# Dictionary of National Biography, 1912 supplement/Harcourt, William George Granville Venables Vernon

​HARCOURT, Sir WILLIAM GEORGE GRANVILLE VENABLES VERNON (1827–1904), statesman, born on 14 Oct. 1827 in the Old Residence, York, was younger son in a family of two sons and five daughters of William Vernon Harcourt [q. v.] of Nuneham Park, Oxford, canon of York, by his wife Matilda Mary, daughter of Colonel William Gooch, whose father was Sir Thomas Gooch of Benacre, Suffolk, and whose grandfather was Sir Thomas Gooch [q. v.], bishop of Ely. Harcourt's grandfather, Edward Harcourt [q. v.], archbishop of York, son of George Vernon, Lord Vernon, took his mother's name of Harcourt on succeeding to the property of his first cousin, William Harcourt, third and last Earl Harcourt [q. v.], in 1830. Harcourt was proud of a descent which was traceable through many noble houses to the Plantagenet royal family. He had little in common with his elder brother, Edward William Harcourt (1825-1891), a staunch conservative, who succeeded to the Nuneham estates in 1871, and who, although he was M.P, for Oxfordshire from 1878 to 1886, mainly led the life of a country gentleman.
Harcourt's early days were spent in York and in the adjoining parish of Wheldrake, under a private tutor till the age of ten. For the next nine years (1837-46) he was a pupil with five other boys of Canon ​Parr, until April 1840 at Durnford, near Salisbury, and from that time at Preston, where Parr was made vicar of St. John's. Chief of his friends and fellow-pupils at Durnford was Laurence Oliphant [q. v.]. At Preston he was an eye-witness of the bread riots of 1842, and the poverty and misery of the people made him a lifelong opponent of protection. From Preston he went to Cambridge University, entering Trinity College as a pensioner on 30 Sept. 1846. Already a good scholar and mathematician, he soon showed signs of brilliance. He matriculated in 1847 and became a scholar of Trinity in 1850. He took an active part in the debates of the Union and was admitted to the exclusive 'Society of Apostles.' There, as at the Union, his chief adversary in debate was (Sir) James Fitzjames Stephen [q. v.]. Harcourt championed the liberals and Stephen the conservatives. Their encounters were reckoned by contemporaries 'veritable battles of the gods,' though in 'adroitness' and 'chaff' Harcourt was Stephen's superior (L. Stephen, J. F. Stephen, 99 seq.). Although of magnificent physique he took no prominent part in sport. Whilst an undergraduate he was introduced by his tutor, (Sir) H. S. Maine, to John Douglas Cook [q. v.], then the editor of the 'Morning Chronicle,' a Peelite organ. He soon wrote regularly for that journal. In 1851 he graduated B. A. with a first-class in classics and a senior optime in the mathematical tripos. On 2 May 1851 he entered at Lincoln's Inn and settled down to the study of law in London. Three years later, on 1 May 1854, he was called to the bar of the Inner Temple, and he chose the home circuit. He soon acquired a large practice at the common law bar and, later, established a high reputation at the parliamentary bar, where his work yielded him a handsome income. Through the long struggle over the Thames Embankment scheme he acted as counsel for the Metropolitan Board of Works (see his letter to The Times of 7 July 1861, signed 'Observer'). During Nov. and Dec. 1863 public interest was centred in the court-martial trial of Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Crawley for alleged misconduct at Mhow in the previous year; Harcourt acted as Crawley's legal adviser, and his brilliant advocacy gained his acquittal.
He did not, however, confine his attention exclusively to his profession. He quickly made his mark in London society as an extremely clever young man who could both write and talk well. On the demise of the 'Morning Chronicle,' Beresford Hope inaugurated the 'Saturday Review,' in Nov. 1866, with Douglas Cook as editor. Cook at once enlisted Harcourt's services as one of the original contributors Harcourt wrote continuously for the brilliant periodical from 1855 to 1859.
At the general election of May 1869 he contested the Kirkcaldy Burghs as an independent liberal against the official liberal candidate and old member, Robert Ferguson. The fight was fierce, and Harcourt was defeated by only eighteen votes. In the following January, at a great public demonstration at Kirkcaldy, he received a presentation 'as a tribute to his eminent talent, and in admiration of his eloquent advocacy of our cause.'
Meanwhile Harcourt was studying privately international law, which, in a letter to Lord John Russell, he described as 'my passion, not my profession.' He turned the study to advantage in the controversies over international law which occupied the cabinets of Europe after the first stages of the American civil war. To the 'London Review' of 30 Nov. 1861 he sent two letters, one on 'International Law and International Exasperation' and the other 'The case of the Nashville.' In 'The Times' of 5 Dec. 1861 appeared the first of a series of long and weighty letters, over the signature of 'Historicus,' dealing chiefly with questions of international law arising out of the American civil war. The letters were continued at intervals till 1876 and covered a wide field of political controversy. Throughout life he remained a constant correspondent of 'The Times' on all manner of political themes, in later years under his own name. The aim of the early 'Historicus' letters was to deny the Southern States the title to recognition as belligerents, and to define the obligation of neutrality on England's part. In 1863 Harcourt collected some of the letters under the title 'Letters by Historicus on Some Questions of International Law,' and in 1865 others appeared in a volume as 'American Neutrality.' The letters, which had a marked effect upon political opinion, established the writer's reputation. Lord John Russell wrote to Harcourt in 1868 thanking him for the help he had rendered to the maintenance of peace between England and the United States.
He was appointed a member of the Neutrality Laws Commission in the same year, and signed the report with a qualification deprecating any extension of the ​ punishment to those engaged in ship-building for belligerents. He also served on the royal commissions on the laws of naturalisation and allegiance (1870) and on extradition (1878). In 1866 he was made a queen's coimsel, according to Lord Selbome in recognition of his grasp of international law. But a more important recognition of the kind was his appointment in 1869 to the Whewell professorship of international law at Cambridge, which he held till 1887. Throughout that period he delivered lectures at increasingly irregular intervals and occupied rooms in Trinity College which he decorated with elaborate heraldic ornaments.
Meanwhile Harcourt was identifying himself with politics, though he was still reluctant to abandon his career at the parliamentary bar. He was generally reckoned to be independent of party ties, and Disraeli, whom he knew well socially, offered him in 1866 a safe conservative seat in Wales, which he declined. At the outset he chiefly confined his interposition in political discussion to the columns of 'The Times' above his old signature of 'Historicus.' There he urged the co-operation of both parties in passing a reform bill (12 March, 10 April, and 7 May 1866; cf. four letters on parliamentary reform, 4 Feb., 11 April, 2 and 9 May 1867, and on redistribution of parliamentary seats, 24 June). On 27 May 1867 he appealed, through 'The Times,' for the commutation of the death sentence passed on the Fenian convicts, and early in 1869 advocated in the same paper the disestablishment of the Irish Church.
On 29 June 1867 he delivered his first speech in London. The occasion was a public breakfast in St. James's Hall, held in honour of Lloyd Garrison, the American anti-slavery advocate. The chair was occupied by John Bright, and the list of speakers included Lord John Russell, the Duke of Argyll, John Stuart Mill, Lord GranviUe, and George Thompson (Passmore Edwards, A Few Footprints, 1906).
Next year he threw himself with growing energy into the party strife. He advocated the disendowment of the Church of Ireland at a great meeting held on 16 April 1868 in St. James's Hall, under the presidency of Earl Russell, and again on 22 June at a stormy meeting in the Guildhall. At a public breakfast, given to John Bright on 4 June by the Liberal Association, he eloquently acclaimed a new era of reform. On 18 Oct. he addressed a meeting of working men at Birmingham, and on 10 Nov. vigorously supported the liberal candidates for the City at Cannon Street Hotel during the general election. At the same time he agreed to stand for Oxford in the liberal interest in company with Edward Cardwell, the senior sitting member. His tine appearance and admirable platform manner greatly impressed the electors, and the two liberals were ^returned by a large majority (18 Nov.). On 3 Jan. 1870 and in many succeeding years Harcourt delivered to the Ancient Order of Druids at Oxford elaborate addresses on liberal policy which attracted vast public attention. By degrees he wholly abandoned his legal work for politics, and thereby sacrificed 10,000l. a year (Goschen's Life, i. 149). Harcourt's entry into parliament was looked forward to with interest. Gladstone on forming his first government in December 1868 offered him the post of judge advocate general, which carried with it a privy coimcillorship, but Harcourt declined the office because a privy councillorship was held at that time to debar the holder, when out of office, from legal practice. His maiden speech on 23 Feb. 1869, against a proposal to repeal the Act of Anne by which members accepting office under the crown vacate their seats, justified expectations. He was active in the discussion of the Irish Church bill during the session. Gladstone acknowledged his ability as a debater and anticipated for him a great parliamentary career. But Harcourt showed himself no docile party follower, and seated below the gangway, soon constituted himself a constant and candid critic of the liberal government. On 5 March he drew the attention of the house to the absence of any record of election petition judgments, and obtained a promise from the attorney-general to secure and lay them before the house. On the same day he carried a motion to appoint a select committee to inquire into the law affecting the registration of voters. He was appointed chairman of this committee, and its deliberations resulted in the registration of parliamentary voters bill of May 1871. During the session of 1870 he criticised many provisions of the government's Irish land bill, and of their elementary education bill. He opposed any sectarian religious education in the public schools apart from a reading of the Scriptures (cf letters in The Times, 28 March and 10 June), with the result that a clause was inserted forbidding the use of formularism distinctive of any religious sect. He again championed religious equality during the debates on the university tests bill in June, and urged that 'every College ​incorporated with the universities should be open to persons of all religious opinions.’
Over the army regulation bill of 1871, which, among other reforms, sought to abolish the purchase of commissions in the army, Harcourt came into sharp collision with Gladstone. While denouncing the custom of ‘purchase,’ he protested against Gladstone using the Royal Warrant in procuring its abolition. The government's attitude was strongly defended by the attorney-general, Sir Robert Collier, afterwards Baron Monkswell, and the solicitor-general, Sir John Duke (afterwards Baron) Coleridge, on two different grounds of argument, and Harcourt delighted the house by asking ‘in the language of Newmarket, whether the government was going to win with Attorney-General on Statute or with Solicitor-General on Prerogative.’ Again in July he opposed that clause of the elections bill which sought to impose election expenses upon the constituencies on the ground that ‘the people had long looked for the ballot as a boon; they were now going to give them the ballot as a tax.’ With persistence he urged law reform on the notice of the country and the house (cf. address as president of the jurisprudence section of the Social Science Congress meeting at Leeds, Oct. 1871, and The Times, 8 Dec. 1871 and 3, 18, 21, and 28 Dec. 1872). On 26 July 1872 he moved ‘that the administration of the law, under the existing system, is costly, dilatory, and inefficient. …’ and, after a long debate, his motion was defeated only by a majority of fifteen. His activity both in and out of parliament helped to shape the Judicature Act of 1873, in the discussion of which he took a large part.
In discussions on the ballot bill in 1872 Harcourt carried against the government by 167 to 166 an amendment substituting ‘with corrupt intent’ for the word ‘wilfully’ in the clause making it punishable for a man ‘wilfully’ to disclose the name of the candidate for whom he voted. On 5 July he moved the second reading of the criminal law amendment bill, which provided that picketing should not be subject to a criminal charge. During November Harcourt attacked as an infringement of the right of public meeting A. S. Ayrton's bill for enabling the office of works to regulate public meetings in the London parks.
With equal independence and persistency Harcourt urged in parliament and the country the need of reducing the public expenditure, especially that on armaments (cf. Hansard, 1 April 1873). At his instance Gladstone appointed early in 1873 a select committee, with Harcourt as one of its members, to consider civil service expenditure. In debate on the Irish University bill, on 13 Feb., he denounced the clauses which prohibited the teaching of philosophy and modern history, declaring them to be ‘the anathema of the Vatican against modern civilisation.’ On the defeat of the second reading of this bill (March) Gladstone resigned, but he resumed office owing to Disraeli's refusal to form a ministry. Later in the year (Nov. 20) Sir John Duke Coleridge, then attorney-general, was promoted to the bench. His place was taken by Sir Henry James [q. v. Supp. II], Harcourt's friend and companion in the House of Commons below the gangway, who had been made solicitor-general in the preceding September. Harcourt accepted Gladstone's offer of James's post of solicitor-general (20 Nov.). He deprecated receiving the customary honour of knighthood, but was overborne by Gladstone, and he was knighted at Windsor Castle on 17 Dec. He was returned unopposed for Oxford on 5 Dec.
Little opportunity was offered of testing his changed relations with a government of which he had been a somewhat rigorous critic and was now an official member. The dissolution of parliament, on 26 Jan. 1874, practically ended his first experience of office within three months. The liberals were heavily defeated in the country. The return of Disraeli to power on 21 Feb. placed Harcourt for the first time in opposition.
Re-elected for Oxford on 3 Feb. 1874, Harcourt proved a formidable enemy of the new conservative government. But his interest in the first session of the new parliament was concentrated on the public worship regulation bill, which, although not a government bill, was warmly supported by Disraeli. A staunch protestant throughout his career, Harcourt enthusiastically championed a measure which was designed to crush ritualism. Gladstone was no less vehement in opposition to the bill, and sarcastically twitted his follower with ‘displays of erudition rapidly and cleverly acquired’ (cf. Harcourt in The Times, 11, 14, 20, 27, and 30 July 1874). But there was no permanent alienation. Through the sessions of 1875 and 1876 Harcourt was untiring in criticisms of conservative bills and policy, mainly on party lines. By his vigorous attack in ‘The Times’ of 4 and 5 Nov. (1875) on the Admiralty's ‘Slave Circular’ authorising the surrender of slaves taking refuge on British ​ships (13 July 1875) he hastened the withdrawal of the circular (5 Nov.). He ridiculed the royal titles bill of 1876, which made Queen Victoria Empress of India. He was foremost among the critics of the merchant shipping bill (May).
During the critical events in Eastern Europe (1876-8) Harcourt was in the forefront of the political battle at home, declaring the problem to be 'not how to maintain the Turkish government, but how safely to replace it' (speech at Oxford, 9 Jan. 1877). When Gladstone moved the vote of censure on the government for their support of Turkey on 7 May, Harcourt, speaking in support, declared that the Imell of the Turkish empire had sounded. In Jan. 1878 he denounced the government's warlike preparations when a conference for the settlement of peace between Turkey and Russia was in process of formation, and later in the year ridiculed the new treaty of Berlin as already 'moribund' (The Times, 2 Nov. 1878). To the government's conduct of affairs in Afghan and South Africa during 1878 and 1879 Harcourt brought the same trenchant powers of attack. In a long speech on 31 March he put the blame of the Zulu war on Sir Bartle Frere for carrying on, under the British flag, those very injustices from which the Zulus had so long suffered under the Boers. Nor was his activity in the House of Commons confined to external policy. In April 1877 he urgently pleaded for a widening of the scope of education at Oxford and Cambridge and for increased endowment of research. During the session of 1879 he was indefatigable in seeking to amend in committee the army discipline and regulation bill.
It was not only in the House of Commons or in letters to 'The Times' that Harcourt made his influence felt during this period. His speeches at public meetings through the country proved the finest rhetorical efforts of his career. For the most part carefully prepared, yet delivered so skilfully as to appear extempore, they were masterpieces of dignified eloquence and brilliant epigram. At liberal demonstrations at Oxford, Scarborough, Sheffield, Southport, Liverpool, and Birmingham (20 Jan. 1880, with John Bright and Mr. Chamberlain) he ridiculed the government's policy of 'bluster and bravado,' and his rhetorical energy conspicuously supplemented that of Gladstone.
In March 1880 Parliament was dissolved, and a general election immediately followed. The contest in Oxford was very keen ; the conservatives considerably reduced the liberal majorities, but Harcourt and his colleague (Sir) Joseph William Chitty [q. v. Suppl. I] were elected (3 April). The result of the general election was the return of 349 Hberals, 243 conservatives, and 60 home rulers. Lord Beaconsfield resigned on 22 April. Despite their pohtical differences, Harcourt's private relations with the conservative statesman remained friendly till Lord Beaconsfield's death on 19 April 1881, when Harcourt attended the funeral at Hughenden.
Delicate issues were involved in the choice in 1880 of a liberal prime minister. Gladstone had abandoned to Lord Hartington the leadership of the liberal party in 1875, and despite his active agitation in the country had not resumed his old post, Harcourt, while energetic in support and exposition of the liberal programme, inclined to whig doctrines. On 29 Dec. 1874 he had written to Goschen (Life, i. 152) 'I have been preaching whig doctrines pur et simple ; they are my principles, and I mean to stick to them coûte que coûte.' He had urged on Hartington in Jan. 1875 the acceptance of the leadership, chiefly to save the party from radical predominance. Although he worked loyally with Gladstone, he was often puzzled by his apparent casuistry (Life of Goschen, i. 153). Now he urged Hartington to become prime minister in virtue of his formal place of leader. He believed, he wrote to him (18 April 1880), that his sobriety would have more effect on moderate public opinion than 'all the oratory in the world' (Holland, Life of Duke of Devonshire, i. 271). But events took another course. Gladstone declined to serve in any other situation save that of chief of the new government, and he again became prime minister. He at once formed a ministry. Harcourt was given the post of home secretary, and was sworn of the privy council (28 April). On seeking re-election as a minister Harcourt was again opposed at Oxford by his previous opponent, Alexander William Hall. The conservative organisation left no stone unturned to capture the seat, and Hall was returned by a majority of 54 (10 May). He was, however, shortly afterwards unseated on petition, and the borough was disfranchised for corruption for the whole of that parliament. Harcourt was not long absent from the House of Commons. Samuel Plimsoll [q. v. Suppl. I] generously resigned his seat at Derby in his favour, and he was elected without a contest on 26 May. ​ Harcourt's first legislative measure was the Ground Game Act, or the hares and rabbits bill, which he introduced on 27 May. The object of the bill was the better protection of the occupier of land against the ravages of hares and rabbits, and it provided that the occupier should have equal rights with the landlord to kill and take ground game. The bill aroused the bitterest opposition of a section of the tory party, and though the second reading was moved on 10 June, it was not finally passed until 27 August. The keen opposition brought out all Harcourt's adroitness in debate and retort. The effect of the bill was the extermination of the hare in many parts of England, but it went a long way towards conciUating the farmers and practically killed the agitation against the Game Laws.
Select committees to inquire into the state of British merchant shipping and the London water supply next occupied Harcourt's attention. As chairman of the last committee he drew up a report (3 Aug.) which recommended that a single body directly responsible to the people of London should take control of all the London water supply (cf. Hansard, 15 Feb. 1882). In the autumn he carefully considered the position of juvenile offenders, advocating the use of the birch instead of detention in prison. His recommendation led to a marked reduction in the number of juvenile criminal convictions (cf. speech at Cockermouth, 29 Oct. 1881). The revelations in Oct. 1881 of cruelty and abuses at St. Paul's Industrial School led him to propose a royal commission to inquire into the whole system of industrial and reformatory schools [see Taylor, Helen, Suppl. II]. Harcourt firmly believed in capital punishment (cf. Hansard, 22 June 1881) and he administered the criminal law with merciful firmness.
But political disturbances in Ireland soon absorbed the attention of the government, and on Harcourt devolved the duty of carrying through the House of Commons, in the teeth of strenuous obstruction from the Irish members, the coercive measures which the government deemed necessary in the interests of order. After long and stormy debates (1-21 March 1881 ) he carried through the peace preservation (Ireland) bill, or the arms bill, which prohibited for five years, in certain districts proclaimed by the lord-lieutenant, the bearing of arms, and empowered the police to search for them. Next year, after the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke in the Phoenix Park (6 May 1882), Harcourt introduced (11 May) the prevention of crimes (Ireland) bill, which empowered the lord-lieutenant, at discretion, to suspend trial by jury, and to substitute a commission of three judges of the Supreme Court, and granted an appeal to a court consisting of the whole of the judges. The bill, stringent though it was, met with the general approval of all parties in the house except the Irish members. The first reading was passed, after a short debate, by a majority of 305, although Mr. Dillon described Harcourt's speech as 'blood-thirsty.' The debate on the later stages of the bill proved a long struggle of endurance. The bill went into committee on 25 May, but it was not passed till 3 July, after a thirty-hours' continuous sitting of the house (30 June-1 July), in the course of which twenty-five Irish members were suspended for wilful obstruction. Throughout the proceedings Harcourt showed firmness, excellent temper and indifference to personal attack. The bill received the royal assent on 12 July. An autumn session, 24 Oct. to 2 Dec, was occupied in reforming the procedure of the House of Commons. Gladstone was absent owing to ill-health, and to Harcourt fell the task of defending the government's Irish policy against a spirited attack. The London campaign of the Irish dynamite conspirators in the spring of 1883 greatly increased Harcourt's responsibihties. In a circular to the police and local authorities, he urged the strictest supervision over the acquisition of explosives by the public. On 9 April he introduced into the house his explosive substance bill, which inflicted the severest penalties for the unlawful possession and illegal use of explosives. In the passing of the bill he achieved a record in parliamentary legislation. His introductory speech was concise and masterly, and so well suited to the temper of the house that, within two hours of his first rising, the bill was carried through all its stages. It was at once sent to the House of Lords, and its progress was marked by the same celerity there. Throughout the troublesome months that followed, Harcourt, who was never without police protection, succeeded in stamping out the dynamite conspiracy.
Meanwhile Harcourt continued in the recess to address great political gatherings throughout the country, defending with vigour the policy of the government and attacking the opposition. His reception was invariably enthusiastic. On 25 Aug. 1881 he was accorded the freedom of the city of Glasgow. At Burton-on-Trent ​(22 Jan. 1882), and at the Drill Hall, Derby (25 April 1882), his audiences numbered many thousands. At Derby he pronounced a glowing eulogy on Gladstone, and when the prime minister at the end of the year contemplated resignation owing to illness, Harcourt urged him to hold on. On 16 Nov. many influential liberals met at the Westminster Palace Hotel to promote the foundation of the National Liberal Club, and Harcourt proposed the creation of a political and historical library to be called 'The Gladstone Library.'
The general legislation for which Harcourt was responsible during the rest of his tenure of office was small. In March he made a serious attempt to improve the conditions of labour in coal mines, and did much to extend the use of the Fleuss apparatus where the presence of injurious gases made conditions unhealthy. But the local government board (Scotland) bill, which he introduced on 29 June and which provided a board for Scotland, with full and independent jurisdiction over local Scottish affairs, passed the Commons on 17 Aug. 1883, only to be rejected by the House of Lords.
On 8 April 1884 Harcourt introduced his London government bill, which had been long in contemplation. It sought to consolidate the various governing bodies of the whole of London into a single corporation with full control of a large and defined area. The debate continued, with intervals, till 9 July, but the complexities of the bill and the ceaseless opposition which it aroused forced Harcourt reluctantly to abandon the measure. Meanwhile he was active both in parliament and the country in the struggle with the House of Lords over the franchise bill of 1884, and was as effective as the circumstances admitted in defence of the Egyptian policy of the government. He had supported Lord Hartington, the secretary for war, in despatching General Gordon in 1884 to the relief of Khartoum, On the fall of KJiartoum and the death of Gordon (26 Jan. 1885) he resisted with rhetorical force the vote of censure on the government which was moved by Sir Stafford Northcote and brought the government majority down to fourteen. The government did not long survive. On 16 May 1886 Gladstone announced that a part of Harcourt's Crimes Act (Ireland) would be renewed, and on 8 June the Irish members and the tories combined on an amendment to the budget and the government was defeated by 264 to 262. Gladstone and his government at once resigned and Lord Salisbury became prime minister. Under the new government Harcourt succeeded in replacing a clause struck by the Lords out of the Registration Bill (July 23), which abolished the electoral disqualification of receipt of medical relief. During the month he censured the favourable reception by the government of Mr. Parnell's motion for an inquiry into the conduct of Lord Spencer's administration in regard to the Maamtrasna and other murder cases. At the same time he declared his unwillingness to support any future measure of coercion.
At the general election in November Harcourt's seat at Derby was contested, but he retained it without much difficulty. He devoted most of his time to an energetic campaign outside his constituency. While powerfully supporting his party, he dissociated himself at Blandford (24 Sept. 1885) from Mr. Chamberlain's extreme radicalism. The final result of the general election was that the conservatives and Pamellites exactly balanced the liberals, a difficult situation^ which caused Harcourt disquietude. On 6 Dec. 1885 he wrote to Hartington that he looked 'forward to the tory government keeping up the Pamellite alliance, and so discrediting themselves' (Life of Duke of Devonshire, ii. 26). Speaking at Lowestoft next day he deprecated an early return of the liberals to office, preferring for his part that 'the tories should stew in the Pamellite juice, until they stank in the nostrils of the country' (The Times, 8 Dec. 1885). On 17 Dec. 1885 he declared himself in the depths of despair at party prospects, and divided the blame for the crisis between Mr. Chamberlain and Gladstone. Meanwhile rumours spread abroad that Gladstone was about to admit home rule into the party programme, but no word of that intention was communicated by Gladstone to his colleagues. On 28 Dec. Harcourt met Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, and Sir Charles Dilke in London, and wrote jointly to Gladstone entreating him to give a straight answer respecting his intentions about home rule, and to consult his colleagues before committing himself to a new policy.
Parliament met on 12 Jan. 1886, and the current rumour of Gladstone's conversion to home rule was confirmed. The conservative government was defeated by a combination of liberals and home rulers and Gladstone again became prime minister, 1 February. Lord Hartington, Sir Henry James, and Goschen at once declined to entertain a measure of home rule. Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan ​agreed to consider its details, without much hope of final assent. Harcourt had no hesitation in accepting Gladstone's guidance. Party loyalty was a paramount obligation. He would not desert the party ship and was sanguine of an early reunion with former colleagues who refused to join a home rule cabinet. He was very active in helping Gladstone to form the now ministry. He took the post of chancellor of the exchequer. He thus definitely became Gladstone's first lieutenant. He was acting leader of the house in the prime minister's absence, with the reversion, according to frequent precedent, to the headship of the government whenever a vacancy should arise.
Early in March Harcourt, while announcing the government's refusal to deal that session with disestablishment in Wales, treated the proposal with benevolence. On 8 April Gladstone introduced his home rule bill. Harcourt supported it in a powerful and impressive speech. All other methods of restoring tranquillity to Ireland had failed. The apparent suddenness of his conversion exposed him to bitter attack from the opposition and from dissentient liberals. He retorted that he had repudiated in the previous year the policy of coercion, and that home rule was the only alternative.
Harcourt's first budget, which he introduced on 15 April, was unexciting. A deficit of two and a half millions was to be supplied by existing taxes. The only innovation abolished, at a cost of 16,000l., the tax upon beer brewed in cottages with a rental under 8l.
On the second reading debate of the home rule bill, which Gladstone moved on 10 May, Harcourt made one of the best speeches in defence, but the division, which was taken on 7 June, gave the government only 311 votes against 341.
At the general election which followed Harcourt retained his seat at Derby with difficulty, but outside his own constituency he prosecuted a vigorous campaign. With his aggressive temper there went a curious sensitiveness to attack by his former colleagues, and when Lord Hartington was announced (in June 1886) to speak against him at Derby, Harcourt wrote to protest, with the result that Lord Hartington cancelled his engagement. The conservatives, however, returned to power with a working majority of 113. Harcourt's term of office as chancellor of the exchequer ended on 20 July, having lasted less than six months. He was succeeded by Lord Randolph Churchill, and from the opposition benches mercilessly criticised the new government's Irish programme at the opening of the new parliament. But Harcourt still hoped to re-unite the liberal party, and at the end of 1886 he suggested a conference with that end. On 13 Jan. Lord Herschell, Harcourt, and Mr. (afterwards Viscount) Morley, representing the liberals, met Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan, representing the liberal-unionists, at Harcourt's London house. The deliberations continued at frequent intervals for two months, when the Round Table conference broke up without tangible results. During the Salisbury parliament, 1886–1892, Harcourt, next to Gladstone himself, did more than any man by speeches in the House of Commons and the country to keep up the spirits of the liberal party. He was relentless in attack on the coercive policy of the conservative government in Ireland. Through 1887 he denounced the government's treatment of the attacks on Parnell and his colleagues by 'The Times' newspaper and strongly censured the constitution of the royal commission of inquiry into the charges. At the same time he fought hard for a reduction in national expenditure: he championed the social reforms of the party programme. Brilliant passages of arms with Mr. Chamberlain delighted the house. But Harcourt was no blind partisan. He helped to improve the government's Irish land bill, July, and the Allotments Act, Aug. 1887.
In the course of 1889 Harcourt delivered no less than nineteen set speeches at various liberal demonstrations in different parts of the country. His services to Gladstone proved invaluable and the relations between the two soon grew very close. During the Whitsuntide recess Gladstone stayed with him at Malwood, his country residence in the New Forest which he acquired in 1885, and Harcourt returned the visit to Hawarden in October. On the first night of the next session (12 Feb. 1890) Harcourt moved to condemn the publication of the Pigott letters in 'The Times' as a breach of privilege, but after a stormy debate, which lasted the whole evening, the motion was defeated by 260 to 212. During the session he opposed in his old 'Historicus' vein, by a long array of precedents and authorities, the cession of Heligoland to Germany. Towards the end of the summer the position of affairs was hopeful for the liberal party, but the condemnation of Parnell in the divorce court on 17 Nov. raised a new difficulty. On 21 Nov. Harcourt and Mr. John Morley attended the annual national ​ liberal conference at Sheffield, and after the meeting they informed Gladstone of the delegates' opinion that the continuation of Parnell's leadership of the nationalists would be disastrous to home rule. Harcourt discussed the point with Gladstone, Mr. Arnold Morley, Mr. John Morley,and Lord Granville at Lord Rondel's house in London on 24 Nov. 1890. In the result Gladstone repudiated Parnell as leader of the Irish party. A split among the nationalists followed, and the Hberal position in the House of Commons was weakened.
During the session of 1891 Gladstone's health often kept him away from the house, and Harcourt filled his place as leader of the opposition. Speaking in different parts of the country, he urged legislation in the interest of the agricultural labourer, the compulsory purchase of land for small holdings, local power to restrict the sale of liquor, declaring that home rule itself was insufficient to bring the liberals back to office. Home rule, disestablishment of the church in Wales, local control of liquor traffic, electoral reform, payment of members of parliament, the establishment of district councils, and the ending or mending of the House of Lords formed the Newcastle programme of the party which was formulated by the National Liberal Federation at Newcastle on 2 Oct. 1891, when Gladstone gave it his benediction. At Glasgow in October Harcourt championed with vigour the pronouncement which governed the policy of the party for the next four years. He was indefatigable in pressing the programme on the notice of the country, addressing upon it twenty-two public meetings next year. In the House of Commons he was not less active. In the session of 1892 he strenuously opposed Mr. Balfour's Irish local government bill, which passed its second reading on 24 May and was shortly afterwards withdrawn.
From the beginning of the year till after the dissolution of parliament on 29 June 1892, Harcourt sought to heal differences within the party and held several conferences at his private house with members of the extreme radical wing. At the end of June parliament dissolved, and at the ensuing general election 355 liberals and nationalists were returned, and 315 conservatives and liberal-unionists, thus giving a majority of 40 pledged to home rule. To Harcourt's efforts the result was largely due, but though returned at the head of the poll in his own constituency, it was by a considerably reduced majority. On 16 Aug. Gladstone again became prime minister with Harcourt as chancellor of the exchequer. Parliament met on 31 Jan. 1893, and the government's programme embraced not only home rule but bills for regulating a local veto, employers' liability, and local government. Gladstone's age and infirmities devolved on Harcourt, his lieutenant, a large share of the work of leading the house. Besides his budget, he took charge of the local veto bill, which provided that, on the demand of one-tenth of the municipal voters in any borough or ward, a vote might be taken which, by a majority of two-thirds of those actually voting, could extinguish every public-house licence in that area for a period of three years. The measure awoke bitter opposition, and was abandoned, to be reintroduced early in 1895. Harcourt's budget, which he introduced on 24 April, avoided surprises for lack of time. A deficit of 1,574,000l. was met by raising the income tax from 6d. to 1d. The session was mainly occupied by the home rule bill, which passed the third reading in the House of Commons on 1 Sept. by a majority of 34 and was rejected by the House of Lords on 8 Sept. by 419 against 41. The bill was thereupon for the time reluctantly dropped by the government. During the following autumn session Harcourt was prominent in the debates on the parish councils bill, which carried the session on to 10 Jan. 1894. At the beginning of Feb. the House of Lords amended the parish councils bill and greatly altered its powers. Harcourt, speaking at the annual conference of the National Liberal Federation at Portsmouth on 14 Feb., strongly denounced the action of the upper house, which he described as 'the champion of all abuses and the enemy of all reform.' On 1 March Gladstone made his last speech in the House of Commons, and on the same day attended his last cabinet council. Harcourt spoke a few words of 'acknowledgement and farewell,' of which Gladstone wrote to the Queen that they were 'undeservedly' kind. Two days later parliament was prorogued, and on the same day Gladstone resigned. The Queen on her own responsibility, and without consulting Gladstone, sent for Lord Rosebery, secretary for foreign affairs, and he consented to form a ministry.
The choice was a disappointment to Harcourt. He had well earned the reversion of the premiership. Entering public life when Lord Rosebery was at Eton, he had borne the brunt of a long stem fight and had acquired a wide experience of parliamentary ways. Since 1885 he had ​fought with untiring energy the battles of his party in and out of parliament. To the liberal cause he had been a pillar of strength. The majority of the liberal party regarded him as their champion. But Harcourt's loyalty to party and his conviction of its value were (in Lord Morley's phrase) 'indestructible instincts,' and he consented to serve under Lord Rosebery in his former office. When parliament met on 12 March 1894 he took his place as leader of the House of Commons.
The next sixteen months were the most strenuous period in Harcourt's political career. As leader in the House of Commons of a party with a small majority and a large and contentious programme, he exhibited unexpected skill, tact, and patience. His opinions did not always coincide with those of the prime minister, and, though for the most part they worked together in harmony, the cabinet councils were not free from friction. Both announced before the opening of parliament (12 March) adherence to the Newcastle programme, and Harcourt promised early legislation on the subject of temperance, to which he deemed himself personally pledged.
On the day after parliament re-assembled with Harcourt at the head of the House of Commons, the government suffered defeat. Henry Labouchere's amendment to the address, praying her Majesty to abolish the veto of the House of Lords, was carried against Harcourt's advice by 147 to 145. On 16 April Harcourt introduced his famous death duties budget. The estimated deficit for the year was 4,502,000l. The main principle of the bill was the abolition of the existing probate duty, the account duty, and Goschen's addition to the succession duty, and the imposition of a single graduated tax called the estate duty, chargeable on the principal value of all property, whether real or personal. The tax was graduated from one per cent, on estate of a value between 100l. and 500l. to a maximum of eight per cent, on estates over 1,000,000l. It proposed that the legacy and succession duties should be made identical in their application to realty and personalty. The income tax was raised from 7d. to 8d., but the limit of exemption increased from 150l. to 160l. The abatement on incomes up to 400l. was raised from 120l. to 160l., and a new abatement of 100l. created on incomes from 400l'. to 500l. An increase of sixpence per barrel on beer and sixpence per gallon on spirits was imposed for one year only. A determined opposition was offered to the measure, and for three months it was subjected to every form of attack. But Harcourt had made himself familiar with every detail, and he met all criticisms with a firmness and conciliation which robbed the debate of much of its bitterness. Despite resistance, he carried his budget through the House of Commons on 17 July practically unimpaired, though by the narrow majority of 20, and without having once employed the closure. The bill was the most important legislative achievement of the year, and established Harcourt's reputation as a financier. Its results fully realised the expectations formed of them. Its main principles were not disturbed when the conservatives returned to power in the following year. During the rest of the session Harcourt helped to pass an evicted tenants (Ireland) bill and a local government bill for Scotland. The former bill was rejected by the House of Lords. The session closed on 25 Aug. During the recess, Harcourt abstained from platform speeches. He made a holiday tour in Italy. Consequent rumours of resignation were emphatically denied in a speech at Derby on 23 Jan. 1895, when amid scenes of great enthusiasm he denounced the House of Lords.
The session of 1895 opened on 5 Feb. under exceptional difficulties for the government, whose original majority of forty had fallen to less than twenty, mainly owing to the defection of the Parnellite group. The party programme included Welsh disestablishment, control of liquor traffic and plural voting. On 8 April Harcourt introduced his local liquor control bill, which mainly differed from that of 1893 by reducing the number of licences on the vote of a bare majority, at the same time as all licences were prohibited by a majority of two-thirds. The bill was read the first time before the Easter recess. On 2 May he introduced his fourth and last budget. He applied a realised surplus of 776,000l. to the reduction of debt and re-imposed the temporary tax of 1894 of sixpence per gallon of beer (yielding 500,000l. ) in order to meet an estimated coming deficit of 319,000l. and provide a surplus of 181,000l. At the conclusion of his speech he declared that a continuation of the rise in national expenditure which had marked the last few years must inevitably lead to grave embarrassments. No serious opposition was offered to the measure, and it was finally passed on 10 May.
Most of May and June was devoted to the Welsh disestablishment bill. But the unexpected defeat of the government, ​ by a majority of seven, on 21 June, on a motion dealing with the supply of cordite, led to their immediate resignation: On 24 June, when Harcourt announced his retirement, he described the office of leader of the House of Commons as 'one of greater responsibility and higher obligation even than any office under the crown.' The highest of his ambitions was 'to stand well with the House of Commons.' It was his last speech as a minister of the crown.
The general election that followed was disastrous for the liberal party. Harcourt, while he appealed to his constituents for a mandate to deal with the House of Lords, and to pass the remainder of the Newcastle programme, emphasised the urgent need of temperance legislation. The plea was not popular. On 13 July the two liberal candidates at Derby, Harcourt and Sir Thomas Roe, were both defeated. The final result of the electoral conflict was to put the conservatives into power with the large majority of 152. For the second time Harcourt had to seek a new constituency, and West Monmouth was generously vacated in his favour by Cornelius Marshall Warmington, K.C., who was created a baronet in 1908. Although the liberal majority there was over 5000, the seat was contested, but Harcourt succeeded in slightly increasing the majority. Parliament met on 12 Aug. for the passing of supply, and was prorogued on 5 Sept. Harcourt spent the greater part of the next four months in retirement at Malwood.
Parliament met on 11 Feb. 1896, and Harcourt once more led the opposition with unabated vigour. Speaking at Bournemouth on 11 March 1896 he pledged the liberal party to the principle of self-government for Ireland, to a reform of registration and of the House of Lords, and to the cause of temperance. During the session he attacked the advance of the Anglo-Egyptian army into the Soudan, and asked for an inquiry into the circumstances of the Jameson Raid. After the trial of Dr. Jameson, Mr. Chamberlain moved for a select committee to inquire into recent events in Africa (30 July), and he accepted Harcourt's amendment to extend the inquiry to the raid itself. He was appointed a member of the committee, but only one meeting was held before Parliament was prorogued. From Feb. to July 1897 the committee continued its work at short intervals. Harcourt was prominent in examining witnesses, and his examination of Cecil Rhodes, though severe and searching, was universally admitted to be just. Finally in July Harcourt signed the majority report, which condemned the raid and censured Rhodes, but exonerated the colonial office and the high commissioner. Some members of his own party complained that the findings of the committee were inconclusive. Labouchere accused the two front benches of a conspiracy of silence, and declared that the committee had failed to probe the matter to the bottom. Harcourt defended the committee's decision, which was the only one that the evidence justified, but he failed to conciliate his critics. Some years later, on 20 Feb. 1900, when party feeling over South Africa was running high, he supported an abortive resolution to reopen the inquiry into the raid with a view to further investigation of the rumours that Rhodes's agents had endeavoured to implicate state officials in London and the Cape.
Meanwhile Harcourt offered uncompromising opposition to most of the domestic measures of the unionist government. The education bill, which was introduced on 31 March 1896 and withdrawn on 18 June, Harcourt denounced as extinguishing the school boards and reintroducing the religious difficulty. He treated with scarcely less vigour the agricultural rating bill, which was passed only after long and strenuous debates.
Internal differences hampered the influence of the party. Harcourt rarely referred in public to Lord Rosebery, his titular chief, whose followers showed small respect for Harcourt. The breach was widened by the Armenian massacres in Sept. 1896. Gladstone came forth from his retirement to urge on England a moral obligation to intervene between Turkey and her persecuted Armenian subjects. Harcourt expressed practical agreement with Gladstone in a speech to his constituents at Ebbw Vale on 5 Oct. Lord Rosebery promptly avowed his dissent from Gladstone's and Harcourt's views by resigning the liberal leadership. In a speech at Edinburgh (9 Oct.) he declared that the internal troubles of the party 'were not less than the external.' No immediate steps were taken definitely to elect a new leader. Mr. Morley asserted at Glasgow on 6 Nov. that it was at present enough for the party that Sir William Harcourt led them to admiration in the House of Commons. But Mr. Morley's applause was not universally shared within the liberal ranks, and the wounds left by Lord Rosebery's withdrawal failed to heal. Through the spring of 1897 Harcourt constantly com​commented in the house and in the country on the attitude of the government towards the war between Turkey and Greece. His sympathies lay with Greece, and he urged the annexation of Crete to that country. In the result Crete was liberated from Turkey, and a Christian administrator. Prince George of Greece, was made high commissioner. A political tour in East Scotland followed in November, in the course of which he addressed large audiences. Harcourt stayed with Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at Belmont Castle, receiving the freedom of Dundee (25 Nov.), and he revisited Kirkcaldy, the scene of his first parliamentary contest. During 1898 he constantly discussed the position of China. There at first he supported Lord Salisbury's policy of 'the open door' and the preservation of the integrity of China. But he opposed the lease by the British government of Wei-hai-wei (5 April) and attacked the government (29 April) for accepting the principle of spheres of influence in place of a recognition of commercial freedom and equal rights of all nations. In the House of Commons on 20 May, the day after Gladstone's death, he paid an eloquent and touching tribute to his old friend and leader, and at Gladstone's funeral in Westminster Abbey (28 May 1898) he acted as a pall-bearer.
Shortly afterwards he turned from current politics to ecclesiastical controversy. In stubbornly opposing the government's benefices bill through June, he resumed his early role of champion of protestantism and alleged a conspiracy in the Church of England to overthrow the principles of the Reformation. After the passing of the bill, until the end of the year he continued the controversy in letters to 'The Times' on 'Lawlessness in the Church,' which he collected in a volume called 'The Crisis in the Church.' He accused the clergy of violating the vows under which they were ordained. Harcourt's attack on ritualism excited a wide discussion and led to the prohibition by the bishops of some ritualistic practices which were current in advancal churches. The decision of the two archbishops against the ceremonial use of incense and processional lights (Aug. 1899) brought forth a triumphant letter from Harcourt in 'The Times.' During the parliamentary recess of 1898 Harcourt's public appearances were rare, but at Aberystwith on 26 Oct., where he opened the new University College buildings, and at the City of London's banquet to Lord Kitchener on 4 Nov. he commended the handling by the government of the Fashoda difficulty. Meanwhile Harcourt's relations with the imperialistic section of his party who continued to regard Lord Rosebery as leader were growing increasingly strained. His authority was questioned through what he called the 'sectional disputes and personal interests' which divided the ranks.
On 8 Dec. he startled the public mind by announcing in a letter to Mr. Morley his resignation of the leadership of the liberal party in the House of Commons and his resolution to 'undertake no responsibility and to occupy no position the duties of which it is made impossible for me to fulfil.' His retirement was followed by that of Mr. Morley, who, in a speech to his constituents at Brechin on 17 Jan. 1899, announced his withdrawal from active participation in the policy of the front opposition bench. At a meeting of the liberal party in the Reform Club on 6 Feb. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was elected Harcourt's successor in the leadership. Fine tributes were then paid to Harcourt, and, in addition to the formal resolution of regret, the meeting expressed 'its continued confidence in him.' But experience showed that there was small likelihood of his maintaining the unity of the party.
As a private member Harcourt showed from time to time activity in criticism of the government. He condemned the suspension of the sinking fund in April 1899 and scorned an imperial policy which failed to pay its way. At the beginning of May he supported the church discipline bill. At a dinner of the Welsh parliamentary party (6 May) he vehemently advocated, in opposition to advice which Lord Rosebery had lately tendered the party, the old programme of reform, and on 31 May, in a speech at Nantyglo, he urged England to develop her present possessions rather than increase her obligations by the addition of new ones.
Of the difficulties with the Transvaal Harcourt took a judicial view. He allowed the need of internal reform, but on the outbreak of war (Oct. 1899), while he condemned in the House of Commons the Boer ultimatum, he declared that he was not satisfied that the course pursued by the government had been 'in every respect most conducive to peace.' His prophecy that the war would cost 100,000,000l. was received with derision by the tones. On 30 Jan. 1900 he supported the vote of censure on the conduct of the war and blamed the government for basing their ​ preparations on a contemptuous estimate of the character and resources of the Boers, but he expressed his confidence in the ultimate success of the British troops, whose valour he eulogised. Beyond some caustic criticisms of the government's financial proposals, he figured little in the House of Commons debates for the remainder of the first session of 1900, but during the general election in Sept. and Oct. he conducted a spirited campaign in his constituency of West Monmouthshire. He denoimced the government's 'audacious' attempt to confine the election to the issue of the war, and discussed social problems, emphasising the need of comprehensive educational reform, with the elimination of all sectarian influence, and of legislation in the cause of temperance. He was in his seventy-third year, but his energy and eloquence were unabated. He retained his seat by a large majority. 'I wish I could join you in retiring' he wrote on 18 Oct. 1900 to Goschen who was resigning his place in the unionist government. 'Your party can, with regret, afford it. Mine is too short-handed to spare a single man at the ropes.'
In the new parliament Harcourt watched narrowly the course of events in South Africa. He declared that the cost of the war would have to be borne by the British tax-payer and that it was idle for the government to expect a contribution from the Transvaal (Hansard, 13 Dec. 1900). When on 14 June 1901 he and Campbell-Bannerman were entertained by the National Reform Union, Harcourt denounced the war as 'unjust and engineered' and 'recommended upon all sorts of false pretences,' but was less vehement in condemnation than his colleague. On 16 Jan. 1902 he elaborately denounced as an unconstitutional violation of the statute laws the action of the governor of Cape Colony in suspending, on the advice of the Cape ministers, the constitution of the colony. Throughout 1903, in both speeches and letters to 'The Times' (5 and 16 Feb. and 1 April), he vigorously protested against the introduction of forced labour into South Africa. In a letter to Lord Carrington, which was read (10 Feb. 1904) at a large protest meeting in Queen's Hall, he described the project as 'throwing back the moral sense of the nation a whole century since the final emancipation of the slave.' Other questions which engaged Harcourt's energies at this period were Sir Michael Hicks Beach's budget proposals of 1902, when he resisted the proposed tax on imported corn. On 12 May he moved an amendment (defeated by 296 to 188) to the finance bill asking the house to 'decline to impose customs duties on grain, flour, or other articles of first necessity for the food of the people.' During the same session he opposed Mr. Balfour's education bill, which he declared did nothing for the cause of elementary education but threatened an educational civil war ; the bill not only destroyed the school boards but removed voluntary schools from popular control (cf. speeches to constituents, 8-9 Oct. 1902). Mr. Chamberlain's advocacy of a reform in the fiscal system in 1903 roused Harcourt to fresh activity. Again both in speeches in the country and in letters to 'The Times' (13 July, 7 and 19 Aug., and 17 Nov. 1903) he reiterated his faith in free trade. Always loyal to the Crown, Harcourt was on friendly terms with the Prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VII. On 26 March 1901, at a public meeting at the Mansion House, he seconded the resolution, moved by Mr. Balfour, in favour of erecting a national monument to Queen Victoria in front of Buckingham Palace. At the coronation of Edward VII in 1902 he was offered a peerage, but this he respectfully but firmly declined. He was made honorary fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, on 14 Nov. 1902.- Early in 1904 his health showed signs of failing, and on 29 Feb. he announced to his constituents his intention of not seeking re-election, at the same time prophesying victory for the united party of progress. Even then his part in politics was not quite ended. In 'The Times' (14 March 1904), under the heading 'The Leader and the Led,' he wrote with his old incisiveness of the split in the tory ranks occasioned by the fiscal reform controversy. On 17 May he spoke in the House of Commons for nearly an hour on the finance bill. His last speech was delivered at the annual reception of the National Liberal Club on 27 July, when he protested against the growing want of consideration exhibited towards the House of Commons by the employment of the closure and the 'guillotine' as the 'daily dram,' By the death, on 23 March 1904, of his nephew, Aubrey Vernon Harcourt, the only son of his elder brother, Edward William Harcourt, Sir William succeeded to the family estates at Nuneham, Oxfordshire. There his last days were spent in full possession of his faculties and of health. The evening before his death he appeared in his usual health. He retired to rest at his accustomed hour on Friday, 30 Sept., and quietly passed away in his sleep. ​In a message of condolence from King Edward VII to Lady Harcourt the king described Harcourt as 'an old and valued friend.' He was buried in the old church within the grounds of Nuneham on 6 Oct. The funeral was attended only by the tenants and the immediate relatives. A memorial service was held at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on the same day.
Harcourt was twice married: first, on 5 Nov. 1859, to Maria Theresa, daughter of Thomas Henry Lister [q. v.] of Armitage Park, Yorkshire, and of Lady Theresa Lister, sister of Lord Clarendon. She died on 31 Jan. 1863, leaving two sons, of whom one died in infancy, and the other, Lewis, born on 31 Jan. 1863, after acting as private secretary to his father from 1882 to 1904, became first commissioner of works in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's government in 1905 and colonial secretary in Mr. Asquith's administration in 1910. On 2 Dec. 1876 Harcourt married secondly Elizabeth, widow of Mr. J. P. Ives and a daughter of John Lothrop Motley, historian and sometime United States minister in London. Lady Harcourt survives with one son, Robert Vernon (b. 7 May 1878), liberal M.P. for Montrose burghs since 1908.
The figure of Justinian, in the fresco 'The School of Legislation' at Lincoln's Inn Hall, is a portrait of Harcourt at the age of thirty-three. It was painted from a sketch, now at Nuneham, which was taken by the artist, G. F. Watts, R.A., in 1860. The best portrait of Harcourt was painted by Mr. A. S. Cope, R.A., and was just finished at his death. It was intended as a gift to Harcourt himself; after his death it was presented to his son, Mr. Lewis Harcourt (in Feb. 1905), by a subscription of the liberal party, and it now hangs at Nuneham Park; a copy was at the same time subscribed for by the National Liberal Club. A bust by Mr. Waldo Story was modelled in Rome in 1899; the original plaster cast was presented by the sculptor to the National Portrait Gallery in 1907. A life-size statue of Harcourt, wearing the robes of a chancellor of the exchequer, stands in the members' lobby of the House of Commons. It is also by Mr. Waldo Story and was subscribed for by the members of the House of Commons; it was unveiled on 14 Jan. 1906 by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. There were portraits in 'Vanity Fair' in 1870, 1892 (by 'Spy'), 1897, and 1899.
In his youth remarkably handsome, Harcourt assumed, later in life, robust proportions which were eminently suited to his vigorous and aggressive temperament. He sprang from a stock essentially conservative and inherited an immense respect for tradition; as soon, however, as he was convinced of the necessity for change, no man was more courageous or more earnest in his advocacy of radical measures of reform. Perhaps his greatest achievement was the passing of his death duties budget in 1894, a measure which almost revolutionised the existing system of taxation. Essentially a House of Commons man, he was a zealous guardian of its traditions, and he preserved to the twentieth century the grand manner of the whig orators of the eighteenth century. He was one of the last and one of the greatest of the old school of Parliamentarians.
Harcourt ranks with the few men who could talk as brilliantly as they could write. He was an indefatigable worker, and his speeches, which were monuments of closely reasoned arguments, teeming with facts and illuminated by witty epigrams, were generally most diligently prepared and delivered by the aid of copious notes. He was at his best, however, when suddenly called upon to debate, and was never so happy as when he was fighting a hopeless battle against overwhelming odds. Imbued with the spirit of the gladiator, he possessed the gift of the advocate and could quickly concentrate his powers of picturesque invective, sarcasm and paradox. Instinctively an aristocrat and living in an aristocratic atmosphere, he never hesitated to express his contempt for every form of meanness or pretension. Unable to suffer fools gladly, and impatient of mediocrity, he earned the reputation of irascibility and haughtiness. But beneath his aggressive manner he possessed a large-hearted tenderness which endeared him to those who knew him well, and he was one of the few who preserved his friendships intact through the home rule split in the liberal party. Valuing old associations, he delighted to treasure up souvenirs of his friends and colleagues. His wit and good-nature made him a favourite in society. Nothing delighted him more than to gather round him a few kindred spirits, irrespective of party or creed. In his home in the New Forest he was the happiest and merriest of men. There he pursued his favourite hobbies of gardening and dairy farming. A devoted husband and father, he found in the affection of his family a haven of rest amid a life of strenuous fighting.
A.L.A.