had kept that amount untouched for a year, was to be rewarded with the vote. If he had given a ten-pound note to his daughter to buy her wedding clothes; or had laid out five pounds in the burial of a poor and aged parent; or lent a sovereign to a friend in distress, he would of course be disfranchised by his improvidence. If he paid twenty shillings in direct taxes during the year he was to have a vote. If he bore the degree of a university, or was a minister of religion, a lawyer, a doctor, or a certified schoolmaster, he was to have the franchise; a whimsical sort of educational franchise which would have refused a vote to Mr. Bright, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Mill, or to Mr. Disraeli himself. There seemed something unintelligible, or at least mysterious, about the manner in which this bill was introduced. It was, to all appearance, not based upon the resolutions; certainly it made no reference to some of the more important of their provisions. We need not go into the plan of redistribution which was tacked to the bill; for the bill itself never had any substantial existence. The House of Commons received with contemptuous indifference Mr. Disraeli's explanation of its contents, and the very next day Mr. Disraeli announced that the government had determined to withdraw it, to give up at the same time the whole plan of proceeding by resolution, and to introduce a real and sub. stantial Reform Bill in a few days.

Parliament and the public were amazed at these sudden changes. The whole thing seemed turning into burlesque. The session had seen only a few days, and here already was a third variation in the shape of the government's reform project. To increase the confusion and scandal it was announced, three or four days after, that three leading members of the Cabinet-General Peel, Lord Carnarvon, and Lord Cranbourne-had resigned. The whole story at last came out. The revelation was due to the "magnificent indiscretion" of Sir. John Pakington, whose lucky incapacity

to keep a secret has curiously enriched one chapter of the political history of his time. In consequence of the necessary reconstruction of the Cabinet, Sir John Pakington was transferred from the Admiralty to the War Office, and had to go down to his constituents of Droitwich for re-election. In the fulness of his heart he told a story which set all England laughing. The government, it would appear, started with two distinct Reform Bills, one more comprehensive and liberal, as they considered, than the other. The latter was kept ready only as a last resource, in case the first should meet with a chilling reception from the Conservatism of the House of Commons. In that emergency they proposed to be ready to produce their less comprehensive scheme. shopman sometimes offers a customer some article which he assures him is the only thing of the kind fit to have; but if the customer resolutely declares that its price is more than he will pay, the shopman sudden. ly remembers that he has something of the same sort on hand which, although cheaper, will, he has no doubt, be found to serve the purpose quite as well. So the chiefs of the Conservative Cabinet had their two Reform Bills in stock. If the House should accept the extensive measure, well and good; but in the event of their drawing back from it, there was the other article ready to hand, cheaper, to be sure, and not quite so fine to look at, but a very excellent thing in itself, and warranted to serve every purpose. The more liberal measure was to have been strictly based on the resolutions. The Cabinet met on Saturday, February 23d, and then, as Sir John Pakington said, he and others were under the impression that they had come to a perfect understanding; that they were unanimous; and that the comprehensive measure was to be introduced on Monday, the 25th. On that Monday, however, the Cabinet were hastily summoned together. Sir John rushed to the spot, and a piece of alarming news awaited him. Some leading members of

the Cabinet had refused point blank to have anything to d with the comprehensive bill. Here was a coil! It was two o'clock. Lord Derby had to address a meeting of the Conservative party at half-past two. Mr. Disraeli had to introduce the bill, some bill, in the House of Commons at halfpast four. Something must be done. Some bill must be introduced. All eyes, we may suppose, glanced at the clock. Sir John Pakington averred that there were only ten minutes left for decision. It is plain that no man, whatever his gift of statesmanship or skill of penmanship, can draw up a complete Reform Bill in ten minutes. Now came into full light the wisdom and providence of those who had hit upon the plan of keeping a second-class bill, if we may use such an expression, ready for emergencies. Out came the secondclass bill, and it was promptly resolved that Mr. Disraeli should go down to the House of Commons and gravely introduce that, as if it were the measure which the government had all along had it in their minds to bring forward. Sir. John defended that resolution with simple and practical earnestness. It was not a wise resolve, he admitted; but who can be certain of acting wisely with only ten minutes for deliberation? If they had had even an hour to think the matter over, he had no doubt, he said, that they would not have made any mistake. But what skills talking? they had not an hour, and there was an end of the matter. They had to do something; and so Mr. Disraeli brought in his second-class measure; the measure which Sir John Pakington's piquant explanation sent down into political history with the name of " the Ten Minutes' Bill.”

The trouble arose, it seems, in this way; General Peel at first felt some scruples about the original measure, the comprehensive bill. Lord Cranbourne pressed him to give the measure further consideration, and General Peel consented. So the Cabinet broke up on the evening of Saturday, Febru. ary 23d, in seeming harmony. Next day, however, being

Sunday Lord Cranbourne, having probably nothing else to do, bethought him that it would be well to look a little into the details of the bill. He worked out the figures, as he afterward explained, and he found that according to his calculation they would almost amount to household suffrage in some of the boroughs. That would never do, he thought; and so he tendered his resignation. This would almost, as a matter of course, involve other resignations too. Therefore these came the hasty meeting of the Cabinet on Monday, the 25th, which Sir. John Pakington described with such unconscious humor. Lord Cranbourne, and those who thought with him, were induced to remain, on condition that the comprehensive bill should be quietly put aside, and the Ten Minutes' Bill as quietly substituted. Unfortunately, the reception given to the Ten Minutes' Bill was, as we have told already, uterly discouraging. It was clear to Mr. Disraeli's experienced eye that it had not a chance from either side of the House. Mr Disraeli made up his mind, and Lord Derby assented. There was nothing to be done. but to fall back on the comprehensive measure. Unwilling colleagues must only act upon their convictions and go. It would be idle to secure their co-operation by persevering further with a bill that no one would have. Therefore it was that on February 26th Mr. Disraeli withdrew his bill of the day before, the Ten Minutes' Bill, and announced that the government would go to work in good earnest, and bring in a real bill on March 18th. This proved to be the bill based on the resolutions; the comprehensive bill, which had been suddenly put out of sight at the hasty meeting of the Cabinet on Monday, February 25th, as described in the artless and unforgotton eloquence of Sir John Pakington's Droitwich speech. Then General Peel, Lord Carnarvon and Lord Cranbourne resigned their offices. Lord Carnar. von explained that he did not object to have the franchise lowered, but he obiected to a measure which seemed to him

to leave all the political power divided between the rich an、 the poor, reducing to powerlessness the influence of all the intervening classes. The objection of Lord Cranbourne has already been explained. General Peel, a man of straightforward, honorable character, and good abilities, was opposed to what he regarded as the distinctly democratic character of the bill. For the second time within ten years a Conservative Cabinet had been split up on a question of reform and the borough franchise.

It must be owned that it required some courage and nerve on Mr. Disraeli's part to face the House of Commons with another scheme and a newly-constructed Cabinet, after all these surprises. The first thing to do was to reorganize the Cabinet by getting a new War Secretary. Colonial Secretary, and Secretary for India. Before March 8th this was accomplished. The men who had resigned carried with them into their retirement the respect of all their political opponents. During his short administration of India, Lord Cranbourne had shown not merely capacity, for that every one knew he possessed, but a gravity, self-restraint, and sense of responsibility, for which even his friends had not previously given him credit. Sir John Pakington, as we have arleady mentioned, became War Minister, Mr. Corry succeeding him as First Lord of the Admiralty. The Duke of Buckingham-the Lord Chandos whose maiden speech, in the great debate of Thursday, June 25th, 1846 which closed the Peel administration, Mr. Disraeli has described in his "Lord George Bentinck"-became Colonial Secretary. The administration of the India Department was transferred to Sir Stafford Northcote, whose place at the head of the Board of Trade thus vacated was taken by the Duke of Richmond.

Then, having thrown their mutineers overboard, the gov ernment went to work again at their Reform scheme. On March 18th Mr. Disraeli introduced the bill. As regarded