§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to recent Returns giving the rateable values of the newly-proposed boroughs, in some cases equal only to £3 per head of the population, showing that the population as a whole is liable neither to House Duty nor Income Tax; whether he would consider if the difficulty of providing four Members for the City of London, assessed at £38,000,000 to the Income Tax and having a rateable value of £4,000,000, might not be overcome by taking the second Member from boroughs to which two have been assigned, whose population is not one-half of the waking working population of the City, and whose rateable value is from £300,000 to £360,000; and, whether he will also consider if the consideration shown to the Universities, in deviation from a strict night population basis, might not be extended to the City of London, concentrating the important interests of Manufactures, Commerce, Colonies, Shipping, and Finance?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the purport of the Question of his right hon. Friend would seem to be an investigation as to the state of his mind and the extent of his information; but this 19th century was the century of examinations. He did not intend to enter upon the merits of the case as to the Redistribution of Seats Bill. He understood the Question of his right hon. Friend as one which invited discussion upon a matter which had been decided by the House.
§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that the information to which the Question referred was only issued on Saturday last, and subsequent to the discussion on the subject, and therefore could not have been in the mind of the House when it came to its decision.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the case cited was an extreme one, and could not possibly be made the basis of any general conclusion with regard to the structure of the measure of redistribution. And, further, even if it were the fact that in any particular borough the 56 rateable value did not amount to £3 per head of the population, it would not at all follow that there were not a great many persons in that population who were liable to House Duty and Income Tax. In fact, the answer to this Question would lead him simply into a renewal of discussion upon a multitude of points which had been already discussed; and he hoped his right hon. Friend would accept the assurance that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to re-open the question with respect to the representation of the City of London. His right hon. Friend, however, might re-open it, and then it would be the duty of the Government to answer him. As to the injustice of the night Census of which his right hon. Friend complained, he had only to point out that the Government had not taken that as the basis, but that they had given the City double the representation to which it was entitled on that ground.
§ MR. J. G. HUBBARDgave Notice that he should raise the question again when the Fourth Schedule of the Seats Bill should be under discussion.