[SIR WILLIAM George Granville Venables VERNONHARCOURT is the younger son of the late Rev. William Harcourt of Nuneham Park, Oxford. He was born in 1827, and was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. Married, first, in 1859, Therèse Lister; second, in 1876, Mrs. Elizabeth Ives, a daughter of Mr. Motley, the historian. Has sat for the city of Oxford since November 1868. Was Solicitor-General from November 1873 until February 1874. Is Professor of International Law in the University of Cam bridge, and author of the 'Letters of Historicus' on International Law.] SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT. A FEW years ago the indefatigable London correspondent of the provincial Press was never weary of telling a story, which, though it was certainly untrue, had the unquestionable merit of being particularly spiteful. The story was to the effect that four friends made a novel wager. They were to dine together on a certain day, and each was to invite to the dinner the most disagreeable man he knew, the wager to be won by the man whose guest was by common admission the most disagreeable person in this strange company. On the appointed day the four friends met at the place of entertainment, and presently a waiter solemnly ushered in-Sir William Harcourt. All the four hosts stepped forward to receive him, for each had picked him out as the most disagreeable person of his acquaintance! The story is a ridiculous libel upon Sir William Harcourt in his private and social character, and I am convinced that it owes its origin to somebody who has never had the pleasure of knowing personally one of the most charming wits and raconteurs of English society. But it cannot be denied that in his public and political capacity Sir William Harcourt has done something to lay himself open to this rather pointed jest. In spite of his very apparent cleverness, his spirit, his dash, his readiness in repartee, and the fluency which almost reaches the level of eloquence, it cannot be doubted that the learned Member for Oxford is not popular as a politician. Ambitious as he is, brilliant as he is, rich in political lore as he unquestionably is, he lacks the one thing needed to make him a real power in the House of Commons-he has not, apparently, the remotest conception of the art of conciliating his political friends. It is a far cry now to the days when one 'Historicus' was writing learned letters in the Times on the subject of our relations with the United States, and the obligations imposed upon us, in the matter of the Confederate privateers, by international law. Probably comparatively few of my readers could now tell me what view Historicus,' to whom the Times was always so willing to give a prominent place and large type, took upon these vexed questions. Yet none the less was this gentleman a power in his day. Fierce was the controversy raised over his singularly clear and forcible exposition of the |