within to revert to his original attitude, that I cannot help fearing that Sir William Harcourt may yield to the temptation of reversion, and that, in place of the regenerate and sanctified one whom Mr. H. J. Wilson acclaims, we may have the old unregenerate Sir William, against whom Mr. Wilson ten years ago was zealous even to slaying.

A PARTING WORD FROM THE OLD ADAM.

But in order to fortify myself against this temptation,

AS SOME SEE HIM.

AS I DRAW HIM.

and to make it clear from what depth of distrust I have escaped-pro tem.-I will quote one other judgment which I published in the REVIEW OF REVIEWS in August, 1891:

Rumour has it that at a recent Liberal conclave it was decided that Sir William Harcourt should, in the event of Mr. Gladstone's retirement or apotheosis, be the next Liberal Prime Minister. The fact that such a decision would render it impossible for us to have a Liberal Prime Minister during the lifetime of Sir W. Harcourt can hardly have been present to the minds of those who put the rumour in circulation. The Liberal Party is a party of enthusiasm and of conviction. Sir W. Harcourt has neither the one nor the other. The men who alone can be depended upon to carry the constituencies are those to whom politics are a religion. To Sir W. Harcourt politics are a mere game. The other day I was talking in this strain to one of Sir William's colleagues, when he gravely reproved me. "I am quite sure," said my friend, "that there are some things about which Sir William is quite sincere." "Name, name!" I cried. "Well, for instance," replied his apologist, "I am quite sure that no one could possibly be more sincere than is Sir William in disliking the Colonies!" The day on which the Liberal Party entrusts its destinies to a leader whose one sincere conviction is a hatred of Great Britain will rightly seal its exclusion from office for the rest of the century. Whoever else may be possible, Sir W. Harcourt is not.

With this judgment of 1891 appended to the description of 1886, I rid myself of whatever leaven of uncharitableness may have been due to the observation of a Parliamentary career now extending over a quarter of a century, and, coming round with a wrench, describe the politician whose visage is nowhere contemplated with such complacency as when it smiles upon Sir William out of his own looking-glass. So now good-bye to Dugald Dalgetty..

II. FUZZY WUZZY.

In Fuzzy Wuzzy of the Soudan, that first-class fighting man who may be regarded as the prototype and exemplar of the Knight of Malwood, Rudyard Kiplingin that famous barrack-room ballad in which he used the lingo of Tommy Atkins in order to describe the salutary effect which the brave Fuzzy Wuzzy left on the mind of the British soldier-sums up his supreme achievement in the fact that he broke a British square. The Conservatives and Unionists could sing Kipling's ballad about Harcourt with right good will; nor would they have to go further than last Session to find an illustration of how capable is our Fuzzy Wuzzy of breaking a square, even when defended by a majority of 167. It was that exploit more than any other which gave him the prestige which he at present enjoys in the country.

A CAPTIVE OF HIS BOW AND SPEAR.

How much that prestige was enhanced by his exploits last Session can best be seen by printing what the Daily Chronicle wrote of him the other day :

As for the immediate duty of Liberals and Radicals, it is clear. Sir William Harcourt succeeds by unquestioned and unquestionable right of service to the position which Lord Rosebery has vacated. The author of the great Radical Budget, the man who destroyed the Education Bill, the master of parliamentary strategy who broke up in a single Session the most powerful anti-Liberal majority which the century has witnessed, has no present rival. He is in the popular House; he is beyond all comparison the most potent figure there. Those of us who stand less for party than for human interests acknowledge with gratitude his great services to the cause of Anglo-American arbitration. The Labour party, in particular, have to thank him for his endeavour to convert the Coal Mines Regulation Bill into a charter of workmen's lives. Nor can we forget that in the conduct of the Eastern controversy no living Liberal statesman, save Mr. Gladstone, can boast an. experience which compares with that of Sir William Harcourt. He has known all the great European statesmen of his time. He can touch the strings as no one but Lord Salisbury can touch them. Next to Mr. Gladstone, he was in 1876 the most powerful and most persuasive advocate of the policy in regard to the Turkish Empire which has to-day become the basis of the national will. He is a good fighter; he is built on the lines from which statecraft is made. We cannot but rejoice in the prospect of strength and coherence which opens out to us for the first time since Mr. Gladstone's retirement. With Sir William Harcourt as Leader we unite popular opinion with the popular House, we join hands with the best traditions of the past, and we invite steady co-operation by "men of goodwill" for the problems which await us in the near and the distant future.

A NOTABLE CONVERT.

Of course it would be a mistake to take our impulsive and somewhat unbalanced contemporary as representing either the country or the party, or even the Radical rump; but undoubtedly the Daily Chronicle represents. Mr. Massingham, and if any one in 1894 had approached the editor of the Chronicle with a prediction that at the latter end of 1896 he would have chanted such an ecstatic anthem of praise to the honour and glory of Sir William Harcourt, that good man would have held up his hands with holy horror and exclaimed "Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?" He has done it all the same, dog or no dog, and although no. doubt he is now repenting in sackcloth and ashes over the wild exuberance of his latest outburst, it stands on record as an instance of the extent to which our Fuzzy Wuzzy has compelled the allegiance and conquered the enthusiasm of his most unsparing critics.

SIR WILLIAM'S NEW POSITION.

Certain it is that Sir William Harcourt occupies to-day a much more commanding position in the country than he has ever occupied at any period of his previous career. That, at least, will be admitted alike by friends and foes. As long as Lord Rosebery held the position of Leader of the Liberal Party, Sir William Harcourt was labouring under an eclipse. The two men did not pull together any better than Lord Salisbury did with

Mr. Disraeli when the Ministry of 1874 was formed, when the present Prime Minister is said to have declared to a friend concerning the then Prime Minister, that words could not express the loathing and detestation with which he regarded him. But Mr. Disraeli was tough, very tough, while Lord Rosebery to his many brilliant and commanding qualities failed to add that supreme necessity of a leader, the skin of a pachyderm. Hence Mr. Disraeli and Lord Salisbury managed to get along together without any open breach, and nothing that Lord Salisbury could have done in the way of temper would have led the inscrutable Hebrew to abandon his right to lead the party.

THE GIRAFFE AND THE RHINOCEROS.

Lord Rosebery, unfortunately, was made of more sensitive material, and an alliance between him and Sir William Harcourt might be compared to the yoking together of a rhinoceros and a giraffe. The grace, the beauty, the speed, the coroneted head, and the pathetic eye, all belong to the one; while the other has the weight that tells, and a hide tough enough to flatten a musketball. Such incongruous partners could hardly keep step for long, and when one trod on the foot of the other it was not the rhinoceros that felt it most. But as long as the giraffe remained in harness it was visible far and near, and to the multitude his humbler yokefellow passed unnoticed. But now that the giraffe has snapped the traces and is careering round with all the savage freedom of the desert, the rhinoceros holds the field. It is only in human nature to try to make the best of things, and accordingly we are all endeavouring to the utmost of our several abilities to make the best of our rhinoceros. The first thing that every one says, and says with reason, is that Mr. Harcourt is Fuzzy Wuzzy; that is to say, the first-class fighting man whom the party needs. The Liberals being in a very small minority, stand more in need than ever of having a leader who will not turn his back to the foe, and who does not hesitate to head a forlorn hope.

A GOOD PARTISAN CHIEF.

Lord Randolph Churchill led a party of four with intrepidity and success. Sir William Harcourt has not quite so small a following as Lord Randolph possessed at the beginning of his career; but he will not be disheartened on account of the fewness of his following. The fewer men there are behind him, the more he must spread himself; the weaker the chorus of approval, the more vigorously must he beat the drum; and no one can deny that for such partisan purposes Sir William Harcourt is almost ideally fitted. When a warrior rises in the fray to lead his followers to combat, it is not always an advantage that he should be scrupulously accurate in his statement of the chances of victory. I do not mean to say by this that a man should tell a good big thumping lie in order to inspirit his soldiers; but if it were necessary to do so, Sir William Harcourt is the man to do it. Of course a "lie" is a horrid word which ought never to be used in political discussion. Perhaps it would be more parliamentary to say that when it is necessary to invigorate your party by inciting them to volunteer on a forlorn hope to attack an impregnable position, Sir William Harcourt, better than any other man, can adjust the language of his declarations to the standard of his wishes with less regard to the theory of probabilities or the stern logic of facts.

THE ART OF MAKING BELIEVE.

No one excels him in clapping a telescope to his blind eye when he does not wish to see things. His greatest

IN 1880.

his Budget. Considering that the late Liberal Administration was of all administrations known in recent history the most distracted by internal dissension, and that it was haunted all its days by the development of the fissiparous tendency which ultimately proved fatal, what can we think of the moralor immoral, if you likedefiance of obvious facts that is to be found in the following passage, taken from his speech of August 1st, 1894:-

When we came into power two years ago our opponents confidently predicted that we should not last three months, and yet we are still alive, and we have wrought no small part of our task. Such a result has filled our opponents with equal astonishment, horror, and dismay. How has it been done? It has been done because you have stuck to the colours and stood by the guns. By courage, by perseverance, by steadfastness, by patient determination, by united action we have fought our way and we have had our way. Each section of the party has been not unwilling to co-operate for the common end, and to sacrifice something to the general cause. Gentlemen, this is the secret of success; that is the path of victory. Our foes counted on our disunion. They tell us every day we quarrel among ourselves. Well, happily we are not acquainted with that disturbance. They have been disappointedbitterly disappointed, because they have found that the Liberal Party has stood shoulder to shoulder, and the country has stood by the Liberal Party.

A NOT OVER-SCRUPULOUS BOTTLE-HOLDER.

Considering that within twelve months of this speech the country had an opportunity of showing how it stood by the Liberal Party, with the result that a smaller number of Liberals were returned to the House of Commons than at any previous election since the Reform Act, this passage may be regarded as extremely characteristic of the intrepidity with which Sir William Harcourt inspirits by supplying them, in the unfortunate absence of facts, with the most appetising substitutes. But the Liberal Party at the present moment wants to be clapped on the back and assured that it never was in better form in its life, and all that it needs is to go in and conquer. Such assurances Sir William can pour out without stint. It must be admitted that in the history of the Education Bill of last Session Sir William Harcourt found much to justify his robust disregard of facts and figures. As he told his constituents last month when all others were cowed by the imposing majority of 167 registered for the Education Bill, he almost alone had kept up his heart. "Do not quail," he said, "before this imposing majority. I know these majorities; they are like the weather we have had to-day -they rattle and they pelt, but they blow over."

A SPECIMEN OF THE HARCOURTIAN STYLE.

As the result of that policy of not quailing Sir William could point to a brilliant and smashing victory, so he is certain to keep on that tack. As a specimen of the

vigorous manner in which he cheers up his followers and gives them confidence that they are going to win, take the following sample from a speech which he addressed to a Liberal meeting in London on July 9th, 1890. It may be put on record as a very fair sample of the Harcourtian humour and Harcourtian invective:

I can address you, I think-I will not say as the heirs presumptive, but as the heirs apparent of Parliamentary power. But in the capacity of heirs apparent I may give you the melancholy yet comfortable assurance that the present possessor of the estate is in articulo mortis I have the misfortune to be an old practitioner, and I know the symptoms. I have made a diagnosis of the patient; I have examined his tongue. Well, it is not clean. I have felt his pulse; it is weak and fluttering. I have tried his temperature; it is decidedly high, and on the whole I fear that his condition is critical; and the bulletin I have to issue is that the patient is sinking fast. No doubt this unfortunate patient, as often happens, has accelerated his fate by his own follies. The malady, gentlemen, in my opinion, is of long standingthe patient has been suffering from an incurable disease. His lungs are not oxygenated by the air of public opinion, and that always leads to a rapid and fatal decay. Therefore, we cannot be surprised to see this patientthis party-gasping for life, as we may Sometimes have seen an unfortunate animal in an exhausted receiver. We have seen this party for some time in a bad way, and they have been going from bad to worse, somewhat more rapidly, indeed, than even I expected. Though I never had a very high opinion of their sagacity, I think their follies have exceeded even my imagination.

THE ROLLICKING SWASHBUCKLER.

a

lack in numbers, and who can be depended upon in any emergency to put the worst that can be said against the Government as effectively and with as much downthump positiveness as if he were ten times the Pope of Rome. Whether it be invective or prophecy, or sarcasm, or raillery, Sir William Harcourt is always up to time. The cock-sureness and dogmatic tone with which he speaks often gets him into tight places, and sometimes makes him ridiculous. Take, for instance, the famous declaration which he made immediately after the General Election of 1885: that the one thing which the election had proved beyond all doubt, was that "the country would never again, under any circumstances, return a Tory majority." It is a pity that when Sir William Harcourt is in these bouncing moods and dealing so freely with his "nevers," that he has no friend by his side, who, like a character in a well-known comic opera, only needs to ask, "What, never?" in order to tone down the absolute positive to the milder, "Well, hardly ever."

That is Harcourt all over, the rollicking swashbuckler who plays about him with his quarter-staff and goes into the fray with a good jolly laugh. What he said about his optimism is no doubt true, and it is one of the best of his many good qualities. When other people are looking glum he is veritable Brother Cheeryble. When alarmists and panic-mongers are going about crying and shivering at the phantoms of their own imagination, he struts gaily into the arena crying out, "Who's afraid?" This temperament of his leads him to have little mercy upon the whole race of croakers; and as for those quacks, currency and fiscal, who build up their little schemes upon the assumption that we are all going to the dogs, his method of handling them recalls the familiar name of a well known poison which is guaranteed to be "Rough on rats"! Sir William Harcourt is very rough on rats. To see him pounding away at the bimetallists or the Fair Traders is as good as an assault-at-arms. You see the scorn and contempt of the man boiling out at every pore. To him the bimetallist is on a par with the lunatic who would propose to make cowries and brass farthings legal tender; while as for Fair Traders or Protectionists, however disguised, he never seems so much in his element as when he has knocked them down and is dancing on their prostrate forms.

PROFESSOR DOWN-THUMP.

All this, of course, is first-rate from the party point of view. The Liberals want some one who will speak with the enemy in the gate, who will make up in bluff what they

-AND HIS METHODIST TWIN.

But in this respect Sir William Harcourt is very much like the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes. They are both men who are thoroughly impressed with the importance of printing in capital letters and producing their effects in what may be called the magic-lantern style of magnification. With Sir William Harcourt all causes and parties are like the little girl in the nursery rhyme, who "When she was nice, was very very nice, and when she was not, she was horrid." He is an artist in glaring contrasts. When he whitewashes he lays on his brush with as much goodwill as if he were painting an archangel; and when he is assailing an opponent, the pigment which he uses is as black as tar, but fortunately not so sticky.

All these, however, are the defects of his qualities and the drawbacks of his virtues. He is a man who never turns his back on a foe, and who never betrays his friends. It may be true that some of his political allies, if not lis friends, have said many cruel things concerning the discomfort they experienced when occupying the same political bed with him; but although he may be a very uncomfortable bedfellow, he has never so far been known to kick any one out of bed.

III.-G. O. M. SECUNDUS.

Another point about Sir William Harcourt which must be noticed, and which accounts for a good deal of what may be regarded as the new and altogether unexpected popularity that he has achieved of late years, is the fact that he has succeeded, quite unexpectedly, to some measure of the political prestige of Mr. Gladstone.

THE OLD PARLIAMENTARY HAND.

It is rather startling to those who can remember well the first appearance of Sir William Harcourt in the political arena, to be told that he is now one of the oldest Parliamentary hands in the House. He is almost the only man on the Front Opposition Bench who has been in Parliament for a quarter of a century. He is, of course, a mere chicken compared with Mr. Gladstone; but Mr. Gladstone is not there, and Sir William Harcourt

is.

It

Since Mr. Gladstone's departure, Sir William Harcourt has more and more assumed the airs and played the part of the G. O. M. in the House of Commons. And he has done so with no little success. This, indeed, is one of the things which I lay as salve to my conscience when it makes me uneasy for dwelling so much upon the good side of Sir William Harcourt. would seem as if, to some small extent, he was really regenerate. What could be further, for instance, from the William Vernon Harcourt who first left the impression of his personality on the House, and the grave, dignified and portly old gentleman who will be seventy next year, who now plays the part of heavy father in the House of Commons?

MR. GLADSTONE'S PROPHECY.

It is curious to note that Mr. Gladstone himself, in a sarcastic moment, when chaffing the Luther of the new Reformation for his dogmatic bumptiousness in his advocacy of the Bill for putting down ritualism, predicted, in a vein of irony somewhat unusual to him, the present evolution of the Old Parliamentary Hand No. 2 who occupies the seat which Mr. Gladstone held so long on the Liberal Front Bench. Mr. Gladstone said in 1874 that when Sir William Harcourt should have sown his Parliamentary wild oats, his great powers "will be found to be combined with a degree of temper, a degree of wisdom, a degree of consideration for the feelings of others, a degree of strictness and vigour in stating and re-stating the arguments of his opponents, and in fact with a consummate attainment of every political virtue that will make my honourable and learned friend outshine and eclipse all former notabilities of Parliament,"

SIR WILLIAM'S "GREAT EXAMPLE."

This, of course, might still be said to be ironical, but there seems to be little doubt that Sir William Harcourt has honestly endeavoured to walk in the footsteps of Mr. Gladstone. On the memorable occasion of Mr. Gladstone's departure from the arena in which he had so long figured as Master of Debate, Sir William Harcourt thus referred to his departing chief :

If I may borrow a phrase of his own, we are "painfully conscious of the fate which awaits those who with unequal hands attempt to guide the chariot of the sun." We cannot furnish his inexhaustible knowledge, that mature experience, those unfailing resources, that splendid eloquence, the fire which kindled passion and which roused enthusiasm, and which prevailed as much by sympathy as by reason. In these, I think, I may be permitted to say we may take him as our great example. The right hon. gentleman opposite, in his generous and touching recognition of this great man, has properly dealt with one of the greatest features of that great character. I think of that dignified demeanour towards his opponents, of that stately and old-world courtesy, diversified at times by that pleasant humour which we so well remember, and which, in the midst of all the struggles of party, raised the tone and maintained the reputation of the House of Commons.

Sir William Harcourt is indeed far from having attained the dignity and courtesy of his great example, but he is improving, and last Session it was noted by friends and

foes alike that the unaccustomed role of the Master of Assemblies which he assumed more in Opposition than when he was Leader of the House, tended to soften some of the harder and more disagreeable qualities of the Liberal leader.

THE REAL LEADER OF THE HOUSE.

Of course he had great chances last Session, when, for some reason or other, Mr. Balfour muffed what chances

he had-and they were not many-over the Education Bill, and so exposed himself and his party with strange heedlessness to the vigorous attack of the Opposition Chief. Still, however it may be explained, the fact remains that on our side of the House we have no man who knows the House of Commons so well, no man who is as quick and ready in debate, and no man who can look back upon so long and variel a Parliamentary career. He, more than any other man, is the custodian and depository of the great Gladstonian tradition. Mr. Morley and Mr. Asquith, his only possible rivals, are but men

IV. SAUL WHO WAS CALLED PAUL. There is an excellent story told of an undergraduate being asked by the examiner, "Who was the first king of whose knowledge of Scripture was somewhat hazy. On indecision, "Saul." Seeing by the face of the examiner Israel?" he answered at a venture, in an agony of that he had, much to his own surprise, hit the mark, he could not resist the temptation of following up his success by volunteering the additional information: "Saul, who was afterwards called Paul." Sir William Harcourt resembles the genuine Saul who was afterwards called Paul, but not the first King of Israel, although he resembles the son of Kish in towering head and shoulders over most of his colleagues.

HIS RECORD AS SAUL OF TARSUS.

Paul as Saul held the garments of those who had stripped to the buff the better to hurl stones at the unfortunate proto-martyr of the Christian Church; and Sir William Harcourt can look back upon many an occasion on which he has held the garments of those who have stoned the righteous Stephen. it was finely said by a good Roman Catholic lady, who was asked by a malicious gossip about the antecedents of a certain fair convert who had recently been admitted, "I do not remember anything that occurred before her baptism." We cannot adopt this pleasant rule in relation to our political Paul. On the contrary, he must share the fate of his great forerunner, the apostle, whose missionary exploits are for ever inextricably bound up with the unfortunate incident of Stephen's martyrdom.

THE "PARNELLITE JUICE" SPEECH.

To do Sir William justice it must be admitted that he shows no disposition to deny that in the olden days, and in the days that are not so very far gone, he dwelt among the heathen and that his face was not turned towards Zion. There is the famous passage, for instance, in which he repudiated with scorn the idea of being a Home Ruler or governing Ireland according to Irish ideas. The classic instance in which Sir William played the part of Saul of Tarsus with a vengeance was the oft-quoted passage from the speech he delivered at Lowestoft, December 14th, 1885, within a few months of his accepting office under Mr. Gladstone in order to govern the country by an intimate alliance with the Parnellites :-

-

The Tories proposed to govern the country by an intimate alliance with men who openly avowed their object was the dismemberment of Ireland from England. Was it possible the country was going to tolerate such a transaction? Liberals must not be in a hurry to turn the Tories out. He would let them for a few months stew in their own Parnellite juice, and when they stank in the nostrils of the country, as they would stink, then the country would fling them, discredited and disgraced, to the constituencies, and the nation would pronounce its final judgment upon them. They would hear no more of Tory reaction for many generations.

HIS PUBLIC RECANTATION.

Just as Paul the apostle was never ashamed to tell the story of his conversion and to speak of his strange experience on his road to Damascus, so Sir William Harcourt is not less ready to confess how he found salvation. Speaking at the Derby Election in 1892, he sid:

Mr. Hextall says that I once held different views from those which I now profess. That is perfectly true. I never have concealed it from you or from any man. I have changed my views on the subject of the government of Ireland. The ground of my change of view was my experience -it is quite true-of surrounding circumstances. I saw by experience that coercion had failed. I saw that Ireland, when for the first time she had a free suffrage, by 85 per cent. of the members she returned had declared in favour of domestic self-rule in Ireland. These were circumstances which I thought were weighty circumstances, and I was prepared to follow the great leader of the Liberal party in the new and Liberal policy which he had proclaimed.

Since that time there have been many rumours as to his inclination to backslide, but so far as outward form goes, Sir William Harcourt has been as true to Home Rule since he became Paul as he was to coercion in the days when he was Saul.

DISESTABLISHMENT.

He used to be sadly unsound on the question of Disestablishment. As late as 1886 he proclaimed aloud in the House of Commons that the Church of England in Wales was so much an integral part of the Established Church of England that it was not merely difficult, but he would say impossible, to raise the question as a separate one. And on another occasion he declared that, "In my opinion he is a purblind politician who does not perceive that the residuary legatee of disestablishment will infallibly be the Church of Rome." That was in his green and salad days, when he had not yet emancipated himself from the influences that surrounded him in his boyhood. Now no one is a more enthusiastic supporter of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Welsh Church than he.

THE PIT FROM WHICH HE WAS DUG.

If special honour is paid to those who come out of much tribulation into the kingdom, so Sir William Harcourt deserves surely special recognition for theability with which he has triumphed over the clinging influences of heredity and environment. As an angry Churchman wrote some years ago:

Who is Sir William Harcourt, and from whom does he descend? There is no family in England in late years which has received more, if so much, Church money as his. His grandfather, as soon as his age allowed, was made Bishop of Carlisle and subsequently Archbishop of York-in all, fiftysix years Bishop. His patronage was liberally bestowed on his family; he gave his son, Sir William Harcourt's father, the best livings in the diocese, and the latter died Rector of Bolton Percy and Canon Residentiary of York Minster. Another son the Archbishop made Chancellor and VicarGeneral of the diocese; another Registrar. Other members of his family also enjoyed good preferments, "endowments" of the Church, and yet this is the man of all others who denounces the Establishment and the endowments of the Church of England given to it by its members. If his opinion be as expressed in his speech, is it not incumbent on him to practise what he preaches and make restitution of some of the many thousands which his family has received from the Church, and of which he has had a share?

HIS DEFENCE OF LANDLORD'S "RENT." Another subject on which he has found salvation to even an alarming extent had to do with the question of landlords. Of late years, notably of last Session, Sir William posed as the great opponent of measures intended to assist "Our Splendid Paupers." The Rating Bill of last year was strongly denounced by him because it was equivalent to a vote of two millions a year to the landlords, whose rents he suggested more than once were much too high. During the discussion on his great Budget he was merciless on "Our Splendid Paupers"; nor could he desist from the opportunity which his Bill gave him of ridiculing their professions of impecuniosity. Yet not so very long ago-ten years ago as a matter of fact he spoke of landlords and of rent almost as if he had been even such a man as the Duke of Devonshire. Writing to the Secretary of the Land Restoration League, he put the facts in favour of the landlords as tersely as they have ever been put by any one:

The fact that a very large portion of the rent paid by the occupier of the land simply represents the interest of the capital expended by the proprietor is often overlooked. When I put it at the figure of two-thirds of the rent I spoke roughly of course the proportion will vary largely according to the circumstances; but to give an example of what I intended, the following instance may be taken. Supposing a farm of 300 acres of mixed arable and grass yielding a rent of £300—£1 per acre-we must consider what would be the ordinary