existence by not giving them fair time to find the money necessary to meet new requirements. It is equally certain, however, that he would wish to see voluntary schools in as good a condition as Board schools, and if the voluntary system in any part of the country broke down, he was prepared to see it superseded by the system of rating and of Board schools. Speaking so lately as 1891, Lord Derby said: 'I think we should be careful not unnecessarily to disturb the compromise come to in 1870. It has not satisfied 'either side. No compromise that is even approximately 'fair ever does so, but it has worked fairly well during twenty years.' It was Lord Derby's individual opinion that in time school boards would altogether supersede voluntary schools, and he did not fear the result. Speaking at Liverpool in 1880, he said:

'The working of the educational scheme here leads me to one remark which I wish to make. It is no use denying the fact that a good deal of jealousy prevails, in some parts of the country, against the extension of School Boards. Every now and then you see in print a piteous appeal to the public in general to help some little parish school of which you never heard before, and to save it, not from being swept away altogether-that would be, apparently, a minor evil-but from being taken over by a School Board. Well, that is only nature. Power is power, even on a small scale; and when two or three men, with some cost and trouble, have set up a school, which they can manage in their own way, naturally they don't like handing over the control of it to a committee, of which, though they may be leading members, they are only members like others. But, in this country, we soon learn to reconcile ourselves to the inevitable. . . . It was, and is, quite right to hurry nobody, but to give people time to get used to a new notion; but that they must before long become universal is, I think, as certain as most things that are not matters of actual calculation. But what I would respectfully urge on our educational friends in the smaller towns, and in the country, is to look at what is being done in the great cities, and to satisfy themselves that cheap, good, and moral teaching can be given at least as effectually under a School Board as without one, while the burden falls much more fairly.' (P. 236.)

But, though he might notice this tendency of the time and, as was his wont, openly express his view, it is equally obvious that he was altogether opposed to arbitrary attempts to put an end to the voluntary system, or to such as would upset the compromise of 1870. As long as voluntary schools could do their work well on existing terms, he was too sagacious to wish to exterminate them; but he was too sincere a well-wisher to education, too strong a believer in efficiency, to desire for a moment to sacrifice education for the sake of a system.

The largeness of Lord Derby's views of education is well exemplified by three speeches which are contained in this volume on the education of the blind, on scientific education, and on art schools and artistic education. The first is full of sound practical advice, the second deals with the educational and commercial sides of a scientific training, and the third with two sides of art education, the industrial or 'commercial, and that which relates to art as part of human 'culture.' This is not the only speech in this volume on the latter part of this subject, which will be something of a surprise to those who have not followed the large range of Lord Derby's mind. He was looked upon by many of his contemporaries as too matter of fact to be able to take an interest in art. But these speeches on art show that Lord Derby looked at it not only from what may be termed the practical point of view, in reference to its effect upon the commercial productions of this country, as from being a Lancashire man he was certain to do, but that he valued it for its own sake. This feature crops up continually in this volume; thus in a speech delivered at Oldham in 1881 he addressed himself to the subject at some length :--

'As to the other branch-that which relates to art--I shall speak briefly, and with the caution every man ought to observe when he feels himself out of his depth. If I knew absolutely nothing about such matters, I might, perhaps, address you as many speakers have addressed many audiences, with all the intrepidity of ignorance; but I do know just enough to be aware that I should be to you an incompetent teacher and an incompetent teacher is worse than none. There are two sides of the question of art as we look at it here-the industrial or commercial, and that which relates to art as a part of human culture. Of the industrial branch of the question, it is enough to say that English products go to every part of the world, that they compete with similar products from many other countries; that successful competition in all articles of common use depends, in some degree at least, on ornamentation, and that defective as popular taste may be, yet when a good and a bad design are put side by side, the great majority of civilised mankind have sufficient use of their eyes to detect the difference. A trained eye and a cultivated taste are, therefore of no small value, even from the purely utilitarian point of view as bearing on the extension of our trade. But that is not the first or only consideration to which we have to look. We cannot, I think, lay down with precision the relation which exists between the artistic culture of a country and its general civilisation. That the one is an exact measure of the other is a doctrine which, as it seems to me, history does not bear out. There are qualities which seem to have no relation to art, which yet are important factors in national greatness. I dare not contend that an inartistic people is an uncivilised people. The

history of Rome in old days, the history of England up to a recent date, would hardly agree with that theory. But I do affirm that a people in whom no high or great development of art is possible fails to realise a part of its destiny-fails to do for itself and the world what it might. And what is true of the nation is also true of the individuals. I do not argue that without the love or knowledge of art even a high degree of mental or moral culture is impossible. Able men-men of keen intellect, men of honest and patriotic purpose, fulfilling their duties blamelessly-have lived, and do live, contentedly in a world which has nothing to please the eye or to excite the artistic taste. All one can say of such persons is that their developement in one respect is incomplete; that they miss one of the purest and most lasting of human enjoyments, and that their loss is not the less because they themselves are not conscious of it. We do not believe in making everybody an artist, or even an amateur, but we do believe in raising the general level of culture in that respect; and no man whose eyes are open can doubt the direction in which we are moving. I do not suppose that in any developement of human effort, with the single exception of mechanical science, England has made more marked advance within the last half-century than in the cultivation of art in its various forms.' (P. 256.)

And Lord Derby ends a speech worthy of careful perusal from beginning to end thus:

'For myself, I hold that it is just in districts like these where unhappily, though it may be unavoidably, Nature has lost her charms, and where crowded populations gather around centres of business that have in them not much that is beautiful and pleasant,-I say it is here, more than elsewhere, that industry should most strenuously exert itself to repair the mischief that industry has produced-that if we cannot take our people to brighter and pleasanter regions, we should at least give them the chance of seeing something that is not sordid and squalid-and that if dulness of climate and monotony of employment create in some minds a taste for low and mean gratifications, we should counterwork these temptations by introducing such elements of a higher civilisation as can flourish under gloomy skies, and as will refine and soften-I do not say rough, but careless and undeveloped natures.' (P. 259.)

These are necessarily merely fragments of a speech, but they sufficiently show not only the sobriety and the propriety of his judgement on a subject outside the matters which were daily pressed on the attention of a man who was so much concerned in the most important events of the time, but also they throw light on his character and reveal richer depths which perhaps were one cause of his carelessness of personal success in the political conflicts of the time. There are, however, two other speeches in this volume, delivered at quite different times and on quite

opposite subjects, which have nevertheless much affinity, which still further help us to understand Lord Derby's character, and are masterly pieces of work in themselves. The one was a speech delivered at Liverpool College, in 1873, on the conduct of life; the other was delivered eighteen years afterwards on the unveiling of Mr. Bright's statue, and was an admirable eulogium on that statesman. Lord Derby was by no means in agreement with many of Mr. Bright's political opinions, but there was no man who had taken a part in public affairs to whom he could point as giving in many ways a better example of a well-conducted life:

There are many who may not hold that the political results of John Bright's action are or will be unmixed good, but who can separate character from opinion, and respect, where they find it, sincerity and simplicity of purpose and a disinterested desire for the public weal. To these qualities, even in the heat of party disputes, few, if any, persons have doubted John Bright's claim, and it is mainly, I think, on that ground that he who never hesitated to speak his mind, who did not always pick his words, and cared little about giving offence, has left behind so little painful recollection of past quarrels. For if he spoke often in anger, it was anger inspired by public considerations, not by private resentment or interested motives; passion was in his words, but not malice or malevolence. He denounced, but he did not sneer. He gave hard blows, but he was prepared to take them in return.' (P. 503.)

We doubt if it would be possible to find a more accurate or sympathetic summary of Mr. Bright's character than this particular speech, and it shows not only a high power of personal analysis, but an equal capacity-which is quite as rare-for a just expression of the results of this review. In days when the world is swamped with dull and commonplace biographies, it is refreshing to peruse a lifelike sketch. We have space but for two extracts: the first is in regard to Mr. Bright's position as a Parliamentary orator:

'I don't think that men in future times will look back to the speeches of Bright, as we do those of Burke, for wide and thoughtful generalisations which retain their value when the subjects which call them forth are dead and buried, nor for finished models of rhetorical skill such as those of Canning, nor yet for epigrams and turns of phrase such as Lord Beaconsfield was accustomed to throw off, though I don't say that any of these distinctive marks are absolutely wanting. But the oratory of Bright was what parliamentary and popular oratory should be, and what that of Burke emphatically was not, directed to the object of the moment; practical, simple, meant to convince rather than dazzle or amuse; the speech of a man who had action in view, not the literary exercise of a rhetorician.' (P. 504.)

Here again, as so often occurs in these addresses, we have a gleam of light on the character of Lord Derby himself; his own speeches were meant to convince rather than to dazzle,' and though he did not possess the fine powers of expression which illuminate the speeches of Mr. Bright, he was always so clear that he was apt to be considered commonplace.

The second extract defines Mr. Bright's characteristics as a popular leader :

'I have not much to add, but there is one remark which the subject imperatively calls for. Bright in his earlier life was constantly and till the end often described as a demagogue. Well, if you take the word in its literal sense as meaning a leader of the people, he was one; but no politician has ever lived who was less ready to humble himself before the people, to flatter prejudices which he did not share, or to conceal opinions which might make him unpopular. We know the kind of popular champion who takes up a cause as soon as it seems likely to pay, who heads a crowd with immense determination so long as it cheers and follows him, but who hangs back the moment the cheers become faint and few. We have plenty of that sort, perhaps we could do with fewer; but not once only, but again and again, Bright showed himself willing to oppose the popular opinion of the day when he believed it to be wrong. You remember his attitude in the Crimean War, his sacrifice of office (though that cost him little) at the time of the Egyptian expedition, and his honourable refusal to join any movements, however popular, which did not commend themselves to his judgement. The question is not whether in any particular instance he was intellectually right, but that he was always ready to sacrifice to his convictions, not merely popularity, but that public confidence which all political men value, and which necessarily implies a general sympathy with the ideas of the day. Posterity judges by results. We are too near to the time of John Bright to be fair judges of his statesmanship; but some things we may say of him without hesitation or doubt-that for a quarter of a century he powerfully influenced the decisions of Parliament; that he was no cosmopolitan revolutionist, but a sincere lover of his country; that he was by the common judgement of mankind a consummate orator; and that to that praise, not slight in itself, he added the higher glory of being a thoroughly honest man.' (P. 507.)

Though the speech on the conduct of life was delivered twenty years ago, reference to it comes most fitly at the end of this article, because in many ways it is a description of the life of Lord Derby himself. For example, the following passage very accurately reflected his own view of his own successes. After congratulating the winners of the prizes, Lord Derby said:

They will not often again enjoy a success, unless their lives are