use  of  this  olive  branch.  If  the 
Bill  was  to  be  withdrawn  or  postponed  to  give  it  a  second 
reading  would  be  a  farce.  Harcourt  was  still  wrestling  in 
private  with  Chamberlain,  who  wrote  (May  30)  in  his 
blandest  manner,  promising  to  weigh  all  that  Harcourt  had 
said,  declaring  that  his  present  attitude  was  to  abstain  from 
voting  on  the  second  reading,  but  pointing  out  that  post- 
ponement would  only  prolong  the  struggle,  and  that  an 
early  decision  from  the  country  was  desirable.  Harcourt, 
replying  the  same  day,  said  : 

Harcourt  to  Chamberlain. 

TREASURY  CHAMBERS,  May  30. — I  am  extremely  sorry  if  I  used 
last  night  any  expressions  calculated  to  annoy  you  or  which  could 
tend  in  any  way  to  obstruct  the  good  understanding  which  it  is  my 
earnest  desire  to  promote.  As  regards  yourself  my  personal  senti- 
ments are  entirely  unchanged,  and  are  what  they  always  have  been, 
feelings  of  political  respect  as  well  as  personal  regard.  .  .  . 

The  situation  as  I  understand  it  is  this.  The  Government  have 
proposed  a  scheme  for  an  Irish  legislature.  So  far  as  the  object  is 
concerned  I  conceive  you  generally  concur  in  it.  You  object  alto- 
gether to  the  method  in  which  it  is  proposed  to  effect  it.  Well, 
the  method  is  at  an  end  by  the  dropping  of  the  Bill.  The  object 
is  affirmed  by  the  second  reading.  But  then  you  say,  "  I  must 
have  some  security  that  when  the  object  is  re-introduced  in  another 
Bill  the  method  to  which  I  obje'ct  shall  not  be  revived." 

Now  as  to  the  method  I  have  always  understood  from  you  that  you 
were  ready  to  support  the  second  reading  if  the  24th  clause  were 
withdrawn  simpliciter.  Your  objection  to  method  therefore  would 
have  been  satisfied  (if  not  altogether  at  least  sufficiently  for  the 
purpose  of  second  reading)  by  this  concession  and  its  consequential 
changes.  Now  the  24th  clause  is  gone  with  all  the  other  clauses. 
So  far  as  this  part  of  the  Bill  goes  it  is  tabula  rasa.  In  any  future 
Bill  it  is  to  be  altered,  and  altered  in  your  direction  at  least.  So  far, 
therefore,  your  desire  is  accomplished  in  great  part.  .  .  . 

I  do  not  think  you  can  or  ought  to  demand  of  Mr.  G.  a  declara- 
tion that  he  has  thrown  over  all  his  own  opinions  and  abandoned 


588  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

altogether  his  own  plans — especially  as  he  has  declared  his  willingness 
on  the  most  important  point  to  modify  it  in  your  sense.  I  think 
such  a  demand  would  impose  upon  him  terms  unnecessarily  humiliat- 
ing. You  must  know  him  well  enough  to  be  sure  that  he  will  re- 
introduce  his  Bill  in  the  shape  which  he  believes  will  command  the 
most  united  support  from  the  Liberal  Party. 

On  the  other  hand  it  seems  to  me  that  your  position  will  be  quite 
clear.  You  are  at  liberty  to  contend  that  you  have  achieved  your 
object.  You  objected  to  the  plan.  The  plan  will  come  to  an  end 
with  the  Bill.  What  the  plan  will  be  when  re-introduced  must  and 
will  depend  on  the  opinion  which  has  been  created  by  you  and  others 
in  the  interval.  You  may  rej^pf:  any  new  plan  then,  if  you  cannot 
modify  it  as  you  think  necessary,  just  as  well  as  you  can  now. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  you  overturn  Gladstone  now,  as  you  very 
probably  might,  what  are  the  results  ? — irritation,  confusion,  and 
recrimination. 

The  only  real  alternative  policy,  because  the  only  real  alternative 
Government,  is  that  of  Salisbury.  It  will  be  very  difficult  for  you 
to  answer  the  charge  that  you  have,  indirectly  at  least,  contributed 
to  this  result.  I  agree  with  you  that  a  defection  would  be  disastrous 
to  the  Liberal  Party,  but  it  rests  solely  with  you  to  avoid  it.  And  do 
you  not  see  that  the  greater  the  disaster  the  more  will  be  the  blame, 
which  (justly  or  unjustly)  will  be  cast  upon  you,  who  could  prevent 
it  and  would  not  ?  .  .  . 

It  was  a  vain  appeal.  Harcourt,  full  of  hope  that  Cham- 
berlain would  abstain  from  voting,  wrote  off  to  Gladstone 
urging  that  things  should  be  made  easy  for  him.  Chamber- 
lain would  speak  on  Monday  (May  31),  and  he  (Harcourt) 
would  like  to  follow  him  on  Tuesday.  "  It  is  very  desirable 
that  he  should  be  allowed  to  state  his  own  case  in  his  own 
way,  and  that  if  he  chooses  to  abstain  he  should  be  allowed 
without  contradiction  to  give  what  reasons  he  pleases  for 
his  course.  He  enlarged  upon  this  view  a  good  deal  to  me 
last  night,  and  expressed  a  desire  not  to  be  brought  into 
apparent  personal  conflict  with  you  in  debate  as  had  hap- 
pened on  former  occasions." 

But  in  the  meantime  Chamberlain,  having  absented 
himself  from  the  meeting  of  the  Liberal  Party,  had  sum- 
moned a  meeting  of  his  own  group  for  the  next  day,  May  31. 
Down  below  the  second-reading  debate,  which  had  begun  on 
May  10,  was  in  progress,  but  its  fate  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
meeting,  and  that  meeting  was  in  the  hands  of  Chamberlain. 


i886]  HOME   RULE   SPEECH  589 

It  was  common  knowledge  that  if  the  Chamberlain  group 
abstained  the  second  reading  would  pass  by  a  small  majority  ; 
if  they  voted  the  second  reading  would  be  lost,  and  the  Bill 
and  the  Government  with  it.  The  decision  was  to  vote, 
and  when  next  day  (June  i)  Harcourt  intervened  in  the 
debate  he  spoke  on  a  lost  cause.  He  began  with  an  historical 
survey  of  the  Irish  grievance  ;  passed  to  an  examination  of 
Chamberlain's  idea  of  federalism,  contending  that  the  Glad- 
stone plan  left  the  Parliament  at  Westminster  more  supreme 
than  a  federal  scheme  would  do  ;  made  effective  use  of  the 
threat  that  Ulster  would  fight,  dealt  with  the  question  of 
the  protection  of  minorities,  and  asked  what  protection 
there  was  for  the  Catholic  minority  when  the  Union  took 
place  ;  and  then  turned  and  rent  Salisbury's  "  Hottentot  " 
speech  and  his  recipe  of  twenty  years'  resolute  government — 
a  sort  of  twenty  years'  penal  servitude.  "  Well,  this  policy 
had  been  applied  for  four  times  twenty  years  since  the 
Union,  and  what  good  had  it  done  ?  "  His  conclusion  was 
prophetic.  '  You  may  destroy  the  Bill  for  to-day  (he  said) 
and  you  may  destroy  the  Government  which  sits  upon  these 
benches,  but  you  will  not  destroy  the  principle  upon  which 
the  Bill  is  founded.  It  will  be  taken  up  and  it  will  be  pur- 
sued, and  it  will  be  carried  on  by  the  Liberal  Party  until  it 
is  finally  accomplished." 

No  part  of  the  speech  was  more  effective  than  that  in 
which  he  dealt  with  Chamberlain's  new  federal  plan.  "  As 
point  after  point  was  delivered,"  said  the  Unionist  Scotsman 
next  day,  "  each  one  skilfully  arranged  so  as  to  take  Mr. 
Chamberlain  thoroughly  in  the  flank,  Mr.  Gladstone  turned 
in  his  place,  and  by  jubilant  cheers  emphasized  the  ridicule 
which  was  being  cast  upon  the  '  brand  new  plan.' '  But 
the  struggle  had  passed  beyond  the  reach  of  argument,  and 
moved  to  the  known  and  inevitable  conclusion.  It  was  not 
even  affected  by  Parnell's  disclosure  that  he  had  received 
from  a  member  of  the  Salisbury  Government  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  statutory  Parliament  with  power  to  protect  Irish 
industries^  The  debate,  memorable  in  the  annals  of  Par- 
liament for  the  high  plane  on  which  it  moved,  culminated 


590  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT          [1886 

on  June  7  in  a  speech  of  moving  eloquence  from  Gladstone 
marked  by  one  passage  of  devastating  scorn  in  which, 
replying  to  Chamberlain's  remark  that  a  dissolution  had  no 
terrors  for  him,  he  unmasked  with  deadly  effect  the  ingenuity 
with  which  he  had  set  his  sails  for  any  wind  that  blew. 

Midnight  had  passed  when  Gladstone  sat  down,  and  at 
one  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  June  8  the  division  was  taken. 
When  the  numbers  were  announced  the  Government  were 
found  to  be  in  a  minority  of  thirty,  no  fewer  than  ninety- 
,  three  Liberals  having  voted  against  the  second  reading.  It 
was  a  greater  defeat  than  had  been  anticipated,  and  the 
triumph  of  Chamberlain  was  complete.  A  heavy  price 
was  paid  for  it,  and  thirty-five  years  later  his  son,  engaged 
in  carrying  through  a  measure  vastly  in  excess  of  that  of 
1886,  stood  up  on  a  public  platform  and  delivered  a 
courageous  defence  of  the  reversal  of  the  policy  that  his 
father  had  pursued  with  such  fatal  consequences  to  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  the  Realm. 

IV 

Two  courses  were  before  the  Government — to  resign  or 
to  remain  in  office  pending  the  appeal  to  the  country.  The 
latter  was  adopted.  The  remaining  sittings  of  the  House 
were  devoted  to  the  winding  up  of  business,  but  one  speech 
made  by  Harcourt  at  the  time  is  of  interest  as  showing  that 
the  principle  of  local  option  to  which  he  had  long  been 
moving  had  now  been  finally  adopted  by  him.  He  advanced 
it  as  a  ground  for  voting  against  Sunday  closing,  which 
should  be  a  matter  of  local  option  rather  than  national 
decision. 

The  session  was  brought  to  a  close  on  June  25,  and  on  the 
following  day  Parliament,  the  shortest  in  Victorian  records, 
was  dissolved.  Gladstone  had  issued  his  election  manifesto 
ten  days  earlier,  stating  the  choice  to  be  between  his  own 
plan  and  that  of  Salisbury  for  twenty  years'  coercion.  With 
the  deepening  and  widening  of  the  cleavage  between  parties, 
the  personal  relations  of  the  chief  combatants  became 
strained  and  embittered.  A  violent  speech  by  Bright  led 


i886]  DERBY   ELECTION  591 

to  a  painful  correspondence  between  Gladstone  and  his  old 
colleague.  Harcourt  had  his  share  of  these  unhappy  sever- 
ances. The  most  bitter  incident  was  his  breach  with  Hart- 
ington  who  told  him  that  he  proposed  to  go  to  Derby  to 
speak  against  him.  "  I  was  hardly  able  to  realize  the  thing 
at  the  moment,"  wrote  Harcourt  (June  27)  to  Hartington  : 

.  .  .  On  reflection  (he  continued)  I  feel  bound  to  say  before  it  is 
too  late  what  a  bitter  thing  it  would  be  to  me  to  find  myself  placed 
in  personal  hostility  to  you  after  the  long  and  close  relations  in  which 
we  have  stood. 

I  judge  the  case  by  the  impossibility  I  should  have  felt  myself 
in  taking  any  action  individually  against  yourself,  but  I  do  not  of 
course  consider  that  you  are  at  all  bound  by  the  same  considerations. 

If  there  is  to  be  war  between  us  it  will  be  to  me  the  saddest  thing 
which  has  befallen  me  in  public  life,  but  I  shall  have  the  satisfaction 
of  feeling  it  was  not  of  my  seeking,  and  that  I  have  done  all  in  my 
power  to  avert  it. 

Hartington  replied  that  it  was  difficult  to  draw  the  line 
where  the  war  was  to  stop  ;  but  on  reflection  he  had  decided 
on  the  course  which  was  most  pleasant  to  himself.  Harcourt 
thanked  him,  and  urging  the  importance  of  not  widening 
the  breach  by  "  individual  conflict  with  our  former  col- 
leagues," said  he  had  received  an  amiable  letter  from  Cham- 
berlain, who  said  the  issue  of  the  election  was  a  "  dark 
horse,"  and  that  "  the  arm-chair  politicians  "  would  settle 
things  this  time. 

Harcourt  with  his  colleague,  Sir  Thomas  Roe,  issued  his 
address  to  the  electors  of  Derby  on  June  24.  The  most 
memorable  passage  in  it — a  passage  to  which  time  and 
events  have  given  a  lasting  significance — was  that  in  which, 
having  shown  by  reference  to  the  history  of  great  arguments 
that  parliamentary  manoeuvres  may  overthrow  adminis- 
trations, but  have  no  power  to  defeat  great  policies,  he  said  : 

...  In  the  midst  of  all  this  eager  controversy,  we  believe  no 
reasonable  man  really  doubts  that  in  the  end  Home  Rule  must  and 
will  be  conceded  to  the  Irish  people.  The  question  of  to-day  is, 
whether  it  shall  be  granted'generously  and  spontaneously,  when  it 
will  be  regarded  with  gratitude  and  satisfaction,  or  whether  it  is  to 
be  reluctantly  extorted  after  protracted  and  mischievous  agitation. 

It  was  with  a  very  depleted  general  staff  that  Gladstone 


592  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

took  the  field.  The  great  domestic  foes  of  the  previous 
election,  Hartington  and  Chamberlain,  were  now  reconciled 
in  a  common  antagonism  to  their  late  leader.  With  them 
were  many  of  the  ablest  and  most  experienced  of  the  Liberal 
lieutenants,  men  like  Goschen,  James  and  Trevelyan,  Whigs 
and  Radicals  alike.  The  situation  had  left  Harcourt  in  the 
position  of  Gladstone's  unchallenged  chief  of  staff.  With 
the  disappearance  of  Chamberlain  there  was  no  competition, 
for  the  distinguished  gifts  of  Mr.  John  Morley  were  not  of  a 
parliamentary  kind,  and  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the 
taunts  which  were  sometimes  flung  at  Harcourt  on  the 
ground  of  his  supposed  ambition  that,  before  the  split,  his 
one  anxiety,  to  which  he  had  devoted  every  resource  of 
persuasion  and  argument  at  his  command,  had  been  to  keep 
his  most  dangerous  rival  to  the  succession  within  the  ranks 
of  the  Liberal  Party.  It  will  be  seen  that  those  efforts  did 
not  cease  even  with  what  seemed  the  final  breach  caused  by 
the  election.  In  the  circumstances,  next  to  Gladstone 
himself,  the  heaviest  burden  of  the  election  fell  upon  Har- 
court's  shoulders.  He  had  first  to  make  his  own  return 
secure,  and  he  opened  his  campaign  at  Derby  on  June  24  in  a 
speech  in  which  he  paid  generous  tributes  to  the  motives  of 
the  old  colleagues  from  whom  he  was  now  separated.  When 
Chamberlain's  name  was  received  with  groans,  he  insisted 
that  he  was  a  man  "  incapable  of  being  actuated  by  base  or 
personal  motives."  But  his  desire  to  keep  the  atmosphere 
cool  and  to  maintain  personal  contact  in  being,  did  not 
prevent  him  dealing  faithfully  with  his  old  friends  and 
especially  Chamberlain  who,  like  himself,  had  entered  the 
Government  knowing  that  a  new  policy  was  contemplated 
and  had  gone  out,  not  because  he  disagreed  with  the  principle 
but  because  he  disagreed  with  the  method : 

.  .  .  Well,  gentlemen  (he  said),  to  tell  you  the  truth  I  did  not 
think  it  right  to  break  up  a  Party  or  destroy  a  Government  with 
which  I  was  in  accord  in  principle  on  account  of  a  difference  in 
method.  And  if  it  came  to  a  question  of  method,  why  for  my  part 
I  am  not  ashamed  to  confess  that  I  thought  and  still  think  that  Mr. 
Gladstone  in  his  great  age  and  long  experience  and  his  ripe  wisdom 
is  quite  probably  as  good  a  judge  of  method  as  anyone  else. 


i886]  PRICE   OF  THE   UNION  593 

In  this,  as  in  subsequent  speeches,  he  went  over  the 
grounds  that  had  satisfied  him  that  coercion  as  a  permanent 
means  of  governing  Ireland  was  no  longer  possible,  and,  as 
one  who  had  with  Lord  Spencer  tried  that  policy  and  found 
it  wanting,  he  insisted  that  reconciliation  with  the  Irish 
people  could  alone  remove  this  ancient  quarrel.  Having 
secured  his  return  at  Derby  he  went  to  the  support  of 
H.  H.  Fowler  and  Sir  William  Plowden  at  Wolverhampton. 
By  this  time  it  was  apparent  that  the  tide  was  flowing  with 
formidable  impetus  against  the  Government.  The  verdict 
of  the  boroughs  was  decisive,  and  although  there  were  beams 
in  the  darkness — Goscheh,  for  example,  being  beaten  at 
East  Edinburgh  and  "Sir  George  Trevelyan  in  the  Border 
Boroughs-^it  was  with  the  knowledge  that  the  battle  was 
lost  that  Harcourt  set  out  to  check  the  tide  in  the  counties. 
Dorsetshire  was  the  scene  of  his  crusade,  and  in  the  next  few 
days  he  delivered  a  series  of  speeches  at  Poole,  Sherborne 
and  Bridport.  A  passage  from  his  speech  at  Sherborne  will 
illustrate  the  way  in  which  his  argument  was  developing, 
and  has  a  special  interest  in  the  light  of  after  events  : 

.  .  .  During  a  great  part,  and  the  most  prosperous  part,  of  the 
reign  of  George  III  (he  said)  there  was  an  independent  Parlia- 
ment in  Ireland.  Did  it  destroy  the  supremacy  of  the  Crown  or 
the  unity  of  the  Empire  ?  (Laughter  and  No).  No  man  ever 
thought  of  talking  such  nonsense  in  those  days.  There  was  once  a 
great  member  of  the  Dominions  which  we  lost,  and  we  did  then 
destroy  the  supremacy  of  the  Crown  and  the  unity  of  the  Empire. 
.  .  .  Canada  and  Australia  are  self-governing  peoples  with  Parlia- 
ments of  their  own,  and  when  we  are  in  trouble  and  want  aid  we  may 
look  to  their  loyalty,  their  generosity  and  their  affection  for  the 
mother  country.  Could  we  have  asked  Ireland  to  send  us  troops 
to  help  in  Egypt  ?  (No.)  Why,  we  now  keep  30,000  troops  in 
Ireland  in  order  to  keep  down  the  people.  (Shame.)  We  are 
warned  against  Home  Rule  because  people  say  it  will  be  so  expensive, 
and  we  shall  have  further  taxes  put  on  our  tobacco  and  our  beer. 
(A  voice,  "  We  hope  not.")  But  have  they  any  idea  of  the  price 
we  are  now  paying  for  an  army  of  occupation  of  30,000  men  ?  In 
order  to  maintain  the  union  in  Ireland  we  are  obliged  to  keep  there 
in  arms  more  British  troops  than  fought  at  Waterloo,  more  than  we 
sent  against  the  Russians  in  the  Crimea,  and  all  because  we  are 
determined  to  govern  by  force  a  people  whom  we  will  not  govern 
by  their  goodwill,  and  therefore,  when  we  are  told  that  Home  Rule 

QQ 


594  SIR  WILLIAM   HARCOURT  [1886 

will  be  expensive,  I  ask  you  to  consider  the  millions  of  money  we 
are  now  spending  in  order  to  maintain  that  union  which  has  disunited 
the  nation.  (Cheers.) 

Harcourt  mingled  his  strenuous  campaigning  with  a 
pleasant  diversion.  Lord  Wolverton  had  his  yacht  Palatine 
on  the  Dorset  coast,  and  Harcourt  joined  him  in  the  intervals 
of  his  task.  Writing  to  Lady  Harcourt  from  the  yacht 
(July  n),  he  said : 

.  .  .  We  made  a  nice  visit  down  to  Studland  Bay  just  opposite 
Bournemouth,  five  miles  from  Poole.  We  made  the  trajet  on  the 
steam  launch  in  the  evening  and  had  a  fair  meeting.  We  learn 
then  the  news  of  the  crushing  majority  against  Batten,  which  is  of 
evil  omen  for  the  rest  of  Dorset.  Everything  is  as  bad  as  bad  can 
be,  though  the  defeat  of  Trevelyan  is  some  consolation.  Our 
plans  are  as  follows :  We  go  ba$k  to  Weymouth  to-night.  I  shall 
go  by  train  to  Sher borne  and  return  late  that  night  to  the  yacht. 
We  shall  sail  about  midnight  Monday  straight  for  St.  Malo  and  spend 
possibly  two  or  three  days  on  French  coast.  I  have  a  letter  from 
the  G.O.M.  in  which  he  says  there  will  be  no  Cabinet  before  Monday 
week,  i.e.  igth,  so  there  is  no  use  any  of  us  returning  to  London 
till  the  end  of  this  week.  G.O.M.  is  evidently  inclined  to  resignation 
without  meeting  Parliament,  but  not  strong  on  the  point  and  open 
to  conviction.  However  I  am  beginning  to  change  my  own  view, 
as  the  defeat  is  so  enormous.  I  expect  the  Tories  will  get  an  absolute 
majority  of  their  own,  leaving  the  Union  Liberals  out  of  the  account. 
It  is  indeed  a  smash  the  like  of  which  has  not  been  known.  But 
in  these  days  things  come  round  quick,  and  I  am  by  no  means 
despairing.  .  .  . 

When  a  few  days  later  Harcourt  returned  from  his  brief 
yachting  cruise  the  election  was  practically  over,  the  com- 
plete figures  being  : 

Conservatives 
Liberal  Unionists 
Gladstonians 
Parnellites 

Gladstone  had  been  doubtful  whether  he  should  resign  or 
not.  Harcourt  was  at  first  emphatic  against  resignation 
without  a  parliamentary  vote.  "  I  think  it  of  the  greatest 
consequence,"  he  wrote  to  Gladstone  (July  7),  when  the 
dimensions  of  the  inevitable  defeat  were  doubtful,  "  that 
the  seceders  should  be  compelled  to  vote  you  out,  and  that 


i886]  GLADSTONE   RESIGNS  595 

you  should  not  resign  without  it."  Gladstone  replied  that 
he  had  an  open  mind  on  the  subject,  but  he  did  not  under- 
stand Harcourt's  desire  to  force  the  seceders  to  put  them 
out.  "  You  may  think,  as  I  do,  that  the  majority  of  them 
would  not  do  it  on  a  direct  vote  of  censure,  but  would  do  it 
on  an  Irish  amendment.  Is  it  for  the  interest  of  the  country 
or  of  the  party  that  the  new  Parliament  should  begin  by 
solemnly  committing  itself  against  Home  Rule  ?  "  Strong 
representations  against  resignation  were  made  to  Harcourt 
by  Labouchere,  Wilfrid  Lawson  and  other  of  the  more 
combative  spirits,  but  when  the  magnitude  of  the  defeat 
became  apparent  Harcourt  saw  that  there  was  only  one 
fitting  course  to  pursue.  By  this  time  Gladstone  had  come 
definitely  to  the  same  conclusion,  and  on  July  20  the  Cabinet 
met  for  the  last  time,  and  the  next  day  the  resignation  of 
the  Government  was  formally  tendered  to  the  Queen. 


Appendix  I 
(THE   QUEEN'S  SPEECH 

MINUTE  TO  MR.  GLADSTONE. 

SECRETARY  OF  STATE, 

HOME  DEPARTMENT. 

This  is  the  paper  sent  by  the  Queen  to  Lord  Spencer  and  myself 
at  Osborne  before  the  Council  as  a  condition  precedent  to  her 
approval  of  the  Speech.  We  replied  that  we  did  not  feel  author- 
ized to  advise  a  partial  or  conditional  approval  of  the  Speech  as 
settled  by  the  Cabinet,  and  the  Speech  was  assented  to  without 
reservation  of  any  kind.  Of  course  what  may  be  done  subse- 
quently stands  on  a  different  footing.  This  paper  of  our  objection 
was  withdrawn  at  Osborne  before  the  Council. 

(Sgd.)  W.  V.  H. 
January  7,  '81. 

TELEGRAM. 

OSBORNE, 
January  5,  1881. 

LORD  SPENCER  AND  SIR  W.  HARCOURT  TO  MR.  GLADSTONE. 

On  arrival  here  we  find  the  Queen  objects  to  the  paragraph  in 
the  Speech  announcing  the  intention  to  evacuate  Candahar. 
She  desires  that  nothing  definite  should  be  said  on  the  point  one 
way  or  the  other.  We  have  replied  that  this  is  a  question  of 
policy  which  the  Cabinet  has  decided  and  that  we  cannot  take 
the  responsibility  of  agreeing  to  the  omission  of  the  paragraph. 
So  the  matter  stands  at  this  moment.  The  Queen  declines  to 
agree  to  the  Speech  as  it  stands.  We  have  declared  our  inability 
without  authority  from  you  and  the  Cabinet  to  assent  to  its 
alteration.  The  Queen  has  proposed  to  us  that  she  should  ap- 
prove of  the  Speech  keeping  this  point  in  abeyance  to  be  settled 
between  Her  Majesty  and  yourself  by  telegraph,  but  we  have 
answered  that  we  do  not  feel  justified  in  advising  Her  Majesty 
to  take  that  course.  Please  let  us  know  your  views  at  once. 

597 


598  APPENDIX  I 

MEMORANDUM  FOR  MR.  GLADSTONE  BY  EARL  SPENCER  AND  SIR 
W.  HARCOURT  AS  TO  WHAT  PASSED  AT  OSBORNE  ON  JANUARY 
5,  l88l,  RELATIVE  TO  THE  APPROVAL  BY  THE  QUEEN  OF  THE 
SPEECH  FROM  THE  THRONE. 

We  arrived  at  Osborne  at  about  one  o'clock  on  January  5. 
It  had  been  intended  that  the  Council  should  be  held  and  the 
Speech  approved  immediately.  But  we  were  informed  by  Sir  H. 
Ponsonby  that  the  Queen  strongly  disapproved  the  paragraph 
in  the  Speech  relating  to  the  evacuation  of  Candahar,  which  she 
desired  to  have  altered  or  omitted  before  the  Speech  was 
approved,  and  that  H.M.  had  telegraphed  to  Mr.  Gladstone  to 
that  effect  at  10  a.m.,  to  which  message  at  that  time  no  answer 
had  been  received.  Several  verbal  communications  between 
the  Queen  and  ourselves  passed  in  the  interval  from  i  to  2  p.m., 
H.M.  urging  that  we  should  assent  to  the  approval  of  the  Speech 
either  altered  or  keeping  in  abeyance  the  paragraph  in  question 
for  further  consideration.  We  pointed  out  that  this  question 
was  one  of  high  policy  ;  that  it  had  been  settled  by  the  Cabinet 
after  much  deliberation,  and  that  we  had  no  authority  to  assent 
to  its  alteration  or  omission  ;  that  no  tune  remained  for  a  further 
reference  to  the  Cabinet.  We  impressed  upon  Sir  H.  Ponsonby 
that  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  was  in  no  sense  an  expression 
of  H.M.'s  individual  sentiments  but  a  declaration  of  policy  made 
on  the  responsibility  of  Her  Ministers.  At  length  about  two 
o'clock,  the  matter  being  still  urged  upon  us,  and  Mr.  Gladstone's 
reply  to  the  Queen's  telegram  not  having  yet  arrived,  Lord 
Spencer  sent  to  the  Queen  a  note  to  the  following  effect : 

It  is  impossible  for  the  Ministers  in  attendance  to  advise  Her 
Majesty  to  approve  in  Council  a  speech  a  portion  of  which  H.M. 
at  the  same  time  expressly  disapproves.  H.M.  Government  cannot 
deliver  in  H.M.  name  a  speech  which  H.M.  does  not  approve  in  the 
whole. 

We  then  telegraphed  to  Mr.  Gladstone  an  account  of  what  we 
had  done  and  asking  for  his  views  on  the  situation.  To  this 
telegram  we  received  no  reply  before  we  left  Osborne.  Lord 
Spencer's  letter  being  apparently  deemed  unsatisfactory  by 
H.M.,  whilst  we  were  at  luncheon  Sir  W.  Harcourt  was  called  out 
and  shown  by  Sir  H.  Ponsonby  a  Memorandum  which  Sir  H.  P. 
thought  would  be  considered  satisfactory  by  the  Queen.  As 
nothing  ultimately  resulted  from  this  paper  we  have  no  copy  of 
it.  It  was  in  the  handwriting  of  Sir  H.  P.,  and  was  regarded  as 
his  suggestion  and  not  as  emanating  from  us.  The  general 


COUNCIL  AT  OSBORNE  599 

purport  was  that  the  Queen  would  approve  the  Speech  on  the 
condition  that  the  Ministers  in  attendance  should  "  express  to 
the  Cabinet  her  earnest  hope  that  if  the  retention  of  Candahar 
should  hereafter  appear  to  be  necessary  Her  Government  would 
not  hesitate  to  retain  that  important  post."  Sir  W.  Harcourt 
pointed  out  the  objections  to  making  the  approval  of  the  Speech 
in  any  way  conditional,  but  said  that  H.M.  Ministers  in  attend- 
ance would  feel  it  their  duty  to  convey  to  the  Cabinet  the  wish 
thus  expressed  by  the  Queen.  Sir  H.  Ponsonby  upon  showing  his 
Memorandum  to  the  Queen,  altered  it  in  this  sense. 

We  received  no  further  communication  from  H.M.  till  about 
3.30  p.m.  about  which  tune  Mr.  Gladstone's  cypher  telegram 
(despatched  at  1.30  p.m.)  in  reply  to  the  Queen's  message  (sent 
at  10  a.m.)  at  length  arrived.  That  telegram  entirely  confirmed 
the  view  which  we  had  sustained  that  the  Candahar  paragraph 
in  the  Speech  could  not  be  altered  or  omitted.  We  have  since 
understood  that  Mr.  Gladstone's  answer  was  sent  after  consul- 
tation with  Lord  Granville  and  Lord  Hartington.  Almost 
contemporaneously  with  the  receipt  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  telegram, 
a  Memorandum  in  the  handwriting  of  the  Queen,  written  before 
receipt  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  reply,  was  given  to  us  by  Sir  H.  Pon- 
sonby. For  reasons  which  will  presently  be  stated  the  Memoran- 
dum was  ultimately  withheld,  and  we  therefore  retain  no  copy 
of  it,  as  we  understood  from  Sir  H.  Ponsonby  before  we  entered 
the  Queen's  presence  that  it  was  to  be  regarded  as  far  as  we 
were  concerned,  as  non  avenu. 

This  paper  was  to  the  effect  that  H.M.  was  prepared  generally 
to  approve  of  the  Speech,  but  that  she  strongly  disapproved  the 
paragraph  relating  to  Candahar,  and  that  she  could  only  assent 
to  the  Speech  in  this  general  way  of  a  material  part  of  it  and 
accompanied  by  a  requisition  of  assurances  from  us  which  we  did 
not  feel  authorized  to  give  that  we  thought  it  right  to  prepare  a 
written  reply  to  the  following  effect,  which  we  requested  Sir  H. 
Ponsonby  to  read  to  the  Queen. 

[Here  the  writers  refer  to  a  previous  communication.] 

In  the  interval  between  the  communication  to  us  of  the  Queen's 
written  Memorandum  and  our  reply  to  it,  i.e.  between  3.30  and 
4  p.m.,  H.M.  had  probably  considered  Mr.  Gladstone's  answer 
to  H.M.'s  telegram  of  the  morning.  Sir  H.  Ponsonby  after 
carrying  to  the  Queen  our  reply  to  H.M.'s  Memorandum  returned 
almost  immediately  (about  4  p.m.)  informing  us  that  before  he 
had  concluded  reading  to  the  Queen  our  reply  H.M.  instructed 
him  to  tell  us  that  the  Queen,  though  highly  displeased  at  the 


6oo  APPENDIX   I 

non-compliance  with  her  desire  to  have  the  Speech  altered,  would 
hold  the  Council  at  once.  Sir  H.  Ponsonby  told  Sir  W.  H. 
that  the  Ministers  in  attendance  were  discharged  of  all  respon- 
sibility in  the  transaction,  and  that  the  Speech  would  be  simply 
approved.  H.M.  would  communicate  with  Mr.  Gladstone  at 
once  through  Sir  H.  Ponsonby.  Thereupon  Sir  H.  Ponsonby 
took  back  H.M.'s  Memorandum,  which  was  regarded  as  now 
withheld  and  returned  to  us  our  reply  to  it.  We  then  about 
4  p.m.  entered  the  Council  Room  when  the  ordinary  business  of 
the  Council  was  first  transacted  and  subsequently  in  the  presence 
of  H.R.H.  Prince  Leopold,  the  Lord  President,  the  Lord  Steward 
and  the  Home  Secretary,  the  Queen  signified  her  assent  to  the 
Speech  in  the  usual  manner  without  any  reservations,  and  we  at 
once  left  Osborne  and  returned  to  London,  having  telegraphed 
the  Queen's  assent  to  Mr.  Gladstone  before  our  departure  from 
Osborne.  We  had  no  personal  conversation  with  the  Queen 
during  our  stay  at  Osborne,  the  whole  discussion  being  conducted 
through  the  medium  of  Sir  H.  Ponsonby.  The  position  we 
assumed  from  the  first  and  which  we  maintained  throughout  was 
that  we  had  no  authority  either  to  agree  to  the  alteration  of  a 
material  part  of  the  Speech  which  had  been  settled  by  the  Cabinet, 
or  to  assent  to  a  partial  and  limited  approbation  of  the  Speech, 
or  to  become  ourselves  parties  to  conditions  as  to  the  declarations 
contained  in  the  Speech,  by  which  the  Queen  might  consider  the 
Cabinet  to  be  hereafter  bound  and  which  would  have  altered 
and  controlled  the  real  effect  of  the  announcement  made  in  the 
Queen's  name  to  Parliament  and  the  country.  The  public,  who 
would  have  had  no  cognizance  of  these  undisclosed  conditions 
upon  which  the  assent  of  the  Queen  had  been  obtained,  would 
have  accepted  the  declaration  of  the  Speech  in  its  obvious 
sense.  Such  a  course,  it  appeared  to  us,  would  neither  have 
been  candid  on  our  part  towards  Parliament  nor  in  conformity 
with  constitutional  practice,  and  its  danger  seemed  to  us  so 
grave  that  we  were  very  careful  throughout  the  whole  transaction 
to  guard  against  any  departure  from  the  regular  proceeding  of  a 
simple  and  unreserved  approval  by  the  Queen  of  the  Speech  to 
be  delivered  from  the  Throne  in  Her  name. 


.. 


Appendix  II 
MEMORANDUM  ON  EGYPT,   1884 

^  When  this  Government  first  entered  on  the  occupation  of 
Egypt  it  was  not  with  the  view  of  a  permanent  tenure  or  even  a 
protracted  administration  of  that  country.  We  definitely  and 
emphatically  disclaimed  any  such  object  in  the  face  of  Parliament 
and  of  Europe.  If  we  depart  from  that  position  we  may  explain 
our  conduct  to  this  country  (though  that  will  be  difficult),  but 
how  are  we  to  escape  the  solemn  pledges  which  we  gave  to  Europe 
and  in  virtue  of  which  we  received  if  not  their  mandates  at  least 
their  acquiescence  in  our  temporary  occupation  of  Egypt. 

The  theory  on  which  we  originally  undertook  the  management*^ 
of  Egypt  was  that  after  the  overthrow  of  Arabi  we  should  be     j 
able  to  set  Egypt  on  its  own  legs  within  a  comparatively  brief 
period  and,  having  constructed  an  adequate  native  Government,   / 
leave  the  country  to  administer  itself.     We  certainly  never  con-  ' 
templated  undertaking  pecuniary  liabilities  or  guaranteeing  loans. 

This  theory,  however  plausible  it  may  have  been,  has  c 
pletely  broken  down.  It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  to  the  circum- 
stances which  have  conduced  to  this  result — the  disaster  of  the 
Sudan,  the  Alexandria  indemnities,  etc.,  etc.  The  fact  remains 
that  Egypt  is  insolvent,  she  cannot  pay  the  public  creditor  and, 
at  the  same  time,  make  the  necessary  provision  for  her  Civil  and 
Military  administration.  And,  what  is  worst  of  all,  it  must  now 
be  admitted  that  she  does  not  contain  the  elements  out  of  which 
Civil  Government  or  Military  organization  can  be  constructed. ' 

If,  then,  we  are  to  remain  in  Egypt  we  must  contribute  to  her 
finance,  we  must  find  her  troops,  we  must  man  her  Civil  Service. 
In  short,  the  administration  of  Egypt  must  be  in  substance  an 
English  Administration,  maintained  in  part  at  the  cost  of  the 
English  taxpayer.  There  is  no  longer  any  probability  that  if  we 
enter  on  this  task  we  can  escape  from  it  in  any  calculable  period. 

Our  presence  will  be  as  indispensable  in  the  future  as  to-day. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  shirk  the  question,  Are  we  to  undertake 
administration  of  Egypt  for  an  indefinite  period  ? 

Indeed,  Northbrook's  proposal  to  guarantee  a  loan  practically 

601 


602  APPENDIX   II 

involves  this,  for  we  should  certainly  not  undertake  such  an 
obligation  except  in  view  of  a  protracted,  if  not  a  permanent, 
occupation.  Indeed,  our  continued  occupation  is  the  only 
security  for  the  guarantee. 

Before,  however,  we  answer  the  question,  Shall  we  undertake 
this  task  ?  there  is  a  previous  question,  viz.  Can  we  undertake  this 
task  ?  Upon  this  arise  two  distinct  and  capital  questions. 

(1)  Will  the  Powers  of  Europe  assent  to  our  protracted  and  exclu- 
sive occupation  of  Egypt  ? 

I  notice  here  only  to  dismiss  the  supposition  that  they  will 
tolerate  our  administration  of  Egypt  except  upon  the  terms  of 
our  providing  for  the  payment  of  the  debt  in  full.  If  we  do  not 
find  the  funds  necessary  for  this  purpose,  they  will,  I  think, 
certainly  demand  our  evacuation  of  Egypt,  as  they  have  clearly 
a  right  to  do.  We  stand  between  them  and  the  remedies  which, 
but  for  our  presence,  they  would  have  against  their  debtor. 
They  have  a  right  to  say  "  If  you  cannot  administer  Egypt  so  as 
to  secure  our  debts,  we  can  and  we  will." 

An  attempt,  therefore,  on  the  part  of  England  to  sustain  Egypt 
in  a  policy  of  repudiation  would,  I  think,  certainly  bring  us  face 
to  face  with  a  European  quarrel  and  possibly,  if  we  persisted,  an 
European  war.  It  is  difficult  enough  for  us  to  administer  with 
the  tacit  assent  of  Europe,  but  against  the  will  of  Europe 
it  is  impossible.  We  have  neither  the  moral  right  nor  the 
physical  force  requisite  for  such  a  policy. 

I  do  not  think  that,  even  if  we  were  to  undertake  to  see  the 
interest  on  the  debt  paid,  it  is  by  any  means  certain  that  in  the 
present  tempers  of  France  and  Germany  they  will  give  their 
consent  to  our  continued  exclusive  occupation  of  Egypt.  It 
seems  to  me  more  than  likely  that  they  wUl  demand  some  other 
arrangement  of  their  own  which  will  be  different  from  a  purely 
English  occupation.  If  they  do,  on  what  ground  can  we  resist  ? 
Can  we  insist  by  force  on  our  exclusive  possession  ?  To  wait 
till  they  demand  our  retirement  is  to  expose  ourselves  to  unneces- 
sary humiliation. 

The  first  great  objection  then  to  entering  upon  a  system  which 
/  involves  the  protracted  occupation  of  Egypt,  is  that  we  may 
^Tiave  to  do  it  in  the  teeth  of  Europe,  and  that  is  a  terrible  risk 
/which  we  are  not  justified  in  incurring.     Indeed,  there  is  no 
^possible  English  interest  commensurate  with  such  a  risk. 

(2)  But  assuming  this  great  obstacle  out  of  the  way,  and  that 
we  have  the  consent  of  Europe  to  our  prolonged  occupation,  the 
next  question  is,  Can  we  administer  Egypt  ? 


\~< 


ENGLAND   IN   EGYPT  603 

As  I  have  indicated  above,  if  we  do  so  it  must  be  by  a  sub- 
stantially English  administration.  The  idea  with  which  we 
started  and  which  led  to  the  Hicks  disaster  and  the  difficulty  of 
the  Sudan,  viz.  that  we  could  treat  Egyptian  administration 
in  any  department  as  something  independent  of  ourselves  and 
for  which  we  were  not  responsible  is  finally  exploded.  We 
shall  have^  to  find  all  the  principal  Civil,  Military  and  Police 
organization.  It  will  be  as  much,  even  more,  an  English 
administration  than  that  of  any  state  in  India.  But  in  India 
we  are  remote  from  foreign  influence  and  to  a  great  degree 
free  from  Parliamentary  interference.  We  do  pretty  much 
what  we  like.  But  Egypt  is  practically  a  European  pro- 
vince. It  is  within  the  range  of  newspaper  correspondence,  of 
parliamentary  criticism,  of  continental  influence.  Every  act 
of  an  administration  there  is  canvassed,  challenged  and  censured 
at  home  and  abroad,  and  that  in  a  condition  of  things  where 
the  administration  must  come  into  collision  with  any  sort  of 
English  prejudice  on  questions  of  police  and  slavery,  etc.,  and 
with  every  phase  of  continental  interests,  stock  jobbing  and 
others.  In  India  no  foreign  Power  has  any  right  to  interfere  or 
remonstrate,  to  intervene  or  question  our  conduct.  In  Egypt 
all  the  great  Powers  have  equal  rights  with  ourselves.  Through 
their  financial  claims,  their  Consular  Courts,  their  international 
Tribunals,  there  is  not  an  act  of  our  Government  which- they 
cannot,  if  they  please,  thwart  or  embarrass.  (^Egypt  has  long  ~\ 
been  the  focus  of  European  intrigue  and  wifllbe  more  than  ever  I 
so  under  an  English  administration.  Russia,  France,  Germany  / 
would  be  for  ever  tripping  up  our  heels.  We  should  always  be  / 
in  hot  water  with  the  Powers.  We  should  have  all  the  evils  of  \ 
becoming  a  Continental  State.  We  should  be  for  ever  in  quarrels,  * 
perhaps  on  the  verge  of  war.  And  all  for  what  ?  Added  to 
that,  the  Administration  of  Egypt  will  always  afford  to  the 
Opposition  in  Parliament,  as  it  now  does,  a  constant  and  con- 
venient weapon  with  which  to  harass  a  Government.  Half  the 
time  of  Parliament  will  be  taken  up  with  Egyptian  discus- 
sions. 

In  my  judgment,  therefore,  to  carry  on  the  administration  of 
Egypt  under  such  conditions,  both  of  European  and  parlia- 
mentary obstruction,  is  an  impossibility.  It  could  only  end  in 
confusion  and  disaster,  even  if  we  had  a  department  to  administer 
it — which  we  have  not — and  to  conduct  such  a  business  as  an 
occasional  piece  of  job  work  in  the  Foreign  Office  is  absurd. 

I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  task  of   the  continued  and 


6o4  APPENDIX   II 

protracted  administration  of  Egypt  by  England  is  a  practical 

impossibility. 

(1)  Because  the  European  Powers  are  very  likely  to  veto  it, 

and  we  cannot  undertake  it  against  their  will. 

(2)  Because,  if  they  did  assent,  it  is  a  task  which  we  could  not 

perform  under  the  conditions  in  which  we  should  have  to 
work. 

But  if  we  are  not  to  remain  as  the  permanent  (I  use  the  word 
permanent  as  meaning  a  period  indefinitely  prolonged)  admin- 
istrator of  Egypt,  on  what  ground  can  we  ask  the  taxpayers  to 
make  sacrifices  by  guaranteeing  loans  or  otherwise  ?  If  we  do  not 
remain  there,  who  is  to  secure  us  against  liability  on  our  guar- 
antee ?  And  if  we  do  not  remain,  what  equivalent  is  there  for 
the  sacrifice  ? 

The  position  we  took  up  before  the  Conference  was  that  Egypt 
was  unable  to  pay  her  debts  and  at  the  same  time  provide  for 
her  administration,  and  that  England  would  not  consent  to 
accept  any  burthen  except  upon  condition  of  a  sacrifice  to  some 
extent  by  the  creditors.  We  made  that  declaration  with  the 
approval  of  Parliament  and  we  broke  up  the  Conference  on  that 
express  ground.  What  has  happened  since  to  alter  that  position  ? 
I  understand  Northbrook's  investigation  to  leave  that  position 
unchanged.  If  Egypt  pays  her  debt  in  full,  she  cannot  provide 
for  the  cost  of  her  administration,  and,  therefore,  England  must 
meet  to  some  extent  the  cost  or  that  administration  must  col- 
lapse. That  is  the  very  thing  we  said  we  would  not  do,  and  which 
Parliament  will  not  do. 

It  will  be  asked,  What  then  is  to  be  done  ? 

I  will  first  state  what  I  think  cannot  be  done. 

(1)  We  cannot  stay  in  Egypt  to  sustain  the  Egyptian  Govern- 

ment in  diverting  money  from  the  Caisse  in  an  illegal 
manner,  without  incurring  the  risk  of  a  general  quarrel 
with  Europe  in  which  we  should  be  hopelessly  in  the 
wrong.  How  can  we  maintain  that  the  European  bond- 
holder is  not  to  be  paid  in  full  when  Northbrook  (whose 
Report  will  be  published)  avows  that  he  can  and  ought  to 
be  paid  in  full  ?  I  have  always  thought  such  an  attitude 
for  us  untenable,  but  Northbrook's  Report  has  put  it  for 
ever  out  of  the  question. 

(2)  We  cannot  enter  into  a  policy  of  guaranteeing  loans  which 

involves  a  prolonged  occupation  and  administration  of 
Egypt. 


ENGLAND   IN   EGYPT  605 

(a)  Because  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  Euro- 
pean Powers  will  allow  us  to  do  so. 
(6)  Because,  for  the  reason  given  above,  the  task  of 
Egyptian  administration  is  not  practicable,  and 
offers  no  advantage  corresponding  to  the  risk 
and  cost  which  it  involves.     Then  what  are  we 
to    do.     I    answer,    Retire  from   Egypt, 
celeirwi£.  _ 

That  is  the  policy  we  have  always  declared  and  to  which  weN 
are  pledged.  But  it  will  be  asked,  when  and  how  soon.  I  admit 
that  our  present  engagements  for  the  relief  of  Gordon  and  the 
general  situation  make  our  instant  withdrawal  impossible.  We 
must  perforce  wait  till  we  have  got  Gordon  out  and  we  cannot 
let  the  whole  fabric  of  Egyptian  administration  tumble  to  pieces 
at  once. 

But  I  am  of  opinion  that  we  should  now  communicate  to  the- 
European  Powers  and  to  Parliament  that  on  a  view  of  the  whole 
situation,  and  especially  of  the  financial  condition  of  Egypt,  we 
cannot  undertake  on  the  part  of  England  the  continued  administra- 
tion of  Egypt  or  ask  the  English  people  to  accept  the  sacrifices  whicl 
it  involves.  That,  therefore,  we  purpose  to  withdraw — say  within 
twelvemonth — That  during  that  period  the  debt  will  be  paid  and  the 
administration  of  Egypt  provided  for,  but  after  that  time  the  Power  si 
of  Europe  must  provide  for  the  future  Government  of  Egypt,  as  it  is  a\ 
task  which  England  is  not  prepared  to  undertake  alone. 

This  is  a  statement  with  which  the  Powers  of  Europe  could 
not  quarrel. 

Retiring  thus  by  our  own  will  and  of  our  own  motion,  seems 
to  me  the  only  method  by  which  we  can  escape  the  unpleasant 
alternative,  and  not  improbable  contingency,  of  being  compelled 
to  retire  after  we  have  announced  our  intention  to  stay. 

I  ought  to  say  a  word  on  the  probable  Parliamentary  position 
into  which  these  several  alternatives  may  lead  us. 

If  we  propose  the  guarantee  suggested  by  Northbrook,  I  take 
it  to  be  certain  that  it  will  be  condemned  by  the  Opposition  as 
imposing  a  liability  on  England  without  securing  any  equivalent 
advantage  and  that  the  Government  will  be  defeated  by  a 
combination  of  the  Tories,  Irish  and  Radicals.  But  that  is  not 
the  worst  of  the  thing.  This  proposal  will  leave  us  pledged  as  a 
Party  to  the  policy  of  a  prolonged  occupation  of  Egypt.  And 
the  fact  of  our  having  proposed  it  will  greatly  strengthen  the 
hands  of  a  Tory  Government  in  a  policy  of  annexation  or  Pro- 
tectorate, to  which  I  fundamentally  object. 


606  APPENDIX   II 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  are  beaten  (as  is  quite  probable)  on 
the  policy  of  evacuation,  we  retire  on  our  own  base,  i.e.  on  our 
own  principles,  viz.  the  non-annexation  of  Egypt,  and  upon 
that  policy  we  shall  be  in  the  future  free  to  act  when  the  opposite 
policy  has  got  the  country  into  difficulty  and  danger. 

If,  as  is  possible  and  even  probable,  we  shall  be  beaten  on 
either  alternative,  it  is  far  better  to  be  beaten  on  a  policy  con- 
sonant to  our  other  principles  and  those  of  our  Party. 

In  considering  matters  of  this  supreme  moment,  it  is  well  to 
consider  what  is  the  worst  which  can  happen  in  either  event. 

If  we  persist  in  remaining  in  Egypt,  the  worst  that  can  happen 
is  that  Europe  will  give  us  notice  to  quit  and  we  must  either 
comply  with  disgrace  or  resist  at  the  risk  of  war.  This  I  think 
very  likely  to  happen. 

If  we  evacuate  Egypt,  the  worst  that  can  happen  is  that  France 
will  go  in  alone. 

This  though  possible  is  not,  I  think,  probable,  because  I  do 
not  believe  that  Russia,  Italy  or  Germany  would  allow  it. 

But  be  that  so  or  not,  the  first  evil,  viz.  a  quarrel  with  Europe 
about  Egypt,  is  by  far  the  worst,  and  is  a  risk  to  which  nothing 
would  justify  our  exposing  the  country.  The  Government 
which  involved  England  single-handed  in  a  European  War  in 
order  to  maintain  the  occupation  of  Egypt  would  be  accursed  to 
all  time. 

(Sd.)  W.  V.  H. 
November  16,  '84. 


Appendix  III 

LETTER  FROM  HARCOURT  TO  A  CORRESPON- 
DENT ON  ITINERANT  SHOWS 

HOME  OFFICE, 

March  22,  1884. 

I  am  obliged  by  your  letter. 

What  I  said  to  the  deputation  requesting  me  to  put  down 
itinerant  shows,  though  spoken  on  the  spur  of  the  moment, 
expresses  a  very  strong  conviction  in  my  mind. 

We  are  doing  what  we  can  for  the  improvement  of  the  houses 
and  homes  of  the  poor  for  their  health  and  their  education.  We 
have  already  done  a  good  deal  in  securing  for  them  greater 
abundance  of  cheap  food  and  other  things  which  are  the  neces- 
saries of  existence.  All  this  is  good  in  itself,  but  it  is  by  no 
means  the  whole  or  even  the  best  part  of  life. 

What  is  to  be  desired  is  not  only  that  people  should  live,  but 
that  they  should  enjoy  life,  and  by  enjoyment  of  life  I  do  not 
mean  mere  physical  comfort.  No  doubt  it  is  more  difficult 
though  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  to  be  cheery  when  you  are 
uncomfortable.  But  people  who  have  every  comfort  in  life  are 
often  the  most  dull  and  discontented. 

A  small  minority  of  the  world  perhaps  devote  themselves  too 
much  to  pleasure,  but  the  greater  part  of  mankind — at  least  of 
English  kind — have  far  too  little  pleasure  in  life.  A  good  many 
people  deliberately  choose  to  be  dull.  They  seem  to  think  that 
there  is  something  respectable  and  even  virtuous  in  a  decorous 
solemnity  of  existence.  To  my  mind  there  is  nothing  so  doleful 
as  the  class  of  people  who  seem  to  consider  that  the  whole  duty 
of  man  is  summed  up  in  going  about  in  a  tall  hat  and  a  black 
coat  with  an  establishment  to  match.  There  is  nothing  so 
ineffably  depressing  as  the  joyless  monotony  of  the  well-to-do 
classes.  I  don't  believe  they  are  a  bit  better  for  it,  and  I  am  sure 
they  are  a  good  deal  less  happy  than  they  might  be.  But  that  is 
their  affair,  and  in  a  free  country  people  must  be  allowed  to  be 
as  dreary  and  morose  as  they  please.  But  don't  let  us  inflict 
our  dreariness  as  if  it  were  a  good  thing  on  others  who  are  willing 
to  be  merry  and  have  too  little  opportunity  of  being  so. 

607 


6o8  APPENDIX   III 

After  all  joy  is  the  greatest  of  all  blessings  and  we  should 
welcome  it,  however  it  comes.  The  great  mass  of  the  people  of 
this  country  have  far  too  little  amusement,  not  because  they 
don't  want  it  but  because  they  can't  get  it.  We  cannot  organize 
fun  as  we  do  education  and  drainage — I  wish  we  could  ;  but  all 
attempts  at  regulating  jollity  are  a  mistake  and  a  failure.  The 
merit  of  the  "  itinerant  showman  "  is  that  it  is  his  interest  to 
find  out  and  to  know  what  his  public  patrons  want,  and  to  cater 
for  them  in  the  way  that  pleases  them  most  and  which  they  can 
afford.  I  like  their  "  shows."  I  think  I  have  seen  as  many  of 
them  as  most  people  myself  and  helped  a  good  many  to  see  them. 
The  "  patter  "  of  the  showman  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  and 
delightful  specimens  of  indigenous  wit  and  vernacular  eloquence 
which  remains  to  us — far  more  interesting  and  quite  as  instructive 
as  a  good  many  of  the  solemn  performances  to  which  it  is  my 
fate  to  listen.  I  enjoy  the  humours  and  bustle  of  a  fair  with  its 
merry-go-rounds  and  its  cock-shies,  its  fortune-tellers,  cheap 
jacks,  Merry  Andrews,  its  acrobats,  its  theatres,  and  the  shouts 
of  the  children,  more  musical  than  any  concert.  I  used  to  like  it 
principally  for  my  own  sake — now  I  like  it  more  for  the  sake  of 
others. 

The  best  social  reformer  is  the  man  who  realizes  most  the  best 
thing  you  can  do  for  people  is  to  make  them  jolly.  This  spirit 
of  delight  is  like  the  sun  which  illuminates  the  picture  and  glorifies 
the  landscape.  Let  us  have  all  we  can  of  it  and  especially  let  us 
get  it  for  the  young  whom  nature  intended  to  be  gay.  As  years 
advance  we  can  only  hope  to  see  it  reflected  from  the  hearts  of 
others.  In  London  how  difficult  is  this  to  procure.  In  this  wilder- 
ness of  counting-houses  and  shops  and  comfortable  dwellings  and 
dilapidated  lodgings  there  is  room,  it  is  true,  for  theatres  and 
concert  rooms  ever  multiplying  for  the  rich,  but  where  are  the 
playing-fields  of  the  poor  ?  I  rejoice  when  I  see  an  accidental 
space  occupied  by  the  yellow  caravan  or  the  booth  of  the  show- 
man which  offers  a  precarious  entertainment  to  those  who  find 
too  little  joy  between  the  gutter  and  the  grave. 

I  certainly  by  no  act  of  mine  will  snatch  away  their  lucky 
windfalls  of  fun.  I  should  as  soon  think  of  putting  down  Punch 
at  the  corner  of  the  streets.  I  hope  that  we  shall  not  turn  up 
our  respectable  noses  at  the  rude  and  simple  pleasures  of  the 
poor,  and  even  if  we  do  not  understand  them  ourselves  or  even 
suffer  some  small  inconvenience  from  them,  be  glad  that  they 
give  a  momentary  mirth  to  those  whose  lives  are  sadder  than 
our  own. 

Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Butler  &  Tanner,  Frame  and  London 

0 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


Gardiner,  Alfred  George 
565  The  life  of  Sir  William 

WG3  Harcourt 

1923a 

V,  \