Immediately after the close of the session, the public were startled by the intelligence of ministerial changes of a sweeping and unusual character, amounting to an entire reconstruction of the cabinet. Disagreements between the ministers were rife when the House dissolved. Open differences of opinion existed between Mr. Lowe and Mr. Ayrton, and Mr. Baxter resigned the Secretaryship of the Treasury in consequence of difficulties with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These internal quarrels demanded readjustment, and the country, as evidenced by repeated Conservative victories at elections, also demanded either that or something else. The first step was to remove Mr. Lowe from the Treasury, and install him at the Home Office; and Mr. Gladstone attached the duties of the office to himself, and became Premier and Chancellor of the Exchequer in one. He had precedents for the course, but they are of ancient date. Sir Robert Walpole, Lord North, Mr. Pitt, and (for a few months) Mr. Canning and Sir Robert Peel, all had experience of the double duty. Urgent private affairs induced Lord Ripon and Mr. Childers to follow Mr. Baxter into retirement, Mr. Childers leaving a vacant place for Mr. Bright, who re-entered the Cabinet, and took the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Bruce received a peerage-and became Lord Ripon's successor as President of the Council. To lighten the Premier's new duties, Mr. Dodson took the post of Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Arthur Peel the Parliamentary Secretaryship; and Lord F. Cavendish joined the Board to aid Mr. Dodson, with precedence over the junior Lords. In addition to these changes it was subsequently decided that Mr. Ayrton should quit the office of First Commissioner of Works, in which capacity, rightly or wrongly, he had played so large a part in attaching to the Government its present unpopularity, and take up the Judge-Advocate-Generalship; and at the same time Mr. Monsell withdrew from the office of Postmaster-General, filled some months later by Dr. Lyon Playfair, a prominent independent among the Liberal members, and on more than one occasion an unsparing and dangerous critic of the Government policy. The same was true in an even greater degree of Mr. Vernon Harcourt, who before the close of the year became Solicitor-General, while the higher office of Attorney-General fell to another and very distinguished and able independent, Mr. Henry James. These last promotions were in consequence of the acceptance of the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas by Sir John Coleridge, and of the Mastership of the Rolls by Sir George Jessel, who had been Attorney and Solicitor-General respectively. The premature and unexpected death of Sir William Bovill, whose appointment dated from the short Conservative reign, opened the way to Sir John Coleridge's appointment.

The most popular, as the most important, of these changes was undoubtedly the return to office of Mr. John Bright, whose long illness had caused general sympathy, and who was now regarded with eyes and feelings curiously different from those with which but

a short time before he had been looked upon, when he was treated as a dangerous agitator and demagogue. In office he had shown. himself singularly moderate, and on more than one occasion lately he had markedly separated himself from the more advanced votaries of the movement. None the less he was still a very popular man in the country, and likely to prove a tower of strength for the Government. At Birmingham 17,000 people assembled to congratulate and to hear him; and in a speech of upwards of an hour he first reviewed the measures passed by the present Government, the Irish Church Bill, the Irish Land Bill, the abolition of purchase in the army-in connexion with which he expressed a hope that the "corruption market" in the Established Church, namely, the sale of livings, might soon be abolished-the Ballot, and the Education Act.

On this latter subject the right hon. gentleman spoke at some length. He reminded his hearers that he took no part in the preparation of that Act, and knew nothing of what was going on in the political world during the discussions on the Bill in Parliament, being then too ill to read the debates or even to have them read to him. Then remarking that he was speaking, not as a member of the Cabinet, but as one of the members for Birmingham, Mr. Bright condemned the Education Act, on the grounds that it extended and confirmed the system which it ought to have superseded. It really encouraged denominational education, and it established Boards only where that system did not exist, whereas it should have attempted to establish Boards everywhere, and to bring the denominational schools under their control. The denominational system, Mr. Bright said, in consequence of the parochial organization of the Church, must be said to be a Church system; hence the Nonconformists were aggrieved, and justly aggrieved. With respect to the 25th clause, the right hon. gentleman said, "I do not think the clause was supposed capable of exciting the disapprobation which has arisen on account of it. For myself, I have not publicly, in any public meeting, discussed the subject since it has come before the nation; but I will say what I think with regard to the question of education through the sects. I believe that it is not possible ever to make it truly national or truly good. The fact is and I think we all feel it that the public do not take great interest in denominational schools. The Church cares nothing for Dissent, and with regard to this question, Dissent cares just as little for the Church. The people regard these schools as church schools and chapel schools. They do not regard them as public and national schools, and as supporting a great system in which the whole people unite for a great and national object. Then, again, with regard to the School Boards, I do not know that the Government of that day were responsible for the mode of electing School Boards. It was not certainly in the original memorandum of the Bill which I was permitted to see; but the mode of electing appears to me about the worst for purposes of general and national education that could possibly have been designed. When a contest comes for a School

Board, the real question of education seems hardly ever thought of. It is a squabble between church and chapel and secularist, and I do not know how many else. When the School Board meets, there are the priest, the parson, and the minister, and their partisans; but there is no free breeze of public opinion passing through them. It is rather an unwholesome atmosphere of what I would call sectarian exclusiveness, and sometimes of bigotry, in which nothing can thrive. Now with regard to one or two points which have been much discussed, particularly that point of the 25th clause. Whatever is said about it in the country, I believe that there are many worthy and honourable men of the opposite side of the House to that on which I sit who would be very glad to have some arrangement come to with regard to that clause, because, so long as this remains a matter of dispute, it is obvious that whatever good can be got out of what I call an insufficient measure, and therefore one not calculated to yield much good, it is desirable for every party that something more like harmony should be introduced into the public action in the great education question; and therefore, expressing only my own opinion, I say that I believe there is a mode and a simple and a just mode-by which everything may be done (and, if done, doing harm to nobody) that is now proposed to be done under the 25th clause-and it is the repeal of the clause. But, with regard to the great question which lies behind it, of whether we are on the right track of good sound education for our children under the denominational system or not, that must be left to further proof, for I admit that multitudes differ with me and with you; but I cannot but believe that further experience and something like failure will before long force upon Parliament and the country a general reconsideration of the question."

After a defence of the Government in reference to the Ashantee War and the Alabama matter, Mr. Bright continued: "Looking at the past, whom should you trust? I am not about to compare rival Ministers. I shall not certainly compare the First Minister, the leader of the present administration, with the writer of the Bath letter (Mr. Disraeli). I would rather compare parties than rival ministries. Suppose now next year, when we have a general election, that the result throughout the United Kingdom should be to continue a large majority of the Liberal party, what will be the result?-should be? Why, during the currency of the coming Parliament another chapter of great and noble measures will be added to the Parliamentary history of the time. Our policy is known. Not every particular measure, not every particular clause, but I mean that the policy of the Liberal party is known, it is before the public, it is not concealed, it is no mystery. But what is the policy of the Opposition? Why, we were told the other day that the leader of the Opposition was in a state of strict seclusion?' And but for that strange and unfortunate epistolary outburst we should have had no idea of the desperate state of mind in which he has been. But still, if we ask for the policy of the Opposition, all

is dark, dark, impenetrably dark, and all that we know is that nothing can be known. I beg pardon, though, I am wrong in that. We know that according to the Opposition all the work of the past five years, and if you like, of the past forty years, is evil; but as to the future, you will see it when it comes. Now, let me tell you this, that that great statesmanship which consists in silence and secrecy is not original, it is a mere copy of thirty or forty years ago. I recollect the time very well; there was a great fever and mania of speculation, and everybody went into everything. They generally came out with nothing. I recollect quite well the advertisement of a great Sunflower Company; and if anybody had proposed so unsubstantial a speculation as the equinoctial line, people would have taken shares in that. Now, at that time there was a very ingenious fellow; if I could remember his name I would immortalize him. He was a very ingenious fellow, and he put out a prospectus. He was what they call a promoter of a great company, which was to have great capital, and a great number of shares, and great profits. All this was to work a great invention-everything was great about it but what it was was a great secret; indeed, it was so profound a secret that until all the money was paid in nobody was to know what it was. Now, that is the Conservative policy at this moment. They have a policy which they offer for the coming elections, but it is a profound secret. When you have all given your votes and returned a Conservative majority, perhaps they will tell you what it is."

After referring to a remark made by the Emperor Napoleon to Mr. Cobden, that "in England you make reforms, in France we make revolutions," Mr. Bright concluded as follows:-" I believe that there is not a thoughtful statesman in any civilized country in the world who would not join with the Emperor in expressing his admiration of the manner in which the people of this country for the last forty years have worked out such substantial reforms in our legislation; and our own experience brings us to the same conclusion. Those men are in error who tell you nothing has been done. Those men are not less in error who say that what has been done is evil, and that it is evil to do any more. What you should do is to act upon the principles and the rules of past years, steadily advancing in favour of questions which the public has thoroughly discussed, which it thoroughly comprehends, and which Parliament can honestly and conscientiously put into law. For my share, looking back for these forty years, I feel some sense of content; but it does not in the least degree lessen, it rather adds to and strengthens, my hope for the future. The history of the last forty years of this country-judge it fairly-speak of its legislation, which is mainly a history of the conquests of freedom. It will be a grand volume that tells the story; and your name and mine, if I mistake not, will be found on some of its pages. For me the final chapter is now writing. It may be already written. But for you, this great constituency, there is a perpetual youth and a perpetual

future. I pray Heaven that in the years to come, and when my voice is hushed, you may be granted strength, and moderation, and wisdom to influence the councils of your country by righteous means to none other than to noble and to righteous ends."

No changes, however, are apparently able to turn the popular tide in favour of the Government, who, during the whole of the year, as in those that preceded it, suffered repeated defeats at the poll.

The following list shows the number of seats held by members of the administration which the Government has lost since the general election.

November, 1869.-Glasgow University.-Mr. Gordon (Conservative) returned, vice Lord Advocate Moncrieff, appointed Lord Justice Clerk.

February, 1870.-Southwark.-Colonel Beresford (Conservative) returned, vice Right Hon. H. A. Layard, First Commissioner of Works, appointed Ambassador to Madrid.

April, 1871.-Durham City.-Mr. Wharton (Conservative) returned, vice Right Hon. J. R. Davidson, Judge Advocate, deceased. September, 1871.-Truro.-Colonel Hogg (Conservative) returned, vice Hon. J. C. Vivian, appointed Permanent instead of Political Under-Secretary for War.

November, 1871.—Plymouth.—Mr. Bates (Conservative) returned, vice Sir R. P. Collier, Attorney-General, appointed a Judge. November, 1872.-Londonderry.-Mr. C. E. Lewis (Conservative) returned, vice Mr. Dowse, Irish Solicitor-General, appointed an Irish Judge.

August, 1873.-Shaftesbury.-Mr. Fane Bennett (Conservative) returned, vice Hon. G. G. Glyn, Political Secretary of the Treasury, on becoming Lord Wolverton.

September, 1873.-Renfrewshire.-Colonel Campbell (Conservative) returned, vice Right Hon. H. A. Bruce, Home Secretary, created Lord Aberdare.

September, 1873.-Dover.-Mr. Barnett (Conservative) returned, vice Sir G. Jessel, Solicitor-General, appointed Master of the Rolls.

Besides their losses, Hull, Greenwich, Dundee, East Staffordshire, Exeter, and Huntingdon returned Conservatives in the course of the present year; the vacancies filled having in most instances been created by Liberal members. Against this current of failure the Liberals had only to set victories at Bath and Taunton; and in neither of these places could they count a seat gained. The return of Captain Hayter, at Bath, was partly due to an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Conservative chief, who alienated many, even of his cwn party, by addressing, in the heat of the election, the following extraordinary letter to Lord Grey de Wilton, who had expressed to him his confidence in another Conservative success :—

"My dear Grey,-I am much obliged to you for your Bath news. It is most interesting. It is rare a constituency has the opportunity