ferred the race track to Downing Street, and that "Historicus" abruptly informed his subordinate that the post of Under Sec retary for Home Affairs was not a sine cure. Up to 1885, the present leader of the Com mons had been one of the strongest oppo nents of Home Rule for Ireland, and one of the most violent denouncers of Mr. Parnell and all his works. He was never tired of avowing* that he belonged to the Whig sec tion of the Liberal party, and he once de clared, with evident sincerity, that the proper course to adopt with the Irish members of parliament was " to allow them to stew in their own Parnellite juice." But the general election of 1885 changed many things, in cluding Mr. Gladstone's views concerning Home Rule. The Grand Old Man, as the late Prime Minister is often called in Eng land, had asked for such a majority as would enable him to legislate without the assistance of either the Irish Nationalists or the Con servatives. In other words, he wanted a Liberal majority over the combined forces of Tories and Parnellites, and the consti tuencies had not seen fit to give it to him. At this time Sir William Harcourt began to grow in political stature; he ceased to be a Whig and became a Radical and, instead of stigmatizing Home Rule as an invention of the devil, he strongly supported it as a just and desirable policy. After the election of 1885 Mr. Gladstone appointed Sir William Chancellor of the Exchequer, a selection which caused sur prise, because that position requires a tech nical knowledge of financial and monetary questions such as lawyers seldom possess. It was generally supposed that the former Home Secretary would be created a peer and would accept the office of Lord Chan cellor. Two reasons seem to have inter fered with this arrangement: first, the Liberal side of the elective chamber pos sesses few great debaters, and Sir William could not be spared. Secondly, the Mem
ber for Derby was not anxious to be con demned to political extinction in the House of Lords, even with the Lord Chancellor ship and £10,000 a year thrown in as a solatium. We have lately been told in the news papers that Sir William will next year display his powers as a financier; it is hinted that his budget is likely to abolish the import duties upon tea, coffee and cocoa, and that a graduated income tax, based upon the principle of equality of sacrifice, will be sub stituted. The advent of this budget will be anxiously awaited by many people, espe cially those with very large incomes. Whether the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is a financier of more than ordi nary merit, time alone can show. His most bitter opponents, however, admit that, as a debater, he is facile princeps in the present House of Commons; his sarcasm reminds one of the late Robert Lowe, who made him self notorious by placing a tax upon lucifer matches; and his invective recalls Disraeli, of whom, by the way, he was an intimate personal friend, although a political op ponent. Sir William Harcourt is not, generally speaking, a popular man. Indeed he has the reputation of being rather a disagreeable person, unless you know him well and under stand his peculiarities. The following anec dote is, in all probability, a malicious inven tion, but it is worth repeating. Six members of the House of Commons decided to give a joint dinner party, each host to invite one guest, and one only. A further condition was that in every case the invited guest was to be the most disagree able person among the hosts' acquaintances. The hour for dinner — eight o'clock — ar rived in due course. Sir William Harcourt came a few minutes after that hour. At half-past eight no other guest had appeared, nor did any others appear later. The Mem ber for Derby had received six different in vitations from six different men!
