The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-20 00:00:00

BOROUGH FRANCHISE.

Mr. BAINES, in rising to move for leave to bring in a
bill to extend the Parliamentary franchise in the boroughs
of England and Wales, said that the object of the bill was
single and simple—viz., to extend the franchise which was
fixed by the Reform Act of 1832 at £lO to £6, according
to the bill proposed by the Government last year. His
belief was that such a measure might be discussed, by this
house with greater advantage than in the form of those
great and comprehensive measures hitherto introduced. He
had not intended saying anything on the merits of his bill,
for he had reason to hope its introduction would not be re-
sisted. But, after the observations of the noble lord at the
head of the Government at an early period of the evening,
the tendency of which was to discredit and impede motions
such as the present, and after the observations of the right
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), the house would,
he trusted, in fairness allow him to offer a few observations
on the remarks of those distinguished persons. He must
express his great regret at the tone which the noble lord
(Palmerston) had adopted on the question of reform, upon
which the noble lord had come into office.

Mr. HARDY rose to order. He wished to know whether
the hon. gentleman was in order in referring to a speech
made in a debate on another subject.
The SPEAKER—The hon. member will bear in mind
that the noble lord in his speech referred to two measures,
only one of which was then before the house. (Cheers.)
Mr. BAINES said he was replying to observations made
by the noble lord, in anticipation of his motion. He re •
peated that he regretted the tone of the noble lord. One
might have supposed that a Minister sincerely attached to
that cause on which his Government was based, if he had
not thought it wise or expedient to bring forward a measure
himself, would still think it his duty to the principles
he espoused not to throw obstructions in the way of pri-
vate members. (Cheers.) The noble lord's first objection
was that these measures would interfere with the other
business of Parliament. He stood in the midst of mem-
bers who had had more experience than himself, but he
challenged the' noble lord, whose experience extended
over half a century, to adduce a single session in which
a measure like the present could be more conveniently
introduced. What great and absorbing question of public
interest was about to demand their attention ? There was
a Bankruptcy Bill before the house, 50 clauses of which
were agreed to in a single night, and which was likely to
pass before Easter. What other measure was before Par-
liament ? What question involving foreign danger or do-
mestic crisis existed that need prevent the discussion of his
bill ? The noble lord made another objection. He said it
was not expedient for private members to introduce ques-
tions of reform. But he would ask the noble lord to look
around him on the Treasury bench and see whether almost
every man there had not first introduced as a private mem-
ber those reforms which he afterwards as a Minister car-
ried to a successful issue. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
the member for the city of London in 1819, eleven years
before he took office, asked for leave to bring in a bill on
the subject of Parliamentary Reform, having reference
to the borough of Leeds. Did not that noble lord also
move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Test and
Corporation Acts when he was out of office ? The
same might be said of most of the great questions of
late years. He knew that these measures had been intro-
duced by men of distinction and talent, while himself and
his hon. friend (Mr. L. King) were very humble in position.
Still that did not affect the principle. Did not Lord Grey
introduce a measure of reform 40 years before he carried rt
out as a Minister? Did not Mr. Wilberforce for 20
years
urge as api ivate member the abolition of the slave tradeyrs ?
r . Pitt,
very question
e sRt
oi Richmond,
ofm opnadr,i
its
nde
no
it
ahreyr
Reform eminent
w rah
eenn
supportedl‘l
out of office. Mr. Plunkett brought in a bill for Catholic
Emancipation when he, too, was out of office. Did not the
hon. members for Rochdale and Birmingham contend in
that house for the abolition of the corn
aws years before
any official members took up the question ? (Hear, hear.)
The greatest measures had been, in fact, introduced by
those who were not in office, and forced up on those who
were in office. But then it was said Parliamentary Reform
ought to be treated, as a great and comprehensive question.
tzattedit?
izZasit
After what they had seen,could it continue to be so
not because it had .been thus treated
failed—because it attacked xoPY Ult*-1