The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-17 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, OCT. 17, 1867.

A banquet has taken place at Leeds to celebrate
the passing of Lord DERBY'S Reform Bill, which
seems to have gone off in a better style and spirit
than there was reason to hope. Mr. BAINES, whose
occupation is gone, spoke fairly enough on the
whole, and declared that when they called for re-
form they never meant revolution. They honoured
both Houses of Parliament, and even the aris-
tocracy, as institutions. It is really a relief,
after the half-praise and implied censure of
some Reformers of different schools, to meet with
such outspoken language as that of Mr. BAINES.
He said that " what made them now rejoice
was not a selfish object attained, but an object
wide as the nation itself, and which they shared and
enjoyed with all their fellow-citizens." Everyone
can sympathise with one who, like the hon. mem-
ber for Leeds, has long been striving for a particu-
lar object, and at last finds it accomplished, and
something even beyond his expectations accom-
plished also ; but what is provoking is to
find people persisting in their animadver-
sions when they ought, in common consistency,
to be silent, if not glad. During several
years Mr. BAINES has directed his attention to
the consideration of the franchise, and has over and
over again told the men of Leeds that they were
not fully or fitly represented. The manner in
which the House of Commons has dealt with the
question of Reform has been on the principle
which the French poet suggested in his art of ver-
sification, Vingt fois sur le metier remettez l'ouvrage,
and at any rate it has not used despatch nor decided
summarily. During nine sessions, Mr. BAINES
informed his hearers, he had supported six Reform
Bills.

It was not to be expected that a speech of this
kind should not contain a small amount of party
spirit, and accordingly we find Mr. BAINES citing
some cases in which the Tory party had shown
their unwillingness to expedite Reform ; and he
attempted to prove that it was inconsistent then to
carry household suffrage. Concerning Mr. GLAD-
STONE he thought that his speeches had done more
than anything else to bring about the accomplish-
ment of Reform, and gave some interesting accounts
of his attempts to make Mr. GLADSTONE agree to the
six-pound franchise instead of the seven. The right
hon. gentleman was willing enough for himself to
agree, but he was afraid of the consequences. With
others we think that any impartial person would
say that this statement of the hon. member's went
far to account for the anomaly, as he considers it,
of a Tory Administration carrying a Reform Bill.
Perplexed and bewildered with the claims of the
misrepresented on one side, and the unwillingness
of lukewarm friends and divided supporters on the
other, Mr. GLADSTONE brought in an imperfect
measure, and had to resign office in consequence of
the struggle that took place in trying to pass it.
" How times have changed since," exclaims Mr.
BRINES, and yet goes on to declare that the "
Rus-
SELL and GLADSTONE Ministry sacrifficed office in
order to carry a Reform Bill, and that the
Administration of Lord DERBY and Mr.
DISREALI carried a Reform Bill only be-
cause they would not sacrifice office." There
is nothing in which politicians of the Liberal
school more completely defeat their own objects,
and militate against the interests of their party,
than by looking at things in such a prejudicial
manner as this. To follow out his own illustration,
what does Mr. BAINES mean by saying that the
Liberal Ministry went out of office to further the
cause of Reform, unless it was that Mr. GLAD-
STONE had the discernment to see that the Con-
servatives were more united than his own party,
and, therefore, virtually stronger, though
numerically inferior. We cannot say that the
course pursued by the right hon. gentleman during
this session looked very patriotic and self-sacrificing,
but such is the only interpretation to be put upon
the parallel drawn between the two Administrations.
At any rate, no one can find fault with this
speech for want of candour, and Mr. BAINES de-
clared that ho would not himself have gone so far
as household suffrage; but having frankly said this,
he admitted that "he was not afraid of the suffrage
being entrusted to the householders of England on
one condition, namely, that they could get the