The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-18 00:00:00

THE PURCHASE SYSTEM.

Mr. HA.YTER asked the Secretary of State for War
whether•his attention had been called to the Gazette of
the 11th instant, in which a captain of the _97th Regiment
stated to have retired from .the service by the sale ot his
commission, the said officer having actually died, aecor&
ing to the obituary in the Times newspaper on
the Ist of this .month; and should such notice have
escaped the attention of the Secretary at War, if ho would
take such steps to prevent in future an arrangement pre-
judicial to the interests, of non-purchasing officers, and
tending to destroy confidence in the medical certificates
required from officers upon their retirement from the ser-
vice by sale of their commissions.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said. the preparations for the sale
of this commission commenced on the 21th of April,
although the Gazette did not contain the announcement
until the 11th, the officer having died on the Ist of June.
For the future it would b 3 directed that a medical certifi-
cate should accompany the application to 6:11. (Hear,
hear.)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—THE
BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS.
In reply to Mr. PowaLL, •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
commissioners would be empowered to do every-
thing except one, and that was to diminish
the influence and ptoportions of those places they would
have to consider, because such a diminution would savour
of disfranchisement. Lord Eversley had accepted the post
of the head of the Boundary Commission, and would re-
present it in the other house. He thought it was expe-
dient that the commission should also be repre-
sented in that house, and therefore he had offered the
post to an hon. member opposite. He had hoped to have
been enabled to communicate the names of all
those who would compose the commission, but if the
motion of the hon. member for Wick was carried, it would
be =adored conclusive DA to the merits of tile soheme,

I and therefore further proceeding with it would be useless.
If the proposal of the hon. member for Wick, he
repeated, received the sanction of the house, we, continued
the right hon..gentleman,. should have to consider our po-
sition generally with respect to the bill altogether. (Hear,
hear, and cheers.)
The House then went into committee.on the bill.
On clause 10 being proposed,
Mr. LAING moved to insert after the word "the" the
following words—"cities and boroughs named in the third
schedule in the Act, viz., Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds,
Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield shall return three
members to Parliament instead of two, and each of the
boroughs named in tho fourth schedule, viz., Birkenhead,
Merthyr Tydvil, Salford, Swansea, shall return two
members to Parliatnent.instead of one." The honourable
gentleman then proceeded at Some length to urge the
adoption of his proposal, which he contended was bothing
but what wai urgently required in justice to the extensive
and imp ntant places ho had na;ned. fie was of ce?ittion that
the adoption of his proposal would strengthen, not destroy,
the bill, and that he hoped the house would nut be deterred
from assenting to his motion by the tremendous conse-
quences shadowed forth by the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. BAINES and Mr. IlittGur supported the proposal.
Mr. T. HUGHES moved an a ilitioa to Mr. Laing's
amendment to clause 10, viz., after "three members instead
of two," insert "and in each such city or borough,
each elector shall b 3 entitled to three several votA
and shall be at liberty either to give all his votes
to any one candidate, or to distribute them among, any
two or more candidates in such proportions as Ink may
think fit."

A sherp discussion ensued with respect to the
proposi-
tion of Mr. Hughes, the chairman of the committee stating
that the proposal of the hon. member for Lambeth was
not an amendment but an addition to the amendment,
and therefore it could not, with due respect for order, le
moved until the first amendment had been disposed of.
Mr. AYRTON suggested that as it is proposed that each
of the boroughs named should have three members instead
of two, the member for Lambeth might raise his question
by inserting a description of the mode in which the three
members should be elected. If he moved his amendment
in that way, he would get rid of the difficulty.
Mr. GLADSTONE—I understand that the hon. member
for Lambeth, in deference to the wishes of the committees
has withdrawn his amendment. (No, no, and hear, bear.)
1 have the authority of my hon. friend for saying that be
did hold that language. Then rose the hon. member for
Sheffield, stating that the rules are so clear and precise, of
course in his own mind, that there could be no doubt. He
then proceeded to support his view by putting in the
mouth of the member for Lambeth a statement which my
hon. friend did not-use, for nothing fell from my hon.
friend indicating that'lle would vote against the amend-
ment in case an addition should not be made. That sup-
position, therefore, is wholly inconsistent with the facts,
and the rule is so clear, imperative, and precise—(laughter)
—that I would submit that the case does not in the slightest
degree touch the point. The two propositions are totally
distinct, and I would very respectfully address one word
of suggestion to the member for Lambeth in the interest
of the discussion which he wishes to raise. We are all
anxious to have a full, clear, and impartial discussion, but
t
we cannot obtain the general judgment and arguments of
house if we mix up this special proposition of the
member for Lambeth with the general claim preferred by
the hon. member for Wick for additional representation.
The one question will rise in perfect order after the other
is disposed of. (Hear, hear.)
• Mr. BOUVERIE submitted that it did not now lie
with the member for Lambeth to withdraw his amend-
ment. He (Mr. Bouverie) considered him perfectly in
order. No one can affirm that his proposition is hot
relevant to the amendment before the committee, and if
he is to be precluded from moving an amendment, be-
cause discussion might be inconvenient, the right of mem-
bers would be entirely swept away. He thought the
member for Lambeth was bound to insist. (No, no, and
Hear, hear.)
Viscount CRANBORNE suggested that the present
discussion was ono without an issue. With great respect
he held the ruling not correct; but would submit that
the proper course was not to proceed by scolding the
chair.

Mr. B. OSBORNE said the committee were getting into
a tremendous mess, which would be increased if the
amendment of the member for Lambeth were moved now.
He would not now speak of his right. The common sense
is to decide the one thing before the house, and then the
other will come on.
Mr. HUGHES said after what had fallen he bad no
difficulty as to the proper course to pursue. It was his in-
tention to support the member for Wick; but, in defe-
rence to the wishes of the committee, ho would ask leave
to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE, amidst general calls of
"Divide," expresso' his satisfaction that the Government
had given a direct negative to the amendment.
Ur. E. JAMES, as a representative of Manchester, had
received no intimation of any local wish fo: additional
representation. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
It may seem odd to say so; and when we find small towns
so anxious to have a share in representation, one would
expect that if Manchester and such places were anxious
for an additional member they would press on their mem-
bers the importance of such increase. No such intima-
tion had been given to him, and he therefore was free to
follow his own Wirt, and vote against the amendment of
the member for Wick.
Mr. BAZ LEY said his hon. colleague had placed him
in a very painful position. (Laughter.) It is quite tree
that no petitions on the subject had coma from Man-
chester; but he had received remonstrances for not
having proposed ssx additional members for Manchester.
(Great laughter.) He hoped that an additional member
would be given to that important city. (Divide.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
member for Wick has asked this question, " Why do you
give additional members to large counties and not to the
large towns ? " and he scorned to think that it was an in-
quiry it was impossible to reply. to. If he reflects o n the
circumstances I think the reply is not difficult. Without
building the whole system on one of population, popula-
tion must be considered as one of the impel tent elements
entering into the case ; wo must also look to the amount
of property, and we_ know very well that the population
of counties greatly exceeds that of boroughs, and that they
are represented by only one half the number of members.
(Cheers.) There is a general opinion, I may take it, pre-
val.nt on both sides of the House, that this balance
should be redressed. We have a-proposal that would en-
franchise a considerable number of new boroughs, but
even if you deduct the population which they amount to
froze the county population, still the county population
will exceed by about one million the whole of the borough
population, and I accept it as the general opinion of the
House that that balance should be redressed, especially
as the county population, suprior in point of numbers
to the boroughs, is about to be increased on a principle of
a very popular character. How can we proceed in at-
tempting to redress the inequality of representation ex-
cept in the way proposed in the schedules laid on the
table ? It would have been quite., consistent to have in-
creased the representation of the. counties without in a
considerable degree increasing that of largo towns ; but
we must take a general view of the question. We can-
not discuss it on an individual comparison of ono or two
great towns, such as Leeds or Birmingham, with some
small borough. We might as well compare the popula-
tion of some largo county with a borough. South Lanca-
shire, for example, is to be divided under the new sys-
tem, and probably one of the divisions would have
400,000 of population. Now, it would be a flagrant ano-
maly that a county. possessing 400,000 people should have
only two members, while some small town with 30,000 or
40,000 should have an equal number. It is quite clear
that in dealing with an ancient system of representation

ke ours we cannot produce anything like perfect sym-
metry. We must proceed with prudence, and it is only
periodically and by degrees that we can complete the re-
presentation. Take this question of the county represen-
tation which has beea brought into discussion to-night,
and see if we are introducing anything monstrous in at-
tempting to.give something like an adequate representa-
tion to eleven millions of the population. The House
well knows the relative proportion between county and
borough population. From the elaborate analysis given
of 334 boroughs 84 seats may be fairly considered as
interests , and I
indi-
rectly representing the various county
in
would be that
mentioned last year that the consequences
you would bare 250 borough a
be an arrangement by
The moral I drew was that it wouldttion
if you took 84 seats from 334 unnad2e6ldceoduntthyeminetnio
members.
would bo attained,
eantsddt from
said, represented county
34 are in the 81 which, as .
.4. f
ywohuicihietvhee cmoknetennatinwaeynt4osf tsle7t7flproul boroughs. Of these,
334, there remain 28 •
4ill, howwgevers,
boroughs, and that will make 308. You must deduct
See how that
ywootriksw.
from • that ulationss.o seats
,which are remaining from the 81
which are supposed indirectly to reprient county popula-
tion. If to the 162 county members you add 23 new
ones, you make 187, awl if you add 50 borough member;,,
which will still indirectly represent county population
you will hays 238 borough members aid 237 county
members or members representing county iuterest.s—
upon the whole a fair adjustment, though not so
much in favour of the county population numerically
as in the system we proposed. But although the
numbers are small, that may be compensated for by the
advantage of direct representation. If the House is
sincere—and I cannot doubt the sincerity of the Housa
it will see, after what has taken place, that in the redistri-
bution of seats there should b 3 a bona fade attempt to put
counties in a more satisfactory position with regard to re-
presentation than has hitherto prevailed. I cannot dcubt
that the committee will think the arrangement we have
brought forward is a just, fair, and proper arrengement.
(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) The hen.
member for Wick himself' has shown there is good reason
why we should increase the representation of great coun-
ties, and not of small towns ; because there is no other
mode by which we can give representation to thou great
interests which have hitherto been so imperfectly and
rudely represented in this house than by an increase in